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. EDWARD KENNEDY (D-MA): Thank you and thank you for your service.

Ambassador Crocker, listening to you talk about this agreement, bilateral agreement with Iraq, I'm reminded that Secretary Gates told the Armed Services Committee the agreement will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq agreement will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq, as long as America maintains 10,000 troops there, that little distinction between a treaty.

He has indicated that.

Of course in 1953, Congress ratified the Status of Forces Agreement with NATO as a treaty. So we've got 140,000 men and women over there. So this is somewhat and significantly different from these 84 other countries.

And I think the record's very clear: You're in agreement with what Secretary Gates has told this committee. Just quickly, if you would, please.

AMB. CROCKER: I am, sir.

It is our intention to negotiate the Status of Forces Agreement as an executive agreement. We do not intend to provide any binding commitments that would trigger the advice-and-consent process with the Senate.

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, that's going to be another issue that we're going to have to come back on.

So you're not going to follow what has been done previously by President Eisenhower. Even under President Reagan, Congress approved agreements to the United States for the observer group in the Sinai Desert. You're not going to follow their precedent.

AMB. CROCKER: We're going to keep the Congress fully informed. I understand there are some briefings scheduled for the coming few days.

SEN. KENNEDY: Let me -- in the -- listening to the testimony this morning by General Petraeus, it seems clear that the -- describes one Iraq, while we see another.

The president sees an Iraq in which Iraqis want to make political accommodation if only the security would allow it. But most Americans see an Iraq in which the premise of the president's policy has been proven hopelessly wrong and will continue to be wrong as long as the commitment of our military remains open-ended.

The president sees an Iraq where progress is being made in neighborhoods, villages and towns and cities across Iraq. But most Americans see an Iraq in which 4 million refugees have been displaced from their homes. Their homes have been destroyed, neighborhoods ethnically cleansed, overtaken by militias.

The president and the vice president describe an Iraq whose oil would pay for the needs of its people. But most Americans see an Iraq that is sitting on billions in oil revenues, while the American taxpayer spends billions to fund Iraq's reconstruction.

A year ago, the president argued that we wouldn't begin to withdraw troops from Iraq, because there was too much violence. Now the president argues we can't begin to withdraw troops, because violence is down.

Whatever the conditions on the ground, the president's arrows always point in the same direction, to an open-ended commitment of our troops. American people deserve to know when the arrows will finally point to an exit from Iraq. And it's time to put the Iraqis on notice that our troops will not remain forever, so that they will take the essential steps to resolve their differences.

Just to come back to a question that was asked earlier, Americans want to know, how could we have spent approximately 40 -- $24 billion in training Iraqi troops in five years, in five years, why we have -- when these forces are going to be ready and willing to stand up and fight on their own, so the Americans don't have to fight for them, as we've seen with the thousand that effectively deserted or left their units.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, they are fighting and, as I mentioned, dying for their country in substantial numbers. Their losses, again, are some three times our losses of late. And I might add that the Sons of Iraq losses are between two and a half and three times our losses in addition to that. So they're very much fighting and they are very much dying for their country.

They have indeed taken on the security tasks in a substantial number of provinces, and they are shouldering more of the burden in a number of the others. Again, in Basra there were not just the units that didn't do well; there were also units that did do well, and some that did very well.

And so again, this is tough, tough combat. When forces are new and go into it, they do bow at times before they steady. And we saw that in Basra and we saw it to some degree in some neighborhoods in Baghdad.

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, of course there are 4,000 Americans that have died as well, 30,000 that have been wounded, as well.

Now, you mentioned that the battle at Basra was to take on the criminals and extremists. Aren't we in there to battle al Qaeda?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Basra, Senator, is a --

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I understand how Basra is complex and --

GEN. PETRAEUS: -- Shi'a area and does not have a Sunni -- it has a small Sunni community but has not traditionally had an al Qaeda --

SEN. KENNEDY: But we're over in Iraq to take on al Qaeda, and here we've got the Maliki government moving in to battle intersectarian violence that's taking place, which many believe can enhance the possibilities of civil war.

Let me ask you a question. Were you at any meetings with the vice president or Mr. -- or Ambassador Crocker where the issue of the Basra invasion took place?

AMB. CROCKER: It was not discussed.

SEN. KENNEDY: It wasn't discussed at all during the vice president's visit to Baghdad; the possibility of Maliki going in to Basra was not discussed; you were not at any meetings where the vice president was present or where this was discussed in his presence?

AMB. CROCKER: It was not discussed in any meeting I attended, no, sir.

SEN. KENNEDY: General?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Same, Senator.

SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you. My time's up.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source