(Warwick, R.I.) Congressman Jim Langevin (D-RI) this evening offered the following remarks during the debate on H.Con.Res. 63 - Resolution of Disapproval of Iraq Policy:

Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in appreciation of our troops’ exceptional service and sacrifice and to voice my opposition to President Bush’s plan to send more forces into what amounts to a civil war. 

As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and a new Member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize that our next steps in Iraq present one of the greatest security decisions our nation has faced in decades.  The Iraq Study Group called the situation “grave and deteriorating” and said it requires a new approach.  I agree.  We can all conclude that an unstable Iraq torn by sectarian conflict would lead to continued violence and civilian casualties, provide combat training opportunities to those who would do us harm, and pose increased challenges to the region.  Yet I disagree with President Bush’s misguided belief that sending more Americans into combat will solve the problem.  Our military has served valiantly for nearly four years, particularly in some very challenging and non-traditional missions – in some cases, for which they were never trained.  However, we have done all that we can do militarily to help the Iraqi people, and their problems no longer require a U.S. military solution.  The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed in that framework.  Sending more troops would simply be a continuation of the same failed strategy.

In October 2002, I expressed my concerns that President Bush’s approach to Iraq “could have dangerous ramifications [in] the region and America’s own efforts in the war on terrorism.”  For those reasons and many others, I voted against authorizing the use of force against Iraq – a war that was mismanaged by civilian leadership from the start.  To address our troops’ lack of protective gear and up-armored Humvees, I supported legislation to provide additional funding for proper equipment, as well as other efforts to ensure our forces would be safe and effective.  Now, however, we can best support our troops by changing our mission in Iraq and adopting a new strategy that reflects the realities on the ground.  The Iraqis must now take the lead in providing for their own security, and we must reduce our presence to let them do so.

The President has claimed that by adding 21,500 additional combat troops, we can foster greater stability in Iraq – an argument that ignores some basic truths.  Not only have past surges of U.S. forces not proven effective in reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis, but the addition of more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment and turn popular opinion even more against us and our efforts.  We have no proof that another surge would lead to a different outcome than in the past, but we do know that it would have negative consequences. 

Perhaps of greatest concern is the impact of a surge on our military readiness.   The President’s estimate of 21,500 more combat troops does not count the additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops that would be needed – spreading our military dangerously thin.  We have asked much of our forces – including repeated deployments – and a surge will only exacerbate that problem.  Operations in Iraq have also taken their toll on our equipment.  According to the Government Accountability Office, 40 percent of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ equipment is now located in the Central Command theater of operations.  Our National Guard and Reserve units are underequipped to deal with emergencies, and we have depleted our prepositioned stocks, which we need to respond quickly to other contingencies.  In testimony before the Armed Services Committee in January, General Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that an increase of forces in Iraq would increase our strategic risk and possibly lead to a slower and less effective response to another potential threat. 

Sending more troops to Iraq is a dangerous gamble with our national security, and we need a new approach.  A number of experts, including the Iraq Study Group, have made important recommendations, and they must not be ignored.  It is clear that the President’s plan for escalation would harm our national security and ignores the will of the American people.  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can promote a new strategy for Iraq that will bring our troops home.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. 

-30-