Senator Norm Coleman, one of our friends at the Northern Alliance, gave a speech in the Senate that announced his opposition to the Bush administration's plans for a troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar. As with most of Coleman's speeches, it is a must read -- nuanced and effective, even if people disagree with his conclusions.

Coleman insists that he supports the war on terror, and agrees with the White House about the growing use of the insurgencies by Iran as proxies in a war against the United States. However, he believes that the sectarian strife is ultimately a political problem and cannot be solved through military action:

It is for this reason that I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad, where the violence can only be defined as sectarian. A troop surge proposal basically ignores the conditions on the ground, both as I saw on my most recent trip, and in reports I've been receiving regularly since my return. My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirm that an increase of troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred.

A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don't believe that makes sense, Mr. President. Again, I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because I don't believe it is a path to victory or a strategy to victory in Iraq. I recognize that there are those who think otherwise. The Iraqi Study Group and their report said that we could however support a short term redeployment, or a surge in American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, speed up training and equipment mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. I sat with the President, with Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues; I know that he has weighed this heavily. I know he has looked at this issue for a long time and apparently will come to a conclusion that in fact a troop surge would be helpful. I believe that his comments will contain, will hopefully contain, discussions about benchmarks containing commitments to do those things to rebuild an economy, to grow jobs, that we get rid of some of the underlying causes, the frustration that feeds an insurgency. But the bottom line again at this point in time, it is sectarian violence that I believe is the major issue we face, and more troops in Baghdad is not going to solve that problem Mr. President.

As one of the final conclusions to share from my experience in Iraq, I would also like to emphasize the significant role of Iran in fomenting instability. Across the board, my meetings with Iraqi officials revealed that the Iranians are driving instability in Iraq by all means at their disposal. In a hearing today in Foreign Relations Committee, one of the speakers, one of the experts said maybe and probably clearly Iranians have a stake in American failure in Iraq and instability in the region, and they feed that. There are credible reports that Iran has supplied money and weapons to both its traditional Shiite allies and its historic Sunni rivals -- all for the purpose of ensuring a daily death toll of Iraq citizens. Clearly the Iranians have concluded that chaos in Iraq is in their direct interest. Iran's role thus far, not to mention its pursuit of nuclear weapons, makes it hard to believe they might suddenly become a constructive partner in the stabilization of Iraq.

If that is true, however, then it makes it even more incumbent for us to kneecap the Iranian proxies in the near term so that a political solution can be found. While the Iraqis will have to determine a method to settle their sectarian differences, they need the breathing space to start to build the necessary relationships between the sects to do so. That cannot happen while the Shi'ite and Sunni insurgents enjoy a power imbalance in their favor over the Iraqi government, and it cannot happen while Iran fuels both sides in order to destroy the center.

The troop surge cannot "solve" the sectarian violence, but it can shift the power back from the Iranian clients causing all the trouble. We also cannot act against the Iranian agents in Iraq without loosening the rules of engagement and aggressively attacking them, a mission the surge will support.

Senator Coleman will join us on the Northern Alliance Radio Network this afternoon between 1-3 pm CT. Please be sure to listen on AM 1280 The Patriot or on its Internet stream. Listeners can join the conversation by calling 651-289-4488. I've put the Senator's entire speech in the extended entry of this post so that CQ readers can understand the entire context of his position.

UPDATE: You can read more of Senator Coleman's thoughts at his website.

UPDATE II: I hope you're listening to the interview -- Coleman made some good points about the status on the ground in Baghdad. He insists that he's not joining Chuck Hagel and Ted Kennedy, but truly believes that the situation speciic to Baghdad does not lend itself to an expanded military approach. I'll podcast the entire interview later today.

Text of Coleman's Iraq speech

Mr. President, having recently returned from another visit to Iraq and serving as a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I come to the floor this afternoon to express my views on the most pressing issue facing our country today -- our path to success in Iraq. As the Iraqi Study Group recently stated, the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Our current path isn't working. You have to be flexible and you have to shift, you have to make change, and clearly in Iraq today we have to make a change. I was with the President of the United States on Friday, and he said the same thing. In December, I met with Iraqi political leaders, U.S. troops and their leaders, as well as our diplomats on the ground. My conversations with this broad range of individuals helped me draw various conclusions that are key to evaluating the proposals currently being debated. In light of the President's upcoming announcement of his strategy for Iraq, I think it is important to share these conclusions.

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are in Iraq as part of a global war on terror. There is no question that Iraq has become the key battleground of this war. Failure cannot be an option in either the overall war on terror, or in Iraq. The President has correctly stated that this is the battle of this generation. With menacing regimes in Iran and Syria, we cannot dismiss the fact that a failed state in Iraq would lead to much more than chaos and collapse in that nation. It would destabilize a critical region of the world, and most alarmingly, would create a breeding ground for terrorists whose ambitions do not stop at Iraq's borders. Americans, all Americans have a direct stake in winning this war.

We know the U.S. will be involved in the war on terror for the foreseeable future. The question is, how do we move forward in Iraq? How do we fight this war? And where do we put our troops?

From my experience in Iraq, I know now, as I believe, that we are fighting essentially on two fronts. First is the war we intended to fight, a war against terrorists - primarily Sunni extremists and foreign jihadists linked to Al Qaeda, foreign terrorists.

The other war is the war between Iraqis themselves - Shiite against Sunni, in a seemingly endless cycle of grisly violence. Our military must continue the battle against extremists and terrorists, but we have no business being caught in the cross fires of an Iraqi sectarian conflict. The good news is that we have had great success in fighting the war on terror, imposing crippling losses on the international jihadist network which today operates in Iraq. Indeed, during my visit in December with Marines, many Minnesotans by the way, stationed in Anbar Provence, they reported that they were making great headway against the insurgency and the foreign terrorists. I am proud of these accomplishments and firmly believe that these military victories directly enhance our security at home. But to secure the ground that these Marines have cleared, in places like Fallujah, they need Sunni police officers. They need Sunni members of the Iraqi army. They need reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite.

So, as we continue to fight the first war, the war against terrorists, we need also to address the second war, that of Iraqi against Iraqi. The overall consensus I found in Iraq is that we will be unable to hold onto the ground we've gained on the first front without addressing the second front - Iraqi sectarian violence. This violence is spiraling rapidly and is undermining the success we've made against the terrorists.

If the Iraqi Security Forces, both army and police, are to someday soon take over the fighting of the insurgency from U.S. troops, it's clear that inter-group violence must be brought under control. The Iraqi security forces must include all Iraqis -- Sunni, Shiite, Kurd and others. To be certain, our efforts cannot succeed if sectarian hatred is not addressed at the highest level of the Iraqi government immediately.

The only long-term solution for bringing stability to Iraq must be centered on national reconciliation. It is true, that after decades of Sunni violence led by Saddam Hussein and his regime, the Shiites still have unaddressed grievances. But this does not call for, nor permit, neighborhood by neighborhood ethnic cleansing, nor a refusal to work together for the future of all Iraqis. Shiites may be able to win short-term victories through the use of violence, but in the long-term they will not have a unified country if they continue to do so. Iraqi leaders should focus on reining in all sectarian groups under the umbrella of a national, inclusive political process. This is a solution that can only be led by the Iraqis themselves.

With no doubt, this sectarian violence was left to grow unchecked far too long. Even so, it is not too late to get Iraq back to stable footing. But it will come from dialogue and political compromise enforced by a central government prepared to take on militias under the control of religious sects, clans, and even common criminals. We must get to the point where Iraqi citizens express their views through political channels instead of through violence. The Iraqis are the masters of their own destiny, and it is important that our strategy regard them as such.

Since my trip to Iraq in December, I have been calling for the Iraqi government to establish a series of benchmarks that will defuse the sectarian violence and stabilize the country politically and economically. These benchmarks would include an oil revenue-sharing agreement and economic assistance to areas that have been neglected in the past. The reality, Mr. President, is [that the Iraqi government is not putting] resources in Anbar Provence because it's a Sunni [stronghold]. The result is a fueling of the insurgency in response to the actions of a government that has not been prepared to address the issue of sectarian violence. We will be a better supporter of the Iraqi government if we pressure them to create and adhere to these benchmarks, rather than assuming that this fractured government will take this on by themselves.

I fear that up to this point the Iraqi leadership has not stepped up to the plate to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to pave the way for a political solution. When I was in Iraq with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, we met with the Iraqi national security advisor to Prime Minister Maliki, Dr. Rubaie, who contended that sectarian violence wasn't the main problem. The problem was the foreign terrorists, it was the Sunni insurgency. That's not the case, Mr. President. As a Senator responsible for looking after the best interests of my constituents and all Americans, I take seriously the responsibility of Iraqi political leaders to honor the sacrifices that are being made by American soldiers. I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi. If Iraq is to fulfill its role as a sovereign and democratic state, it must start acting like one.

It is for this reason that I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad, where the violence can only be defined as sectarian. A troop surge proposal basically ignores the conditions on the ground, both as I saw on my most recent trip, and in reports I've been receiving regularly since my return. My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirm that an increase of troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred.

A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don't believe that makes sense, Mr. President. Again, I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because I don't believe it is a path to victory or a strategy to victory in Iraq. I recognize that there are those who think otherwise. The Iraqi Study Group and their report said that we could however support a short term redeployment, or a surge in American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, speed up training and equipment mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. I sat with the President, with Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues; I know that he has weighed this heavily. I know he has looked at this issue for a long time and apparently will come to a conclusion that in fact a troop surge would be helpful. I believe that his comments will contain, will hopefully contain, discussions about benchmarks containing commitments to do those things to rebuild an economy, to grow jobs, that we get rid of some of the underlying causes, the frustration that feeds an insurgency. But the bottom line again at this point in time, it is sectarian violence that I believe is the major issue we face, and more troops in Baghdad is not going to solve that problem Mr. President.

As one of the final conclusions to share from my experience in Iraq, I would also like to emphasize the significant role of Iran in fomenting instability. Across the board, my meetings with Iraqi officials revealed that the Iranians are driving instability in Iraq by all means at their disposal. In a hearing today in Foreign Relations Committee, one of the speakers, one of the experts said maybe and probably clearly Iranians have a stake in American failure in Iraq and instability in the region, and they feed that. There are credible reports that Iran has supplied money and weapons to both its traditional Shiite allies and its historic Sunni rivals -- all for the purpose of ensuring a daily death toll of Iraq citizens. Clearly the Iranians have concluded that chaos in Iraq is in their direct interest. Iran's role thus far, not to mention its pursuit of nuclear weapons, makes it hard to believe they might suddenly become a constructive partner in the stabilization of Iraq.

I want to point out that my commitment to success in Iraq has not changed, nor my willingness to consider options that would realistically contribute towards our goals there. In my trips to Iraq, I've gone with an open mind as to what next steps can be taken as we work with the Iraqis to stabilize their country. I have said all along that the stakes of our mission in Iraq are such that failure is simply not an option, and I will only support proposals that will steer the United States towards victory. Abandoning Iraq today would precipitate an even greater surge of ethnic cleansing and would, as I indicated before, precipitate an instability and chaos in the region that would be in no one's interest. But my most recent trip to Iraq also reaffirmed to me that it is the Iraqis who must play the biggest role to play in any strategy for success. Our investment there must be tied to their willingness to make the tough choices needed to pave the way to stability, and for them to act on them. Mr. President, I represent Minnesota, but if I represented Missouri, I think I'd simply say to Maliki, show me. Show me your resolve, show me your commitment, show me that you can in fact do the things that have to be done to deal with the sectarian violence, and then we can talk about enhancing and increasing the American effort. I haven't seen it, I don't see it today. As such, I'm certainly not going to put more American troops at risk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is