by Jim Tankersley
Recently returned from a firsthand tour of Iraq, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) declared the so-called troop surge "failed" and declared "there is no end in sight for the war" in a national radio speech aired today.
As Washington gears up for another high-stakes showdown over the war when Congress reconvenes next week, Democrats tapped Schakowsky to give their weekly radio address. The suburban Chicago Democrat, a longtime war critic, used the opportunity to criticize Iraq's political progress and the efficacy of the "surge" in halting violence.
Schakowsky drew sharp contrasts between the toil of American troops in the hot Iraqi streets and the opulent reception she and others in her delegation received. "While we were choosing between coffee, tea, or espresso to go with our dessert," she said, "outside in the 120 degree heat on that very day, August 6, four U.S. soldiers were killed by an IED blast in Diyala, one British soldier was shot in Basra, six street cleaners were blown up, 33 Iraqis were killed in a residential neighborhood in Tal Afar, and 17 bodies killed by death squads were discovered. "
Read on for the full text of Schakowsky's speech:
“Good morning. This is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
“The President’s surge has failed and there is no end in sight for the war in Iraq. This is what I learned on my summer visit to that ravaged country.
“After arriving in Iraq in August, it didn’t take long to see that the surge failed to achieve its main goal – reducing the violence so that progress could be made on key political benchmarks. At a meeting with Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Barham Saleh, our six-member Congressional delegation was informed that the night before, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi had left the government. The week before, the Sunnis had pulled out their Cabinet members. What was left of the Parliament was on vacation, and Dr. Barham said that a political settlement ‘won’t be done this September and it won’t be done next September.’ But he never did say how many Septembers it would take.
“Later, while dining on lobster tortellini in the air-conditioned elegance of Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s home in the Green Zone, General David Petraeus, commander of our forces in Iraq, made the case with charts and pointer that the security situation had improved somewhat during the surge. And yet while we were choosing between coffee, tea, or espresso to go with our dessert, outside in the 120 degree heat on that very day, August 6, four U.S. soldiers were killed by an IED blast in Diyala, one British soldier was shot in Basra, six street cleaners were blown up, 33 Iraqis were killed in a residential neighborhood in Tal Afar, and 17 bodies killed by death squads were discovered.
“Outside in the scorching air, our young men and woman in uniform were sweating under their body armor during, what is in fact, the bloodiest summer of the war, driving on roads that our delegation flew over in Blackhawk helicopters because the driving was too dangerous for us. There they were, doing their valiant best to carry out a misguided mission, risking and too often losing their lives, while we looked at a chart telling us that in one place, in one month, after four and a half years, there had been a slight drop in violence. There was no chart showing that overall sectarian attacks around the country had nearly doubled from last year. And there was no chart that measured the more than 3,700 of our troops that have been killed and the more than 27,660 wounded, many profoundly and for life.
“Neither was there a chart showing the enormous cost of the war, now up to $3 billion a week, $12 million every hour – enough to fix all the broken bridges in our country, expand health care coverage for our children, help our students afford college, develop renewable sources of energy, and make our streets safer.
“And as we finished our strawberry cake, our troops were out in the real world and not there to hear General Petraeus tell us that the United States would be in Iraq for another nine to 10 years. That means children who are now 8 years old, who were 4 years old when the war started, could yet serve in Iraq, according to General Petraeus.
“Nine to ten years. That was not the timetable I nor most Americans had in mind, but General Petraeus acknowledged that as a military man, at the end of the day, he takes his direction from the civilian leadership. If the civilian leadership in this country determines that the war is to end and the troops come home, then that is what will happen.
“I took his statement as a challenge. The Congress of the United States is reconvening on Tuesday. Most Democrats and a growing number of Republicans have come to the same conclusion – the best way to protect our troops is to end this war in Iraq.
“With the President stubbornly continuing to stay the course in Iraq, I urge my Republican colleagues to join with Democrats and the vast majority of Americans who are demanding a new direction in Iraq and refocusing America’s efforts on fighting the real threats of terrorism around the world.
“This is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Thank you for listening.”
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Nine to ten years is what the administration wants now. At 3 billion a week, what will that cost?
I remember the good old days when Rumsfeld said it wouldn't last six weeks and Wolfowitz said the Iraqis would pay for it themselves. Sigh.
Posted by: athena | September 1, 2007 1:30 PM
Not only has the "Surge" failed, but so has Bush's democracy. There's an article in the Trib today in which a coup is looked on favorably by the same clowns that heralded an end to dictatorship.
Bush couldn't get his man Allawi elected, so now he wants a coup to install his puppet. It looks like Bush should have first appointed an Iraqi Supreme Court.
Posted by: Bruce Y | September 1, 2007 1:50 PM
BBC News August 29, 2007:
"Iraqi PM Orders Curfew In Karbala"
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, has imposed a curfew in the city of Karbala after fierce fighting on Tuesday killed more than 50 people.
The clashes between security forces and gunmen cut short a major religious festival in the city, which had drawn hundreds of thousands of Shia pilgrims.
Mr Maliki said calm had been restored and blamed "criminal gangs from the remnants of the buried Saddam regime".
Security officials had earlier blamed the militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.
But the radical Shia cleric denied the Mehdi Army had been involved and appealed for calm late on Tuesday.
'Hired groups'
Mr Maliki imposed the indefinite curfew in Karbala at 1100 (0700 GMT) after meeting local officials and inspecting the scene of the clashes early on Wednesday.
Police and military special forces have spread throughout the city to purge those killers and criminals
Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki
The prime minister said security forces had restored order in the city after "criminal gangs" attempted to take control of the area around two of the most important shrines in Shia Islam.
"The terrorist acts implemented by these hired groups led to the martyrdom and the injury of a number of pilgrims and damage to public property," he said in a statement.
"The situation in Karbala is under control after military reinforcements arrived and police and military special forces have spread throughout the city to purge those killers and criminals."
Iraqi television has reported that Mr Maliki also issued an order to dismiss the army commander in Karbala, who will now face an investigation over the handling of the security situation.
The hundreds of thousands of Shia pilgrims attending the Shabaniyah festival in the holy city of Karbala have also been told to leave.
Shia rivalry
The pilgrims from across Iraq and further afield had been gathering at the shrines of Imam Hussein and Imam Abbas to mark the anniversary of the birth of the 12th Shia imam when the fighting erupted.
We have seen hotels going up in flames due to rockets being fired at them by the militants
Gunmen with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles had forced their way past checkpoints and appeared to be trying to take control of the area around the shrines.
As security forces fought back, several hotels were set ablaze.
The BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says various sources blamed the attack on the Mehdi Army. In Karbala, the police are linked to their political rivals, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC).
In apparently related violence between the two groups in Baghdad, at least five people were killed.
It comes just two days after Mr Maliki announced a deal between Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurdish politicians aimed at building national unity.
In other violence, a US soldier died shortly after being wounded in fighting near the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, the US military said.
From BBC NEWS
Bush want's to keep this civil war in Iraq going until Jan 09, when he can pass off his self-created mess to the new Democratic President.
Posted by: John D's evil twin,"Chucky" | September 1, 2007 2:07 PM
Schakowsky is right as are so many more of us.
The Iraqis are not taking over their own security situation. It's just more whack-a-mole of the same.
al-Maliki and his cohorts aren't even the ballpark when it comes to creating a political solution.
Like a lot of people have said, there are no good options only less bad options. It's time to draw down to defensible positions and give our military a break.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 1, 2007 2:42 PM
I wonder if this happened to her:
[quote]
This morning, the Washington Post has a story on how lawmakers are being "slimed in the Green Zone" when they travel to Iraq for congressional delegation trips. Reps. James Moran (D-VA), Jon Porter (R-NV), and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) recently returned from such a trip. While there, Tauscher and Moran noticed sheets of paper that "seemed to be everywhere" in the Green Zone, "distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank."
The sheets of papers were short, thumbnail biographies of the two lawmakers. ThinkProgress has obtained copies of the bios for Moran and Tauscher. Instead of receiving the official bios readily available on the congressional websites, the U.S. troops were given new ones that cherry-pick the representatives' "most incendiary" statements.
[/quote]
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/31/codel-bios-iraq/
Posted by: BC | September 1, 2007 2:45 PM
Hmmm, liberal Dem from Washington Brian Baird says differently after being there. Jan, how about joining your husband in prison? You're both traitors and both human sludge.
Posted by: John D | September 1, 2007 2:56 PM
WOW. Democrat Jan Schakowsky agrees with what Democrat Jan Schakowsky has been saying all along.
How surprising. No wonder the Swamp writes an article about it!
Schakowsky was the person who testified in her husband's trial that she wasn't aware of the check-kiting fraud that took place in her own household. Now she claims to know, after a brief visit, what is happening in an entire country.
Meanwhile, an actual soldier in the field, Gen. Petraeus, has stated (according to Reuters) that the Surge is working. And another anti-war Democrat who went to Iraq, Cong. Brian Baird of Washington, agrees.
Who has more credibility? Hint: it isn't Schakowsky.
Posted by: Bruce | September 1, 2007 3:23 PM
Very impressive and very clear. Certainly more clear and more believable than the President's comments!
Posted by: Simon Farquahr | September 1, 2007 3:24 PM
The RNC can use their sloganeering all they want, "cut and run", "defeatocrats", blah, blah, blah. The reality is that it's a moot point, their will be a draw down this next year:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173031/
Posted by: dt | September 1, 2007 3:26 PM
too early early to make the claim, but unroftunately, she'll most likely prove to be right.
I don't see a "Mission Accomplished" banner unfurling before the surge results are officially announced.
Posted by: RomanB | September 1, 2007 3:53 PM
Apparently the security facts on the ground in places like Al Anbar and Baqabah mean nothing to the congresswoman. Not surprising.
Certainly the political progress has been somewhat non-existent (there is some), the security improvements are undeniable (even Sen. Reid concedes that).
Posted by: James | September 1, 2007 3:58 PM
Schakowsky is just another hypocritical Democrat. News Flash: The Democrats CONTROL Congress. They can vote any time to defund the war and thus, take responsibility for losing Iraq, losing the Middle East and losing the respect of allies who have stood with us. But the gutless wonders who make up the Democrats in Congress won't do it. No, they want Bush to withdraw so the Democrats can blame him for an American cutout. The wonder is not that the Congress has only 14 percent approval; the wonder is that it is that high with people like Schakowsky there.
Posted by: Darius | September 1, 2007 4:10 PM
The People's Response:
"But what about our mortgages? We were told there'd be ice cream and cake with this war 'effort.'"
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 1, 2007 6:00 PM
Seeing that sectarian violence is at an all time high, there is a brain drain -- the best and brightest are leaving, doctors leaving in droves, and a huge problem with refugees in country and Iraq's neighbors I just don't understand how you could come to any other conclusion.
Petraeus is a good soldier and says what he is told to.
I wish our soldiers and the people of Iraq could have enjoyed the glorious day that we here had today. I salute them for all their hard work on this Labor Day weekend.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | September 1, 2007 7:08 PM
Terrific speech but it isn't going to happen. I remember 'Nam, great speeches year after year, nobody had the courage to just say "quit" and it went on that way for close to two decades.
Don't count on anything happening in the next Presidency either. It's a rare political few that actually have couraqe.
Posted by: silverpelican | September 1, 2007 7:26 PM
Jan Schakowski is a real jewel. Her husband is a guy with charges of embezzlement with a 503c entity obviously, following the DNC playbook she is a single mom trying to make everything work. This is the DNC playbook not reality he has been charged and convicted. Wow how did that happen heaven only knows! Jan don't lecture us till you get hubby under control! Jerry White, Springfield, IL P.S. stop snowin us. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | September 1, 2007 9:36 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6974539.stm
Wait until this ☁ hits the fan on this one.
Talk about the chickens coming home to roost.
Do we back strong man Mush or democracy?
Posted by: C.Morris | September 1, 2007 10:06 PM
She wants us to lose. This woman is gross.
She made no mention of dealing with the Mideast and worldwide terrorism! She calls them "our young men and woman in uniform" when she wants us to feel bad, but I doubt she would use the same words when attacking our Country when talking about "Abu Gharib", "Haditha", or the guards at Gitmo.
I think people should be asking her why she wants us to lose. What is there to gain?
She acts like the "9 or 10" years in Iraq is something new. Bush said from day one that this is like no other war and that it will take many years. As many people understand, Iraq is one battle in a larger war. Even in conventional terms, we're still in South Korea and we spent many years in Europe after WWII. Can she really think that we're all so dumb?
I suppose she has a mental disorder.
Posted by: Al | September 1, 2007 10:21 PM
Did teh congresswoman turn down her delicious food and drink and say "give that to one of the soliders that are out in the 120 degree heat?" No
How about those 30,000 troops that are serving in Korea after a war that has been over for 54 years? When are brining them home Jan?
Posted by: Terry | September 1, 2007 10:38 PM
I've noticed that the Neocon robots on here (Johnny D, Bruce and his aka "Darius" and of course Hairy Jerry White) are attacking the messenger (Jan Schakowsky) and not addressing the message again.
Only a nutty Republican sheeple could still be in favor of locksteping with W. on our continued refereeing of this self-created civil war in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYKuuMohouI
Posted by: John E | September 2, 2007 1:19 AM
So Jerry White of Springfield, IL says that just because someone you know does wrong, you are guilty too. What does that have to do with the topic?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | September 2, 2007 6:57 AM
August was the second deadliest month for Iraqis since the war began. The un-American party on the right says the "surge" is working.
Tell it to the Iraqis....maybe they will believe you.
Posted by: bill r. | September 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Darius, Darius, Darius,
It takes 60 votes to block a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate.
I suggest you take a remedial civics lesson.
Posted by: Darnell | September 2, 2007 9:40 AM
Terry,
The war in Korea ended in an armistice on July 27, 1953.
armistice n. A temporary cessation of fighting by mutual consent; a truce. [French, from New Latin armistitium : Latin arma , arms; see arm + Latin.
Dude, get your facts straight.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 2, 2007 11:11 AM
Darnell: Here's your civics lesson:
The House of Representatives does not have a filibuster rule, so the Democrat-controlled House CAN vote to defund the war. Last I looked, Schakowsky was in the House, not the Senate. I didn't say the Senate side could pass a filibuster and it certainly wouldn't pass a presidential veto, but the Demos CAN VOTE. They just won't because they'd rather cast the blame for losing, not accept it. Gutless wonders.
Posted by: Darius | September 2, 2007 11:38 AM
Darius,
You wrote: "The Democrats CONTROL Congress."
Get back to your civics lesson. The Seanate is part of CONGRESS.
Posted by: Darnell | September 2, 2007 12:41 PM
Posted by: John D | September 1, 2007 2:56 PM
You're the true expert on that subject.
Posted by: BC | September 2, 2007 3:00 PM
[quote]
How about those 30,000 troops that are serving in Korea after a war that has been over for 54 years? When are brining them home Jan?
Posted by: Terry | September 1, 2007 10:38 PM
[/quote]
Richard M. Nixon had 6 years to bring them home - why didn't he?
Gerald R. Ford had 2 years to bring them home - why didn't he?
Ronald Reagan had 8 years to bring them home - why didn't he?
George H. W. Bush had 4 years to bring them home - why didn't he?
George W. Bush has had 6 years to bring them home - why didn't he?
We're up to 26 years and counting, Terry...
Posted by: BC | September 2, 2007 3:07 PM
Doug,
What is the US vital interest in South Korea?
Posted by: Terry | September 2, 2007 4:04 PM
Hmmm, liberal Dem from Washington Brian Baird says differently after being there. Jan, how about joining your husband in prison? You're both traitors and both human sludge.
Posted by: John D | September 1, 2007 2:56 PM
I feel sorry for your family. Your a cretin.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 2, 2007 5:04 PM
Terry,
Securing the armistice.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 2, 2007 5:38 PM
The level of comments is lower than normal on this blog. I suppose that is because a logical response is so difficult. I will point out that we have been falling behind and losing soldiers for four and a half years. If our DOD had a clue to what this war was all about we would be done by now. Our government has failed us . Our Generals including Petraeus have failed us. There seems to be no shame and no blame for our continued failure. What will be the right wings argument for extending the war September, 2008?
Posted by: c. perry | September 2, 2007 5:43 PM
Who has more credibility? Hint: it isn't Schakowsky.
And it isn't brucieee or terrieee or juannieee. As a matter of fact, since the WH is writing the report from Petraeus, it isn't him either. Who is to be believed? Certainly not president chainsaw or his commander in bootlicking earboy. And since we so easily dismiss those that disagree with our closely held beliefs, I guess it isn't Baird either.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 2, 2007 5:57 PM
Doug,
And if South Korea fell, how does that effect the US in your opinion?
Posted by: Terry | September 2, 2007 6:35 PM
Terry,
Quit while you're behind.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 2, 2007 6:55 PM
Why doesn't anyone mention this fundamental question; Is it worth it? Let's just say for the sake of argument that something can be salvaged from Iraq. Since, even the administration has retreated from the position that a liberal-style democracy is realistic for Iraq, or even a democracy, is it worth bankrupting our country, weakening our military, spilling the blood of more troops for a quasi-stable Iraq?
First, can we be certain that pulling out of Iraq won't actually improve the situation there, not at first, maybe, but a year or two from now? And, if we our to believe the hysteria of the war-mongers, that if we exit Iraq the very existence of free societies everywhere will be imperiled, then why aren't we mounting a WW11 style campaign? Where are the war bonds, the rationing, the draft, tax increases?
I don't feel good about abandoning Iraq, but I don't see how we can afford to mediate a civil war, and battle a guerrilla-style insurgency forever.
We've got politicians saying we can't afford government subsidized health care. We can't afford to fix our infrastructure. We can't afford Social Security, all of which directly benefit our society.
Yet we can afford $15 billion dollars a month for a war with no end? The only ones benefiting at home for this fiasco are the members of the Military Industrial Complex. For the sake of our own nation, we need to cut our loses and get out.
http://www.denverpost.com/keefe
Posted by: dt | September 2, 2007 8:35 PM
Well Doug, if its a behind, I'm sure that is part of the anatomy you know well.
dt,
Don't need tax increases, the ecoomy is strong enough to withstand this temporary increase in spending.
Posted by: Terry | September 3, 2007 1:28 PM
Terry,
Your debate skills are that of someone who does not have the facts on your side so you resort to childish comments.
Grow up.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 3, 2007 7:32 PM
Don't need tax increases, the ecoomy is strong enough to withstand this temporary increase in spending.
Posted by: Terry | September 3, 2007 1:28 PM
How exactly is the Iraq War a "temporary" increase in spending Terry? Hello!! We've been at if for longer than WWII already, and unless I'm misreading what you've been saying the last year, you want the U.S. to stay the course, maintain the surge, until... well until what? when?
How long do YOU see U.S. forces remaining? 'Cause Bush is keeping them there for at least another year and a half. Yet of course, they still prefer to budget it with "supplementals" to shield the true cost of the war from scrutiny. But its ok Ter, just charge it to the ol' credit card, my generation is THRILLED to pick up your reckless tab.
What do we get to win in Iraq, Terry? When do you see that happening?
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 3, 2007 9:24 PM
Doug,
Go back to the question you dodged:"And if South Korea fell, how does that effect the US in your opinion?" Where's the vital national interest. Let's pull them off the DMZ. After 50 years, the South Koreans should be able to handle this, shouldn't they?
BTW - I'm ahead.
Posted by: Terry | September 3, 2007 11:24 PM