Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) made the following speech on the Senate floor today regarding the Senate debate over U.S. policy in Iraq:

"Mr. President, I would like to thank the sponsors of this amendment, Senators Levin and Reed, for proposing a thoughtful amendment and making a thoughtful contribution to this debate. America wants a successful outcome in Iraq. Congress has an obligation to help craft a responsible policy to help achieve a successful outcome in Iraq. Congress fails in its duty when we do not probe. We fail when we do not ask tough questions and we fail when we do not debate the great issues of our day.

There is no issue more important than war. The war in Iraq is the defining issue on which the leadership of this Congress and this Administration will be judged. The American people will demand a serious debate about serious issues from serious leaders. They deserve more than a political debate. This debate should transcend cynical attempts to turn public frustration with the war in Iraq into an electoral advantage, and it should be taken more seriously than to simply retreat to focus-group tested buzz-words and phrases like cut-and-run. Catchy political slogans debase the seriousness of war.

War is not a partisan issue. It should not be held hostage to political agendas. War should not be drug down into the political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women doing the fighting and dying...deserve better.

There was a very important piece in yesterday’s Washington Post that I would like to submit into the Congressional Record. It is written by Iraq’s National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie and it is titled “The Way Out of Iraq: A Road Map.” His op-ed says three very important things that we need to understand, Mr. President. The first thing his op-ed provides is measurable goals for the progress of the Iraqi government with regards to U.S. troop presence. It says this:

“Iraq’s ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.”

The second thing his op-ed makes clear is the unavoidable reality that an endless U.S. troop presence is not in the interests of the new Iraqi government. The Iraqi National Security Advisor says this:

“The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be...The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the ‘coalition occupation’...the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.”

Finally, al-Rubaie makes clear that ultimately, it will be the Iraqis who determine the success of the Iraqi government. He says:

“While Iraq is trying to gain its independence from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms of security, there are still some influential foreign figures trying to spoon-feed our government and take a very proactive role in many key decisions. Though this may provide some benefits in the short term, in the long run it will only serve to make the Iraqi government a weaker one and eventually lead to a culture of dependency. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it.”

Americans listening to the debate on Iraq are too often being given a false choice between supporting Iraqis with no end to U.S. troop deployments in sight and laying down arbitrary deadlines for troop withdrawals. The reality is more complicated than this. We should not limit the Commander-in-Chief’s options in Iraq. That is why I will vote against the Levin Amendment. However, anyone who believes that we will be in Iraq indefinitely ignores the forces of reality. As the Iraqi National Security Advisor’s op-ed makes clear, it is not in Iraq’s interest for the U.S. to remain in Iraq. Our influence is limited and becoming more limited every day.

I noted another story in yesterday’s Washington Post that detailed the reaction of Vietnam veterans to the war in Iraq. I know something about this. My generation worries about Iraq becoming, not the failure of our sons and daughters on the ground fighting in Iraq, but our failure as policymakers, as I believe our policymakers failed us in Vietnam. Our troops today are doing what we did a generation ago– they are doing their very best. They believe in their country and have faith in their leaders. We cannot let them down.

Mr. President, I would say that there may be two members of Congress today, Congressman Murtha in the House, and myself who served both in Vietnam and were both working in the Congress in the spring of 1975. Many might recall that time because that was the time the House of Representatives essentially voted to cut off funding for American presence in Vietnam. That was a disastrous decision for disastrous reasons, but it was the result of having a Congress absent and not involved in the policy formation, not involved in asking the tough questions, not involved in doing its job.

This debate is critical. It is important for our country. Agree or disagree with them, amendments like the Levin Amendment are relevant and they’re an important contribution. When we debate these issues, Congress is doing its job. We do not want our legacy as a Congress to be one of no congressional oversight. We do not want it to be said that we were irrelevant...irrelevant when it became too late. We do not want to repeat the history of Vietnam. We must not allow what happened in the Congress in April of 1975 to happen with Iraq. It happened because we didn’t debate the issues. It happened because the Congress was absent. It forfeited its responsibilities, it debased the very responsibility of elected officials.

That is why to debate these issues in a legitimate, honest, open manner is so important to our country and to keep it out of politics, the “gotcha” kind of phraseology that America is sick of. This is a serious issue, Mr. President. We’ve lost over 2,500 men and women in Iraq. We have been in Iraq longer than the Korean War. We’ve had over 18,000 wounded. We’re spending around $10 billion a month. The Congress must be present.

The real disaster for Iraq, the disaster for the Middle East and the disaster for the world would be if the Congress was not present and accounted for and part of the policy formation. That is why it is so important today that we debate this issue. That is why it is so important we have amendments like the Levin-Reed Amendment that makes an important contribution to the understanding of America’s presence and commitment and our responsibilities as a free nation and beacon for freedom in the world.”