“A majority of the American people, an increasing number of elected officials, and according to a recent article in the “New Yorker,” more and more military and intelligence officials, believe that the President’s “stay the course” policy in Iraq isn’t working.

“In his speech tomorrow at the U.S. Naval Academy, the President has another opportunity to lay out a specific, coherent policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable, tied to clear benchmarks, for completing our military mission and withdrawing our troops. By doing so, the President can make sure that our Iraq policy helps, rather than hurts, our broader national security strategy for defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S.

“Our brave service members and their families deserve answers about how long they can expect to be in Iraq. The American people deserve a clear plan for concluding our military mission. And the Iraqi people need to know without any doubt that we do not intend to stay in that country indefinitely.

“The President should have proposed such a plan, and a timetable, months ago. Last week, I called on President Bush to lay out his plan for the American people in his State of the Union speech in January, if not before. His speech tomorrow is a good opportunity to put forward a plan that makes America stronger and protects our nation’s security.”

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the President’s Speech Today


November 30, 2005

“While today’s speech by the President was billed as yet another attempt to lay out a plan for finishing the military mission in Iraq, the only new thing the administration gave the American people was a glossy 35-page pamphlet filled with the same rhetoric we’ve all heard before. Today’s action by the White House isn’t a step forward, it’s a step back. In fact the booklet the administration released to accompany the President’s speech is described as a “…document [that] articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003…” That alone makes it clear that the President seems more dug in than ever to the same old “stay the course” way of thinking. This is not a strategy, and it certainly is not a plan to complete the military mission in Iraq.

The American people, an increasing number of elected officials, and more and more military and intelligence officials understand what the President doesn’t - that our seemingly indefinite presence in Iraq, and the lack of a plan to redeploy troops, feeds the insurgency and hurts our national security. We need leadership, and we need a policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable for completing our military mission there, so that we can focus on our national security priority – defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S. The President missed a vital opportunity today. Our brave service members, their families, the American people, and the Iraqi’s themselves deserve and demand more.”

Feingold voted against the Iraq resolution in October 2002. In June, he introduced a resolution that called on the President to provide a flexible, public timetable for our mission in Iraq – one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks. In August, Feingold put forward December 31, 2006 to help jumpstart the discussion of a target date to complete the military mission there.

Senator Feingold Urges President to Focus on the
Fight Against Global Terrorist Networks

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

In light of the recent debate over the direction of US policy in Iraq, and specifically comments made yesterday by the head of the Republican National Committee, I am writing to re-emphasize how important it is to our servicemen and women, and to the American public, that you lay out a coherent strategy for US military engagement in Iraq. I urge you to use your State of the Union Address, at the latest, to put forth such a plan. This strategy should contain a series of specific objectives and benchmarks that are tied to a public, flexible timetable for meeting those benchmarks, completing our military mission, and withdrawing our troops. Unfortunately, your “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" fails to do this.

I introduced a resolution in June calling for such a flexible timetable and have spent much of the past six months, along with an increasing number of members of Congress, military and intelligence experts, and members of the public, repeating that call. I am therefore surprised and disappointed that the head of the Republican National Committee yesterday suggested that I actually agree with your Iraq plan. Allow me to set the record straight: your “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is not a strategy for success and is not a substitute for a well thought-out plan to defeat the global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

A flexible timetable for achieving specific benchmarks and withdrawing our troops will help us to succeed in Iraq, and allow us to redeploy forces globally to re-engage in the global war on terror. Your “National Strategy" does not say how we will determine whether we are succeeding in Iraq, within what timeframe we expect success, and how we will eventually extract our military forces and hand off responsibility for governance and security to the Iraqis. Your strategy also shows that you continue to view Iraq as the central front in the war on terror, even though Al Qaida is the smallest of disparate insurgent groups there and even though it has a presence in more than 60 countries across the globe.

We need a strategy that recognizes that our ongoing operations in Iraq are not serving our national security interests and are in fact hurting our ability to pursue the global terrorist
networks that threaten us. Focusing exclusively on Iraq, at great cost to our military and our budget, will not help us defeat the global terrorist networks that threaten us. What we need is a global, integrated, and aggressive strategy that utilizes all facets of American power and strength against a diffuse, determined, and elusive enemy. While you continue to focus your attention on Iraq, terrorist networks are strengthening around the globe and we are losing critical opportunities to counter these networks and defeat the most significant threat to the American people.

Mr. President, we need clarity about what we are trying to achieve in Iraq, a goal of when we can complete the military mission there, and a strategy for redeploying our national capabilities to engage in the fight against global terrorist networks.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
U.S. Senator