U.S. Prepares to Increase Troop Numbers in Iraq

Welcome to you all.

Senator Cornyn, do you support the broad outlines of what's been reported to be this proposal, sending roughly 20,000 additional troops to Iraq?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), Texas: Well, the most significant thing about the proposal that I heard was that it really represents an Iraqi surge, with additional American and coalition forces to support them.

So that, in addition to clearing some of the most worrisome trouble spots in Baghdad, we can actually hold them, rather than relinquish them to sectarian violence or to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. That's something we haven't been able to do because we simply haven't had enough forces there on the ground to hold areas we've actually cleared to allow the political process to move forward.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Reed?

SEN. JACK REED (D), Rhode Island: Well, I don't think this is really going to be a surge. It's going to be a gradual escalation of troops. And if 20,000 is the total, it will probably be inadequate.

To make a difference, I think you'd have a much larger force. And so, as a result, I think it's going to be a little too little and probably too late.

The key factor here is the political dynamic. We have to get the Iraqis to step up. And if they are going to step up, then the size of our force is less important than their commitment to fundamental changes in their approach and a fundamental addressing the militias.

MARGARET WARNER: Congresswoman Wilson, you recently returned from Iraq. Do you think this looks like too little, too late, or the needed beefing-up of forces that's been needed for a long time?

REP. HEATHER WILSON (R), New Mexico: On this one, I think I agree with Senator Reed, that the key here is what Iraq decides to do. And the Iraqi government wasn't able to come through in securing Baghdad in two efforts in the fall, and then later just in November.

I think the real key for the United States is to focus on, what are America's vital interests? And I think we've lost some focus there.

We're not going to create a Jeffersonian democracy at the head of the Persian Gulf. We need to focus on making sure al-Qaida is unwelcome there and that Iraq does not become a point of instability in the region.

Those are actually very narrow national security objectives, and we have to focus on our vital national interests.

MARGARET WARNER: And would those objectives require this kind of troop increase?

REP. HEATHER WILSON: One of the things I'm concerned about is we kind of lost our focus. I don't think that we can solve a problem of sectarian violence that the Iraqis themselves have shown themselves not willing to solve, particularly quelling the Shiite militias in Baghdad.

U.S. forces have gone in to try to capture Shiite leaders of militias and been told by the Iraqi unity government to back off. We can't do for the Iraqis what they won't do for themselves.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Yes, I spent time in Iraq over the December break, just before Christmas. And I came back with an obvious understanding that things are not going, certainly in Baghdad, as we want them to, but also with a confidence that the majority of people in Iraq quite naturally don't support sectarian violence, don't want their country taken over by terrorists.

And the politicians are coming together in a kind of new, moderate coalition to make the government work. But they can't make it work if there's not stability and security.

They need this infusion that the president will apparently recommend of American forces to secure, to help them secure Baghdad and, I think, in Anbar Province, to build up some extraordinary gains that our forces have made there against al-Qaida, to claim a victory in that province, which al-Qaida in Iraq said was going to be the capital of a new Islamic extremist caliphate.

So I believe that the alternative to more troops is to give up on Iraq, and that would be a disaster, not just for the Iraqis, but for the United States. Iran would surge in; al-Qaida would claim a victory; and they'd chase us right back here to the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Reed, respond to the argument we just heard from Senator Lieberman, because this is what a lot of the supporters say, that even though, as you say, the political process needs to work there, that it cannot work as long as there's this much violence, and that something is needed to tamp this down and let the political process work. You don't think that has any validity?

SEN. JACK REED: The "something" that is needed is the political will of the Iraqi leadership. I'm sure they'd be delighted to have American forces go in and attack Sunni insurgents in Anbar Province or even in Baghdad, but I'm not quite sure they're wiling to take effective steps against Shia militias, against political leaders in their own community, who actually are part, in many cases, of the government.

And that's one of the critical political decisions that they have to make.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you have confidence that they're ready to make that?

SEN. JACK REED: No, I don't. I think, as Congresswoman Wilson pointed out, just recently, for example, four Iranian agents were picked up, two diplomats and two others. They were released at the request of the Iraqi government.

In fact, two were picked up in the headquarters of Hakim, who has a Badr organization, who's reputed to be one of those moderate politicians in Iraq that is trying to orchestrate this new approach.

I think the key is what the Iraqi government will do politically. And if the president can demonstrate that they're taking steps, and more importantly if they demonstrate on the ground, then that is very hopeful, and probably more decisive, more influential than any increase in our forces.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: Well, this is really the test. And, really, it's perhaps getting to be one of the last opportunities we have, in order to provide an Iraq that is able to sustain, govern and defend itself, as the Baker-Hamilton commission said was important.

I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Lieberman: We can't leave a failed state which then will serve as a launching pad, as Afghanistan did for al-Qaida to produce terrorist attacks on the United States and around the world.

On November the 7th, we had an important election. And, unfortunately, from my perspective, the Democrats got the majority, but I think it's incumbent, as part of the responsibility of being the new majority, to come up with a constructive plan rather than just criticize what they anticipate that the president's likely to announce on Wednesday night.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, I'll ask Senator Reed that in a minute, but let me follow up with you. What would you say to voters or constituents who took part in that election about this plan, in terms of how long this surge should last, whether it's open-ended or tied to any kind of performance benchmarks, or whether it should have a timetable?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: Well, I think time is running out. And no one is talking about an open-ended commitment. But there is simply so much at stake here that we cannot afford to fail.

No one has yet really talked about what the consequences would be if we rapidly withdrew our forces, Iraq descended into a failed state, a power vacuum that was then occupied by terrorist organizations and the like.

Do you think that we would not have to go back at some point, at least to make sure that al-Qaida did not use the oil weapon in that area to wreak a body blow to the United States and the rest of the world? I think there is a lot of consequences here that we haven't really talked about, consequences of failure.

MARGARET WARNER: Congresswoman Wilson, what is the alternative, if, as you say, the surge is not a good idea?

REP. HEATHER WILSON: I don't think the alternatives are -- I don't paint them in quite these stark terms that the choices are between surge and complete collapse of Iraq as a state.

I think we need to strengthen our counterinsurgency strategy, particularly in Anbar, and make that an unwelcome place for al-Qaida in the short term and the long term. I think we need to continue to train the Iraqi army.

The Iraqi national police is riddled by the militia and I don't think is probably worth spending much time on. But the Iraqi army has tremendous potential as a stabilizing influence.

I think the real question is: Is it the responsibility of the American military to try to quell sectarian violence that the Iraqis themselves have not demonstrated, the Iraqi government has not demonstrated its willingness to quell?

And I don't think that is a vital interest of the United States. And we have to focus on what our interests are, short term and long term. And we can't do for the Iraqis what they will not do for themselves.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Lieberman, does that sound like an alternative to you?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: No, it doesn't sound like an alternative, with all respect. I think the alternative that seems to be most widely proposed is to begin to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

And I think that would just increase the sectarian violence and lead the Iraqi political leaders to hedge their bets. Also, it would be a body blow to America's credibility in the Middle East.

And I'll tell you what I found in the Middle East, a new dividing line between moderates and extremists in the Arab world, between democrats, with a small "d," and dictators. And they're watching how we deal with Iraq.

If we begin to pull out, they're going to think that we don't have staying power, and they're going to begin to hedge their bets and move toward extremism. And as Senator Cornyn said, that means that eventually we're going to have to go back there in a bigger battle, and they're going to come after us here in the United States.

We can win this conflict in Iraq. It takes the kind of increase in troops that the president apparently will recommend to change the dynamic. I think it's our last best hope, and it's critically important to us.