A "Vote of No Confidence"?

[Phaedo]

TEXT OF S.CON.RES.2,
Concurrent Resolution Expressing the Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq
Sponsor: Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Co-Sponsors: Senators Carl Levin , Chuck Hagel, Olymia Snowe

"Whereas the United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq an only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;

Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;

Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;

Whereas more than 137,000 United States military personnel are bravely and honorably serving in Iraq and deserve the support of all Americans;

Whereas more than 2,000 United States military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;

Whereas on January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush announced his plan to deepen the United States military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional United States combat forces to Iraq;

Whereas Iraq is witnessing widening sectarian and intra-sectarian violence;

Whereas Iraqis must reach a political settlement if there is going to be a reconciliation in Iraq, and the failure of the Iraqis to achieve such a settlement has led to the increase in violence in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on November 27, 2006, that 'the crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are politicians';

Whereas an open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and providing the personnel and resources that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;

Whereas the responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;

Whereas there have been repeated promises by the Government of Iraq to assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband militias, consider amendments to the Iraq constitution, enact laws to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people, but those promises have not been kept;

Whereas a successful strategy in Iraq is dependent upon the Iraqi leaders fulfilling their promises; Whereas the commander of the United States Central Command, General John Abizaid, testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, that 'it's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future';

Whereas the Iraq Study Group suggested a comprehensive strategy to 'enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly' based on 'New and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region';

Whereas the United States Army and Marine Corps, including their Reserves and the Army National Guard, their personnel, and their families, are under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas the majority of non-deployed Army and Marine Corps units are no longer combat ready due to a lack of equipment and insufficient time to train; and whereas the United States strategy in Iraq must not compromise the ability of the United States to address other vital national security priorities, in particular global terror networks, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional stability in the Middle East, the nuclear program of Iran, the nuclear weapons of North Korea, and stability and security in Afghanistan.

RESOLUTION

Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that -

(1) It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq;

(2) The primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;

(3) Greater concerted regional and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation;

(4) Main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;

(5) The United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;

(6) The United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.

This is the text of the resolution being discussed in the United States Senate, concerning the deployment of approximately 21,000 new troops to posts in Iraq. This relatively toothless directive, if passed, will advise (not enjoin) the President of the United States to halt his deployment of the forces in question indefinitely. Despite the fact that the bill has received nearly unanimous support from Democratic senators, and a healthy amount of backing from their Republican counterparts, the Presidential Administration has demonstrated its willingness to disregard even the most heavily supported resolution.

"It won't stop us. We are moving forward.” – Vice President Richard Cheney, Jan. 25, 2007

Even without arguing the implicit disregard toward constitutionally protected privileges of the legislature embodied in this statement, the fact remains that there is no true guarantee that the strategy proposed by the President and his aides will work.

Whether you believe their statements or not is a matter of personal opinion.

However, the fact remains that the current strategy promoted by the President is merely an escalation of the same failed strategy pursued throughout the prior years of the conflict. Moreover, coupled with the recent deployment of a carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, the action could be taken as preparation for offensive action against the Islamic Republic of Iran – a nation that, although moving slowly toward reconciliation with the West, is still wary of what trigger-happy politicians can accomplish destroying.

Beyond protecting the lives of 21,000 American servicemen, compliance with the Senate resolution (if passed) would serve as a tacit message to the Iranian and Iraqi governments alike: If peace in the region is truly desired, then the respective governments will have to take their share of the responsibility for peace.

Iran can no longer count on the support of its people in their anti-American policy. The rumbles of discontent are audible even to the West; the necessary steps toward reconciliation are being made. However, unless the U.S. also shows its commitment to international peace in the region by scaling down its preparations for war, diplomacy will accomplish nothing.

Iraq’s government also has a share of responsibility to assume: no longer can they be allowed to utilize the indefinite withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as a reason to procrastinate in putting down the sectarian militias. Nouri al-Maliki must be forced to find a solution to the demobilization of these forces by either political means, or the force of arms – Iraqi arms.

But unless the United States also bears its load, then nothing can be done to stabilize the region. Without American participation in open, mutual diplomacy with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the situation will only escalate; and the cost of such escalation would be devastating to both nations. And in Iraq, without American pressure to rely more fully upon the Iraqi forces of the legitimate government, no progress will be made in defusing the brewing civil war. Let Iraq’s politicians find a solution to the ethnic violence by negotiation with the dissenting parties, with America acting only as a neutral arbiter.

After all, what freedom is there for the Iraqi people if they are only given the option to choose America’s way?

[Trey]

I disagree with Iraq, but I distrust most things Biden does. He is a prick.