HUNTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee. And I'm joined by my colleagues today to make some
comments regarding the recent congressional initiatives that would call for
an immediate pullout of American forces from Iraq.

You know, American military operations have two phases. In the attack phase
there's great patriotism, there's a groundswell of support for the troops
and much flag waving.

The second phase is a more difficult phase. That's a time when you have
casualties. That's the time when you make incremental gains. And it's a time
when you sometimes see faltering political support. That always happens. And
right now in the war-fighting theater in Iraq, we're in the second phase.

And I thought that we would talk a little bit about what's at stake, because
I think that the attack on 9/11 is something that Americans have not
forgotten, and I think they understand that the aggressive operations of
America's military have helped to keep the insurgents in the war against
terror off balance.

That's why Americans today are able to go to parks, go to schools, go to the
grocery store, live life without fear of having a second 9/11 attacks, and
that's why four years have expired without a second attack on our homeland:
because we've aggressively projected America's fighting forces in the
theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are doing a superb job.

Interestingly, this fall-off of support among Democratic ranks is not shared
by the war-fighting forces. It's not shared by our troops. In fact, we're
seeing now letters coming out of Iraq, with some that point with dismay
toward the initiatives in the Senate that, thankfully, were rejected, that
would call for a timetable for withdrawal.

HUNTER: And now we have an initiative in the House that calls for immediate
withdrawal.

You know, one thing that we've learned in this century -- in winning the
world for freedom in World War I, World War II and the Cold War -- is that
freedom around the world is in America's interest. We have freed hundreds of
millions of people in Europe, and that's accrued to the benefit of
generations of Americans.

And we are in the process of delivering a free Iraq and delivering a nation
that will be, instead of an enemy of the United States, a friend of the
United States in a very strategic area of the world, that will not be a
platform for terrorists, that will have a modicum of democracy and therefore
not be a threat to the United States.

And I just wanted to remind our friends that now is the time for endurance.
It's easy to be a flag-waver and to be patriotic and to support the troops
when you're in the initial attack phase and it looks like you may have only
a two-week war.

Lots of our enemies think America is only capable of a two-week war and that
we don't have the endurance for the hard, tough battle of winning a war,
securing the peace, providing the military shield and building up a country
and building up its democratic institutions at the same time.

In fact, we do.

And I think that the Democrats who have undertaken this initiative have made
a mistake. I think they've underestimated the toughness of the American
people and the understanding that if we don't change the world, the world is
going to change us.

And right now, in Iraq, we are changing the world. We're changing a very
strategic part of the world in such a way that it will not be a threat to
the United States and, in fact, will be an ally in the global war against
terror.

So I just wanted to offer those words today, as the other side in this
debate, as opposed to the statements that have been offered on the Senate
side and now, regrettably, on the House side also, calling for withdrawal
from the war-fighting theaters in Iraq.

HUNTER: And Kay Granger put this conference together, and I'd like to ask
Kay Granger of Texas to make a few comments.

GRANGER: Thank you very much.

Like most of the members up here, I've traveled to Iraq. I've stood at the
foot of a mass grave that held thousands of the remains of Iraqis that were
killed by Saddam Hussein.

And I traveled to Iraq and I listened to our men and women in uniform who
told me how proud they are of what they're doing, and some with tears in
their eyes, because they say, The people understand it back home? Do they
still support us? Are they still with us? And I've also worked with the
women of Iraq who literally risked their lives to run for office so that
they could be a part of writing a constitution and having a form of
democracy -- and, as they said to me, and having the freedoms, Kay Granger,
that you have in the United States.

That's all I can speak of as far as being a member like that. But I think it
speaks best, and I'm going to quote Army Major General William Webster, who
just yesterday -- now, he's the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division; he's
responsible for three-fourths of the security in Iraq's capital.

And this is what he said. No one can say it better than he said.

Setting a date would mean that 221 soldiers I've lost this year -- that
their lives would have been lost in vain. Our troops are trying to get this
accomplished. They believe they're doing the right thing. The soldiers
believe they're helping. I think this: Bringing them home now is a recipe
for disaster. Setting a date is a loser. That's what he says. He's there.
He's risking his life and the lives of men and women. That's what we're all
about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...nnl=1&adxnnlx=
1132272250-k0ODYVr2EG35wISl5Q2zNg&pagewanted=print