Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - The Situation in Iraq and Progress by the Government of Iraq in Meeting Benchmarks and Achieving Reconciliation

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, gentlemen, for your patience and your testimony here today and most of all for your service to our country. We may have some differences of opinion about the way forward in Iraq. But none of us question your service to our country or the candor of your testimony today. So I'm grateful to you for that.

I have the privilege of serving on the Intelligence Committee as well as the Armed Services Committee. And I'm struck, in reading the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which we can't discuss here in detail today, but both reading that and listening to your testimony here today and listening to some of the dialogue, about how all of this is subject to differing interpretations.

And I would just ask you the question: Isn't it true that a fair amount of humility is in order in rendering judgments about the way forward in Iraq, that no one can speak with great confidence about what is likely to occur? Is that a fair observation?

GEN. PETRAEUS: It is very fair, Senator. And that's why I have repeatedly noted that we haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.

SEN. BAYH: In fact, reasonable people can differ about the most effective way forward. Is that not also a fair observation?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I don't know whether I would go that far, sir.

Obviously I think that there is a way forward. I've made the recommendation on that. And so I think in that sense that --

(Cross talk.)

SEN. BAYH: General, you would not mean to say that anyone who would have a different opinion is, by definition, an unreasonable person.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, lots of things in life are arguable. And certainly there are lots of different opinions out there. But again if you -- I believe that the recommendations that I have made are correct --

(Cross talk.)

SEN. BAYH: Here's the reason for my question, gentlemen.

Just as I acknowledge your honor and patriotism, which I think is absolutely appropriate, I hope you would acknowledge the honor and patriotism of those who have -- look at this very complex set of facts and simply have a different point of view.

And as you both are aware, some argue that to not embrace the assessment that you're giving us is in fact to embrace defeat or to embrace failure in Iraq. And I simply would disagree with those characterizations. And that was the reason for my question.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, we fight for the right of people to have other opinions.

SEN. BAYH: As we should, and so I appreciate your candor with regard to that.

So let me ask you about some of the policies that may be subject to differing interpretations. You've been asked about all of them, I think, here.

Chairman, I've never seen so many people be glad to see me before here. I'm the last one. You know, it's kind of, I guess, there are some benefits to being last.

The question of opportunity costs was raised. And in the intelligence world, at least for the foreseeable future, they tell us that we are much more likely to be subject to a terrorist strike emanating from Afghanistan, or possibly the tribal regions of Pakistan, than we are Iraq.

And yet we are currently spending five times as much in Iraq as we are in Afghanistan on a monthly basis. We have five times as many troops stationed in Iraq as we do in Afghanistan currently.

How do we -- how do you square that, when the threat currently is greater in terms of a terrorist strike from one place and yet we're devoting five times the amount of resources and troops to a different place? Some might look at that and argue that our resources are being misallocated.

AMB. CROCKER: I'd just make a couple of observations on that, Senator. And again, although as you know because you visited me, I am former ambassador to Pakistan, I am not really in a position to speak authoritatively there, about conditions there. But again, as you know, the circumstances in Pakistan are such that it's not going to be a question of, you know, U.S. troops in Pakistan. So there are some -- well, the al Qaeda threat out of that border area is indeed significant. There's not an equivalency, I think, in assessing, you know --

SEN. BAYH: Well, Afghanistan and Pakistan are subjects for another day, but since this is all tied up in the global effort against extremism and terror, as you know, things have not been going as well as we would hope in Afghanistan. And it's true we're not going to have troops in Pakistan. Still, resources are finite, and they do have an impact. And some might look at this and say, why are we devoting five times the amount of resources to a place that is not at this pint the principal threat?

AMB. CROCKER: In part, Senator, to be sure that it doesn't become that. I noted in my testimony that Osama bin Laden fairly recently referred to Iraq as the perfect base for al Qaeda. And it is a reminder that for al Qaeda, having a safe base on Arab soil is extremely important. They got close to that in '06.

SEN. BAYH: They apparently have one now in the tribal areas in Pakistan.

But in any event, Ambassador, I appreciate your responses, and I would only caution us to not take our marching orders from Osama bin Laden. And it might occur to some that he says these things because he wants us to respond to them in a predictable way, and we should not do that for him. But that's another subject.

Just two or three other things, gentlemen. Again, thank you.

And Ambassador, I have high regard for you. On the subject of political reconciliation, I think it is a fair comment on my part that the balance of opinion in the intelligence world would not be quite as optimistic as some of the observations that have been given to us here today. And my question is, does not this -- and I use the word "open-ended commitment" and I know that you would say our commitment is not open ended, and yet without any sort of estimate of any kind of end point, I don't know how else you define it -- that that in some ways enables some of the political dysfunction we have in Iraq by basically saying we're there as long as it takes, we're going to invest as much money as it takes -- does that not take some of the impetus off of them to make the hard compromises that only they could make?

AMB. CROCKER: Again, I am the first to say -- going back to your initial comments -- that Iraq is both hard and it's complicated. In this particular aspect, it's my judgment, based on the year that I've been there, that we get political progress when Iraqi political leaders and figures are feeling more secure rather than less; that they are more likely to make the kinds of deals and compromises that we saw in February with that legislative package when they and their communities do not feel threatened.

And it would be my concern that if they were to sense that we're moving away from a conditions-based approach to our presence and our actions that they would then be kind of looking over our heads to what might possibly happen next without us there. And they've be moving away from compromise, not toward it.

SEN. BAYH: Chairman, I just have two brief questions if I could be permitted. General, my question to you is -- I've asked this directly of some of our leading experts in the intelligence arena -- and my question was, on a global net basis, is our presence in Iraq creating more extremists and terrorists than we are eliminating within Iraq?

And the answer they've given me is that they believe that we are actually creating more than we are eliminating -- creating more on a global basis than we're eliminating in Iraq. What would your response to that be?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm not sure I would agree with that, Senator. But again, my responsibilities are Iraq, not the greater global responsibilities. Obviously, I'm a four-star general. I've got strategic thoughts. And again, I would just differ with that particular assessment. I think at this point that we have rolled back, as I mentioned, al Qaeda Iraq in a number of different areas.

The ambassador rightly pointed out that Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri have repeatedly pointed out in various forms of communication, not just those for the open world, that Iraq is the central front of their global war of terror. And in that regard, I think it hugely important, again, that that is where we must roll them back.

SEN. BAYH: My final question, gentlemen, is this: I noticed in -- and Senator McCain is no longer here -- it was his opinion that success -- and I think in his words were -- was within reach. And another quote was that success would come sooner than many imagine.

Now, I don't want to get you sucked into the presidential campaign and ask you to respond to that directly. But many Americans are going to look at your testimony here today and all this proceeding in these questions. And they're asking themselves, what does all this mean about the way forward? Is success truly almost at hand? Or is this, you know, a commitment without end?

And so my final question to you would be, is it not possible to at least offer some rough estimate about when we will be able to, after this brief pause, recommence extricating ourselves by withdrawing more troops from Iraq, down to some longer-term level? Is it just impossible to offer any rough estimate?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, if you believe as I do and the commanders on the ground believe that the way forward on reduction should be conditions-based, then it is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say this is when it will be or that is when it will be, with respect.

SEN. BAYH: I understand that, General. Many Americans will listen to that and believe this to be an open-ended commitment because, by definition, we won't know until we get there and there have been so many ups and downs in this thing.

I think it's a fair estimate to say that when this began, most did not assume that we'd be sitting here five years on with the conditions that we currently have. And so -- again, I'm just trying to give the American people a fair judgment about where we stand and what the likely way forward is. And I guess the best answer to that is we'll know when we get there and we don't know when we're going to get there.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, as I just said, we have -- we believe the appropriate way, based on the military commanders on the ground, to sustain and build on the progress that has been achieved over the course of the last 12 or 15 months is to make reductions when the conditions allow you to do that without unduly risking all that we've fought so hard to achieve.

SEN. BAYH: And we don't know when that point will be.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, when the conditions are met is when that point is.

And again, that's the way that lays out. Unless you want to risk and jeopardize what our young men and women have fought so hard to achieve over the last 12 or 15 months, then we need to go with a conditions- based approach. And that's why I made that recommendation, obviously.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source