Feingold/Rice exchange during SFRC hearing yesterday
Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 07:12 AM
Below is a transcript of the exchange between Senator Russ Feingold and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which was forwarded to me via e-mail by Sen. Feingold's Deputy Press Secretary:
Welcome, Secretary Rice. We always appreciate your presence
here. And I will join the chorus and say we really do hope it will be
The title of this hearing is "Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy." And
that strikes me as a good start because we need to make sure that our
Iraq policy is advancing our foreign policy and national security
goals, not obstructing them as it seems to me to be the case
The administration continues to speak about staying the course in
Iraq with the apparent end goal being elimination of the current
insurgency and establishment of a peaceful democratic state. And,
obviously, that is a laudable ambition but it is not and it can not be
the basis for our foreign policy or national security strategy.
I feel that our current, largely single-minded and somewhat self-
defeating focus in Iraq is causing us to overlook what should be our
most fundamental goal. And that fundamental goal is combating the
global terrorist networks that continue to threaten the United States.
It's time to think about whether our military presence in Iraq is
consistent with that goal. Increasing numbers of military experts are
coming to the view that it is not, as is the American public.
It's becoming increasingly clear that we have actually created a
breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and that the indefinite presence
of tens of thousands of U.S. troops is often actually fueling, fueling
not dampening the insurgency.
Now, obviously, that is not the fault of the brave men and women
in uniform who are serving our country. It's the fault of the people
who sent them to Iraq without a clear idea of what their mission was
and how long it would take.
I give credit to the courageous senator from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich, for reading that letter from that family member.
Madam Secretary, we owe our service members some clarity in
leadership. And we owe this country some serious thinking about how
we can get our Iraq policy on track, on track so that it helps rather
than hinders us in the broader fight against terrorism.
And in that regard, Madam Secretary, I want to return to this
subject that Senator Biden and Senator Kerry were talking about which
has to do with whether to withdraw the troops, should we start
withdrawing the troops?
I want to hone it more to the issue of whether it would be a good
idea to have a public flexible timetable that we would suggest to
finish the mission, achieve our goals and bring the troops home.
Notice I said a flexible timetable not a drop-dead date, not a
deadline, not cut and run.
So that's what my questions are about. And it's interesting that
Senator Kerry quoted a very Republican, former Wisconsin congressman
who was defense secretary under Richard Nixon, Melvin Laird.
Let me quote something else from that same article that Senator
Kerry mentioned. Melvin Laird said, "We owe it to the rest of the
people back home to let them know that there is an exit strategy. And
more important, we owe it to the Iraqi people. Our presence is what
feeds the insurgency. And our gradual withdrawal would feed the
confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the
I'd like your reaction to Melvin Laird's remarks.
RICE: Well, Senator, I simply don't agree that it is our
presence that is feeding the insurgency. I think that the insurgents
have a couple of aims. One is to -- for some of them, is to return to
a day when high-ranking Baathists were in power who repressed by force
Shia and Kurds, and, by the way, a fair number of Sunnis, too, who
were in political opposition.
That's one goal for some of them.
For others -- and that means, yes, the fact that we liberated
Iraq is an irritant, from their point of view because they have a
RICE: They would prefer the Iraq that we were dealing with under
For the Zarqawi element of this, however, I would return to what
Senator Voinovich said. These people were not just pacific people
somewhere sitting around and then we liberated Iraq and they decided
there was a jihad to fight. This jihad -- this violent extremist
ideology has been developing in the heart of the Middle East out of
the absence of freedom and the absence of hope for a very long time.
It reached its full bloom -- after several initial starts, it
reached its full bloom on September 11th when they flew those
airplanes into those buildings.
Now, we are fighting the global war on terrorism because, of
course, we are tracking down and fighting the Al Qaida network. And I
was just in Afghanistan, which used to be their home base, and is
FEINGOLD: Well, Madam Secretary, this doesn't track with my
My question was about the relationship between our presence in
Iraq, our military presence, and the insurgency.
And I want to tell you something, because this isn't just
armchair people here in the United States. I was in Iraq in February
and I asked our military commanders the nature of the insurgency.
At the time, they told me, as you were suggesting, a significant
or major role of foreign insurgents being the ones that were blowing
themselves up and that at that point those who conducted some of those
kinds of attacks were less likely to be Iraqis. This has changed.
Your own people have told us that this is now changed.
And what the point here is, is that the way we are doing this is
actually playing into the hands of the insurgents.
I asked one of the top commanders in Iraq, I said, What would
happen if we suggested to the world that there is a time frame during
which we will try to achieve this? His response to me, which of
course was off the record, was: Senator, nothing would take the wind
out of the sails of the insurgents more than providing a clear public
plan and time frame for a remaining U.S. mission.
So what I want to know is, not the general statements about how
we're fighting the war against terrorism, which of course we all agree
on: Why does the administration continue to refuse even a flexible
time table for how long U.S. troops are likely to be in Iraq?
RICE: Senator, we'd like our discussions of withdrawal and of
bringing down the numbers of forces to be results-based rather than
And I think that in terms of results, we know exactly what we
want to achieve. We want Iraqi security forces that can hold their
territory, where insurgents can't leave a city and then come back and
terrorize the population. That's one of the things that we need to
FEINGOLD: But let me suggest on that point, Madam Secretary,
with all respect, that I think one of the reasons you see that
happening is that it's very credible for insurgents, for terrorists
outside of Iraq, terrorists within Iraq, to convince people who are
desperate that we're there to stay.
You know, the president himself in one of his speeches said
recently he didn't support necessarily putting more troops into Iraq
for fear that people would think we were going to stay there forever.
Now, doesn't that same logic apply to the issue of a public time
I think the analysis actually is the reverse. The more you don't
suggest that the so-called American occupation is going to end, the
easier it is for them to recruit the insurgents.
RICE: Senator, we've been very clear that we want to -- that we
don't want to stay. That's a different matter than giving a time
table for when we think we will leave.
I have no doubt that as the Iraqi security forces get better, and
they are getting better and they are holding territory and they are
doing these things with minimal help, that we are going to be able to
bring down the levels of our forces. And I have no doubt that that's
going to happen in a reasonable time frame.
The problem is, Senator, that if you start making the issue when
you will leave rather than what you have achieved, then you focus the
insurgency and everybody else on when you will leave.
RICE: If you focus this on what you will achieve and recognize
that you want to do that within a reasonable time frame -- because we
don't want to stay, we've been very clear that we don't want to
FEINGOLD: But you see, Madam Secretary, that's what undercuts
our credibility. People naturally are a little bit suspicious of a
country that invades another country. That's a reasonable thing, to
be suspicious. We have good intentions.
But to the extent we don't suggest a vision, a scenario of when
we might achieve these goals and when we might leave, naturally people
become suspicious. They wonder if we're not there for some other
reason. And you've heard the reasons -- oil or domination of the
I believe that this logic that the administration has is the
actual opposite of what would be most likely to take the wind out of
the sails of the insurgents.
And I've got to tell you, Madam Secretary, you and the president
are in an ever narrowing group of people who believe that this logic
is correct. Experts around the world, military experts, people I talk
to in Iraq, experts here -- just about everyone agrees, including
Melvin Laird, that our approach without talking about a public time
table is feeding the insurgency.
RICE: I understand your view of this, Senator.
In talking with the Iraqi government, which after all has
probably most at stake here, the issue for them has been to have a
joint committee that looks at conditions based down withdrawal.
FEINGOLD: Then why did President Talabani suggest that there is
a scenario of when we can bring the troops back?
RICE: Well, I think...
FEINGOLD: He specifically talked about a time frame.
RICE: Well, I think that the Iraqi government, the ministry of
defense, the prime minister and others are engaged in a process that
allows us to know when we have achieved what we need to achieve.
You do not want American forces to leave and then find out that
Iraqi forces are incapable of holding their own territory. That's a
mistake we have made in the past.
FEINGOLD: Well, Mr. Chairman, the American people are for a
vision of when we can finish this, the Iraqi people are for it, the
Iraqi leaders are, our generals in Iraq, when they're allowed to talk
about this, are. There are very few left who believe that we should
have a secret strategy that does not indicate when we can finish this.
But I do thank you, Madam Secretary.
RICE: Thank you, Senator.
May I just say I don't think we have a secret strategy, Senator;
what we have is a strategy that will be based on results. That's the
LUGAR: Thank you very much, Senator Feingold
Feingold has it right, and the administration just keeps up with its talking points. The Bush administration keeps underestimating the intelligence of the American public. The public may be apathetic, but they're not stupid. And day by day, they're beginning to catch on.
I hope Sen. Feingold continues to argue this point with the Bush administration, and I hope other Democrats in the House and Senate can develop a strong spine like that of Sen. Feingold's.