Senator Jack Reed was on PBS NewsHour last night, along with Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), talking about the failed troop withdrawal legislation:
JUDY WOODRUFF: For two views on the Iraq debate, we hear from Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He’s a member of the Armed Services Committee.
And Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who’s the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.
Sen. Kyl, to you first. You are in the Republican minority in the Senate, but your side prevailed on what people were seeing as the most critical vote here today. Add it all up for us. What happened today?
SEN. JON KYL (R), Arizona: Well, I think it was a devastating defeat for the Democratic leadership, which had been calling for weeks for a vote on its resolution. We allowed the vote, and the majority voted against the resolution to micromanage the war.
And this is as it should be. The Petraeus plan is actually showing signs of early success, and it would be a big mistake to pull the rug out from under the troops just as that success is beginning to be demonstrated. The consequences, of course, would be devastating.
It’s interesting that many Democrats before had opposed timetables and deadlines, rightly noting that it would just give the enemy a way to figure out how to wait us out and then win, and yet they supported the resolution today. Fortunately, a majority voted against it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Reed, how do you see it all add up?
SEN. JACK REED (D), Rhode Island: Well, I see this as progress in doing what the American people are demanding, that is a better policy in Iraq, a policy that recognizes we have missions there, but those missions should be narrowly drawn: to train Iraqi security forces, to protect our forces, and to go after terrorists, and that, beyond those missions, we should begin a redeployment of our combat forces.
That’s what I think the American people want and are demanding, and I think today it represents an increase in the terms of support that we’re receiving.
Last June, Sen. Levin and I introduced a similar resolution, and we received about 30-plus votes; today, 48 votes, including one Republican member.
So this is not strictly on party lines. This is, I think, responding to the true concerns of the American public, and this is an issue that we have to continue to address again and again.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Sen. Reed, you say it was not along strictly on party lines, but 48-50, you had all the Republicans, plus Sen. Joe Lieberman, voting against you.
SEN. JACK REED: And we had Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon voting with us. So I think what you’re seeing here is what is reflected across the country.
This is not a Republican issue or Democratic issue; this is the profound concern of the American public about the policy direction in Iraq. They’re very concerned. They want to change direction, and I think today’s vote and today’s policy represents that direction.
It does recognize that we have continuing missions in Iraq, but those missions are not to be the umpire in a civil war. Those missions are to protect our troops, to go after terrorists, and to train Iraqi security forces to fight their battles and hopefully win their battles. And I think that’s the policy ultimately that will be accepted.
I can also recall that last June, in the Levin-Reed resolution, we called for a regional conference, which everyone opposed. And just last week, and fortunately the administration finally accepted the notion that they have to start talking to the neighbors.
So this effort is going to continue. It’s making progress. And I think it’s the direction the American public want us to go.
What this vote says to me is: we need to get the Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) out of office who are ignoring the majority views of their constituents. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans want a change in direction with our Iraq policy, a departure from the direction that the Republican administration has been taking us in. But, back to the show:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Reed, the two other proposals that were voted on, the Democratic proposal from Sen. Patty Murray, the other proposal from Sen. Judd Gregg, both of those passed overwhelmingly. What do they accomplish?
SEN. JACK REED: Well, I think what they do is say that we support our troops in the field and we’ll continue to fund them. I think the Murray proposal was much better, in the sense that it also recognizes the president has an obligation, working with us, to support the troops.
I can recall budgets being sent up here where there were not sufficient requests for armored vehicles when we needed them, and Congress had to put that in. So it’s not just the responsibility of the Congress to fully fund; the president has to fully fund.
We’ve all just witnessed the debacle at Walter Reed. That was a function, I believe, in many respects of the president and others not asking for the resources they need to take care of returning veterans.
So the Murray proposal, I think, went to the heart of it: We do have an obligation to fully support our troops in the field, not to interfere with our operations in the field, and that obligation also extends to when they return home. And it also involves the president, not just the Congress.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Kyl, do you see those other amendments, either the one from Sen. Murray, saying, in essence, we support the troops, the one from Sen. Gregg, sponsored by Sen. Gregg, saying we won’t cut funding for the troops as advancing the debate here?
SEN. JON KYL: Actually, I do. I think they’re both important, because they establish a precedent.
The Democratic leader has announced that next week, when the supplemental appropriation bill — or in two weeks, when the supplemental appropriation bill is brought before us, we’re going to have the same debate again. They were intending to put this same resolution in the very bill that needs to pass in order to fund the troops.
I think the fact that it was defeated today is a strong signal to them, along with the other two amendments passing, that we’re going to fund the troops, that we all want to fund the troops. That’s a pretty good signal that they shouldn’t try to put this same resolution in this important supplemental appropriations bill.
Again, when I was in Iraq, the commanders asked me, pleaded with me, “Please make sure that we get the funding without any strings attached so that we can perform the mission.” The supplemental appropriation bill to fund the war effort should not include these kinds of resolutions in the future.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Reed, do I hear you saying that you think what happened today says that the United States is closer to ending its involvement in Iraq?
SEN. JACK REED: What has happened today is that this approach to changing our mission is taking on, I think, increased energy, increased support, because I think it resonates with the American people and also it matches, I believe, the reality on the ground.
There are continuing missions that we must confront in Iraq. This is not a question of pulling up our stakes and leaving tomorrow. But those missions are not moderating a civil war. They involve protecting our troops, training Iraqi troops, and going after terrorists.
In fact, that mission is worldwide. We can perform those missions; we should perform those missions. They’ll be fully resourced by this Congress and, I hope, by the president.
But I think it represents the reality that, ultimately, the future of Iraq, and particularly with respect to this sectarian violence, will have to be decided by Iraqi political leaders, by political decisions they make. We can help them, but they have to make those political decisions.
And I think also this sends a strong signal to the Iraqi government that they do not have unlimited time and we do not have unlimited patience, that they have to be much more aggressive in dealing politically and solving their own problems.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Kyl, is that how you see what today’s vote and debate says?
SEN. JON KYL: No, I don’t. First of all, again, the other side lost. They didn’t win. The majority realized we can’t micromanage this war.
Senators are not very good war fighters, with all due respect. This is the 17th resolution to come out of the Democratic — either the House or the Senate — to try to, in some way or other, oppose our war effort there. I’m glad the first ones didn’t get passed, but it just shows you the confusion in the Democratic ranks about what to do here.
And you cannot have Congress micromanaging the war. We have a plan, the Petraeus plan. It appears in its early stages to be working.
And this isn’t just about a civil war. You’ve got very dangerous al-Qaida elements in Iraq. In fact, everybody recognizes that they’re the biggest problem in the Anbar province, which is the other area, other than Baghdad, in which we’re putting the majority of our new troops.
So, clearly, we have some additional work to do to stabilize the country so that the Iraqi government can have the confidence of the people to govern there. There are early signs that that’s succeeding. We need to give it a chance to succeed, and that’s what the vote today did.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Reed, Sen. Kyl, you can hear what he’s saying. He’s saying there’s confusion in your party’s ranks. He’s saying there’s still work to be done in Iraq. What’s next, as far as you’re concerned?
SEN. JACK REED: Well, what’s next is, I think, to continue to argue for the best policy, which I believe, speaking for myself, is concentrating on the missions which are most critical to our national security and also beginning a phased withdrawal.
I think those are the critical missions and that’s the critical policy, and I think eventually that must take place.
Kmareka.com 