Hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Blackwater USA's Iraq Mission

Interview

Hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Blackwater USA's Iraq Mission

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. SHAYS: Thank you. Gentlemen, would you agree that there's a huge difference between an ambassador in a country where there's not a threat to their lives -- and the challenge that that ambassador would have with a contracting team that's to protect them, and one in places like Jordan and other areas in the Middle East, and particularly Iraq -- is there not a big difference?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): The environment --

REP. SHAYS: In other words, don't you have a lot more contractors having to secure people in a place like Iran versus what an ambassador would have to protect his or her well-being?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): Some of the personnel that we have under contract --

REP. SHAYS: I want you to move the mike closer, please.

MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry?

REP. SHAYS: Move the mike closer to you, please.

MR. GRIFFIN: Some of the people at our posts around the world are part of our local guard force. And those local guards --

REP. SHAYS: You know, I -- you're not answering the question. I asked, is there a difference, and you --

MR. GRIFFIN: There is a --

REP. SHAYS: -- can say yes or no.

MR. GRIFFIN: -- there's a huge difference --

REP. SHAYS: Thank you.

MR. GRIFFIN: -- between Baghdad --

REP. SHAYS: There is a huge difference.

MR. GRIFFIN: My point is there are guards --

(Cross talk.)

REP. SHAYS: (Inaudible.) Let me take the next question.

MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.

REP. SHAYS: I don't -- only have five minutes. It's an easy answer -- there's a big difference. The men and women who are being defended in Iraq by security people, their lives are in danger every day.

Now Mr. Satterfield, isn't it true the ambassador has responsibility in Iraq for those security personnel?

MR. SATTERFIELD: Indeed, he does.

REP. SHAYS: Would you move the mike closer, please.

MR. SATTERFIELD: Indeed, he does, Congressman.

REP. SHAYS: Thank you. And does exercise it?

MR. SATTERFIELD: Yes, he does.

REP. SHAYS: Thank you. Would you tell me, Mr. Satterfield, can you describe the process that is followed by the department -- Excuse me, let me ask this question: If there were sufficient -- I'd like to know, if there were sufficient military personnel to provide armed escorts for convoys in Baghdad and -- (inaudible) -- conduct protection, would you still use contractors to provide such security?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): As I mentioned a minute ago, Mr. Shays, if the outstanding young men and women of the military received training in protective security operations then they certainly would be capable of performing --

REP. SHAYS: That's not what I asked.

MR. GRIFFIN (?): -- this mission.

REP. SHAYS: I want to know if you have a preference for using -- and I'm sorry to -- you know, these are basically simple questions. I want to know if your choices between people -- outside contractors, or would you like to use the resources of the military to have to spend their time to protect State Department employees? Do you want State Department employees to go around in humvees with lots of armored personnel, or would you prefer that they go around the way they do in civilian clothes with people who are securing them that aren't in Army uniforms? If you prefer the Army, tell me to do it.

MR. GRIFFIN (?): All I was saying is the Army would be capable of doing it if it was done in the manner that we prescribed, which would not be humvees, it would not be in uniforms. The protective security personnel that we utilize are trained for that specific mission.

REP. SHAYS: If they were Army personnel, would they be under your command and oversight, or would they be under the command of the Army?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): If they were performing a protective mission of the ambassador and other --

REP. SHAYS: Do you command the Army or does --

MR. GRIFFIN (?): No, I don't.

REP. SHAYS: -- the Army command the Army?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): -- the Army commands the Army.

REP. SHAYS: So the answer is, isn't it, that the Army would be -- they would be under the command of the Army and not under your jurisdiction and oversight -- if they were, in fact, Army?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): (Inaudible.)

REP. SHAYS: I don't want to put words in your mouth.

MR. GRIFFIN (?): No, no. Well, I guess --

REP. SHAYS: I'm just asking the question.

MR. GRIFFIN (?): -- they would be.

REP. SHAYS: Yes, sir. The issue -- let me ask you this, would it be a problem if, in fact, you had no responsibility and they were -- to be answerable to the Army -- generals, and so on?

MR. GRIFFIN (?): I think that's -- that's a national political consideration as to the, you know, the staffing levels of the Army to perform that mission.

REP. SHAYS: Well, as a Peace Corps volunteer -- and I'll just make this point. The last thing you want when you are going into the community is to come in with a military force. What you want is to have a low profile. You want a protocol that says you don't bring in tanks, you don't bring in humvees, you bring in a civilian car. You want people dressed in civilian clothes for the most part, not dressed in Army uniform.

Let me ask you, in closing, Mr. Satterfield. When Mr. Bremer -- excuse me, when Mr. Bremer went into places, wasn't it one of the criticisms that he was going in with the Army, with a high profile of military personnel, and having an Army footprint instead of having a civilian footprint?

MR. SATTERFIELD: Congressman, around the world -- whether it's at a critical threat post or a different threat-level post, we try to make our protective details, or presence, as low profile as possible consistent with the protective mission -- as unobtrusive as possible and as consistent with the civilian setting in which we operate as possible.

REP. SHAYS: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source