In the first meaningful debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave President Bush the authority to invade more than four years ago, I spoke on the floor of U.S. House of Representatives on February 14 in favor of a House resolution disapproving of the plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.
Click here to watch Congressman Udall's Statement
House Concurrent Resolution 63 is a non-binding resolution that disapproves of the escalation of military involvement in Iraq and expresses support for U.S. troops currently serving there. The debate and vote on the resolution should be the beginning of a debate on how we responsibly redeploy troops from Iraq and stabilize the region.
If we do nothing more than debate the president's escalation plan, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to begin to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close. And while the resolution that was voted on is a largely symbolic and non-binding expression of Congressional opinion, it can be - and it should be - the opening part of a longer, thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only in Iraq but the entire Middle East. So, this resolution is a start - and I voted for it.
The resolution represents the correct response to facts - it expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with a policy of military escalation. I opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. But today we must focus on the future. We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter - not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.
In related news, this week I introduced legislation to require that Congress be informed about the extent to which the Bush Administration is doing the planning that is needed if we are to be prepared to respond to what our intelligence agencies tell us may be further catastrophic developments in Iraq and the region.
You'd think it wouldn't be necessary for Congress to legislate to make sure the Pentagon plans for contingencies. And when, at a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Defense Secretary Gates whether they were doing that, his answer, while vague, was reassuring. Vague reassurances aren't enough, and I am following up with this bill because America doesn't want a repeat of the performance that led to the war in Iraq without a plan for what would come after initial military success.
Secretary Gates has said that we'll know within months whether or not that escalation has been successful. So it isn't too soon to begin planning now for what may come next. It is high time for Congress to insist that the White House is responding to that essential need.
Congressman Mark Udall
Serving Colorado's Front Range and Western Slope