Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - U.S. Policy and Military Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
Federal News Service
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: U.S. POLICY AND MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)
WITNESSES: DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PAUL WOLFOWITZ; JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN GENERAL RICHARD MYERS; UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS MARC GROSSMAN
LOCATION: 106 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
SEN. WARNER: The committee meets today in another of its series of hearings on the worldwide threat situation, with emphasis on Afghanistan and Iraq.
We welcome our witnesses, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; General Richard B. Myers, U.S. Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Secretary Marc Grossman, undersecretary of State for political affairs. Each of our witnesses is very well qualified to discuss the full range of the topics before the committee today. All have been deeply involved in the planning for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. General Myers just returned Sunday from a trip to the region to visit our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Colleagues and friends, the past few weeks have been particularly challenging for our nation. We are ever mindful of the risks our troops face every day, those of the coalition forces, and the sacrifices made by the families and the communities that support them as those who have been removed from power seek to delay their inevitable defeat, and as terrorists lash out at the loss of another area in which to train and spawn terrorism throughout the world. We mourn every loss of life and salute those who serve, their families, for their bravery, their commitment and their sacrifice.
The timeliness and importance of this hearing cannot be overstated. We are at a critical juncture for coalition operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I myself just returned several weeks ago from a trip to both of those countries. The brilliant military victories achieved by our armed forces together with the coalition partners have presented an opportunity to fully defeat violence and terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, nations whose previous rulers had perpetrated violence and terror not only on their own populations and their neighbors, but spreading it throughout the world.
The cycle of violence that has gripped this part of the world must end if we are to win the global war on terrorism and make America and our friends and allies a safer place. Deviation from our current course will only embolden those who are intent on bringing about instability and anarchy not only in the region but elsewhere in the world.
We've achieved extraordinary success in a relatively short period of time in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone. The future is hopeful for the Iraqi people. We must continue to send a strong message of resolve to the people of Iraq, to our troops, to our coalition partners and to the rest of the world that the United States will stay its course and get the job done.
As President Bush stated last week and I quote, "Now is the time and Iraq is the place in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver," end quote.
President Bush has set a course that calls for the return of political sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th. It is critical that we end our status as an occupying power and give Iraqis an increased stake in what happens in their future and the nation.
This date was endorsed by the U.N. special representative, Brahimi. Brahimi and the U.N. are playing an important role in the transition to sovereignty and will continue to play a critical role in helping Iraq on its path to democracy. This committee will learn today from this distinguished panel further details on that operation.
The president's appointment yesterday of a trusted international statesman and current U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, as the first ambassador to a free and democratic is another important step in this process. I've had the opportunity through the years to know Mr. Negroponte quite well and have the highest personal regard for him.
Continued U.S. commitment to the June 30th transition date is of enormous importance to the Iraqi people and to the region, and-for it will be the day that Iraq takes its place in the community of free nations and the day the Iraqis assume a greater degree of responsibility for their future. The coalition forces, however, will remain on standby status and involve themselves in the security of that nation.
A free, democratic Iraq means defeat for the forces of terrorism and instability in Iraq.
Clearly, the recent surge in violence in Iraq is related to the imminent transfer of sovereignty. Those who fear democracy are trying to delay its arrival. Those who incite terror realize their days are numbered. Opponents of a free, democratic Iraq are desperate and will become even more desperate, unfortunately, in the days to come. We will be prepared for more violence as June 30th approaches. We must not waver in the face of terror and intimidation. Our troops, members of our coalition and the people of Iraq need the continued strongest support of the Congress of the United States.
Many countries shared in the military effort to liberate Iraq. Other nations not involved directly in the military have joined in the rebuilding of Iraq. A total of 38 nations are now involved in this overall endeavor. I welcome the increased participation of the United Nations in the political transition process. I applaud President Bush for his consistent efforts, efforts that began in September 2002 at the United Nations, to build and expand the coalition of nations who have the courage and the conviction to fight tyranny and terror in order to make the region and the world a better place, a safer place.
As we are focused as a nation on developments in Iraq, we must not lose sight of ongoing developments in Afghanistan. U.S. and coalition forces continue to eliminate remnants of all al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that harbored them. NATO forces are taking increasing responsibility to provide security and reconstruction assistance across many parts of the country. The recent donors conference in Berlin secured commitments from the international community to provide the assistance Afghanistan will need to recover from decades of war and oppression. A constitution's been approved. An election's been scheduled. These are important steps on Afghanistan's path to full democracy.
The future is finally hopeful for the people of Afghanistan, but challenges remain. Speaking for myself personally, as a consequence of my visit there, I remain very interested in our witnesses' view on how we can help Afghanistan conquer a very serious drug trade, which is growing, not diminishing-growing at an alarming rate.
The hearing today is an opportunity to review current policies and future challenges. I hope our witnesses can provide insights into a number of questions, among them the issue of this 700,000 (dollars). I will put in today's record the details of the briefings that this committee received-and it was on a bipartisan basis-with regard to the use of those funds.
Our committee records show that on the 13th of February, 2003, the JCS-J4 briefed the committee staff.
Later, on February 23rd, 2003, then DOD Comptroller Dove Zakheim briefed the staff. Lastly, representatives from the OSD comptroller provided a classified briefing on April 4, 2003. The questions regarded the use of funds, that is O&M funds, to do what is predominately milcon-type functions. We have in the committee records, for the inspection of our members, a classified document dated April 4, 2003 which details those expenditures.
Nevertheless, Secretary Wolfowitz, I hope you can elaborate on that issue.
Further, the questions before the committee today: Are current troop levels in Iraq, as recently requested by General Abizaid, sufficient? Do our troops have sufficient equipment and correct equipment to carry out and complete the mission? How will an Iraqi interim government be formed? And how are Iraqis reacting to the recent U.N. proposal? What role will the U.N. and other international organizations play in the reconstruction of Iraq after the transition of sovereignty? Will the U.S. seek a U.N. Security Council resolution to cover the next phase of activities, political and military, in Iraq? And what are the details that we have at hand with regard to the all-important Status of Forces Agreement, which spells out, hopefully-or will, perhaps coupled with a U.N. resolution, which I believe will be forthcoming, exactly how the relationship between the new transfer of power to an Iraqi government and the utilization of our troops and those of coalition forces for further security.
I now recognize our distinguished ranking member.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: Mr. Secretary, I think we can probably perceive the benefit of your additional points in the exchange we'll have --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Let's do that. If I could just conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read one impressive quote from General Jack Keane at his retirement, because I think this is a message to the world.
The general said that, "The foreign terrorists, the Ba'ath Party sympathizers, the extremists who wantonly kill Americans and innocent people from many nations have no idea what they're up against. They think they know us," General Keane said, "because they've heard of Lebanon in '83 or Somalia in '94 or the USS Cole in 2000. They think we are morally weak and we will lose our resolve. But their knowledge is superficial, and their understanding is shallow. To understand America and Americans," General Keane said, "they need to understand the Marne in 1918 or Tarawa in '43, Omaha beach in '44 or the Chosin Reservoir in 1950. They need to understand that a nation that producers Alvin York and Audie Murphy, John Pershing and George Marshall, Chesty Puller and George Patton, Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon produces heroes in every generation. They are out there now performing every day." And the general concluded, "Our enemies are cunning, but they are ignorant. And they're ignorance will be their undoing. They do not our will, our courage, or our character."
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. God bless those wonderful men and women who serve our country so well. And I thank this committee for the-and the Congress for the support you give them.
SEN. WARNER: Well, Mr. Secretary, we on this committee and, indeed, throughout the Senate share those beliefs about the men and women of the armed forces and have the highest regard for General Keane. I hope he's doing well.
General Myers?
GEN. MYERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin, members of the committee, once again I thank you for your unwavering support of our armed forces and, more specifically, our men and women in uniform as they fight this all- important war on terrorism.
As Chairman Warner said, I just returned from visiting Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly, the spike in violence that we've all seen in central Iraq over the last week is a challenge, no doubt about it. And we mourn every coalition soldier that we lose. But I can assure you today that we are as firm as ever in our resolve to help create a free, prosperous, a democratic Iraq. A violent minority, a small marginal minority cannot be allowed to defeat the hopes of the Iraqi people.
This is no popular uprising. This violence is a desperate attempt by frustrated, isolated groups such as the insurgents in Fallujah as described by Secretary Wolfowitz, and Sadr's thugs to derail the progress that we're making. According to recent polls, as Secretary Wolfowitz said, the majority of Iraqi people want Iraq to succeed. And they're positive about what the future holds, thanks in large part to the efforts of our servicemen and -women. I know you all are as proud as I am of how well they're performing. They are so tremendously dedicated. They understand their mission very well. They also understand what a huge difference that they're making.
And the contrast between our troops and the anti-coalition forces they're fighting couldn't be greater. In Fallujah we've seen the enemy unload weapons from ambulances, use mosques as operating bases, deliberately put children in the line of fire as human shields, and attack innocent civilians indiscriminately by firing mortars into marketplaces. Our servicemen and -women, on the other extreme, are going to extraordinary lengths to conduct the most humane operation they can. That means at times we accept greater risk in order to avoid civilian casualties.
Make no mistake, we are hitting the enemy very hard, and we are devastating them. But our troops are also very compassionate. Their strength of character in the end, I believe, will be a major factor in determining Iraq's future. I see the same thing in Afghanistan as well with 12 provincial reconstruction teams now working on security and civil affairs for the Afghani people.
Let me close by sharing a letter a member of my staff received from a private first class. This young man enlisted after one year of college. In fact, he was in college on an ROTC scholarship. But because after 9/11 he saw an opportunity to make a difference. He's now serving in one of the more dangerous areas in central Iraq. He describes how he went on a mission to look at the structural integrity of some of the bridges. In the course of the patrol they talked to many of the Iraqis, especially the children. And he had their medical corpsman take care of some of the children with medical problems. By the time they drove off, everyone in the town was smiling and waving at them. I'll quote, and here's what he said:
"What I'm trying to say to you guys is this"-and "you guys" are his parents-"we're making a difference here. An area smack-dab in the infamous Sunni triangle known for its ruthlessness is gradually, patrol by patrol, becoming safe and free."
Patrol by patrol. That means we still have a long way to go in this war beyond the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq, as Secretary Wolfowitz said, and elections in Afghanistan. But let's not forget that our troops are making a huge difference every day, and they know it. We're truly blessed with amazing men and women to do this important work, and I include in there their families, and for the reserve component, the Guard and the Reserve, the employers who support them so well. And again, I thank this committee for its strong support.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much, General.
Secretary Grossman.
MR. GROSSMAN: Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the committee, thank you all for the opportunity to testify before you today. And, Senator Warner, I thank you for putting my full statement in the record, and I'm pleased to summarize what I have to say, I hope in a short way.
Before I begin, let me add my voice to the committee's and to my fellows here on this table to pay tribute to all of those, military and civilian, who are today serving our country around the world, and specifically in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
And I also want to thank the committee for their support of the State Department, because without your support and without the Congress's support, we would not have been in a position a year ago, two years ago, to do what we have had to do in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I'll talk a little bit more about that. But I thank you in the very beginning for the strong support of the Congress for the secretary's goals in making the department an effective institution.
I also would like to say, as you did, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Levin, that we're delighted with the president's nomination yesterday of Ambassador Negroponte as our first ambassador to the new Iraq, and we look forward to his confirmation hearings and his confirmation by the Senate. And we thank you for your words of support to Ambassador Negroponte.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, in your letter of invitation to me, you asked me a series of questions about how the transition was going to go between CPA and a new embassy. And I wanted today to take a few minutes to talk about where we stand in that transition and try as specifically as I can to answer your questions.
First let me say that in my view, we have the guidance we need about how to do this; we have the direction we need about what we're supposed to do; and as I hope to convince you, we also have a plan about how to move forward between now and the 30th of June/1st of July, so that a U.S. embassy and a United States ambassador representing the United States of America are there to represent us in Iraq.
Our guidance, obviously, Mr. Chairman, as you have quoted, comes from the president. "Our central commitment," he said last Tuesday, "is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people on the 30th of June. It's important that we meet that deadline."
Our specific direction, as you can imagine, comes from Secretary Powell. And he has set as the goal of the State Department to make sure that we are ready to take on this responsibility on the 1st of July. And I might also say how proud we are of Lieutenant General Kicklighter and also Frank Ricciardone, who are spearheading this effort for us, and now Ambassador Negroponte will come and join us and add effort and add focus to the effort that we are making.
I can tell you that the secretary's involvement in our transition planning continues daily.
We send to the secretary each evening a report on what's gone on during the day to move issues forward. We're also sending him a weekly consolidated summary.
And to execute our plan, we have obviously been working closely with all of our interagency colleagues, not just DOD and JCS. We've consulted the Congress, with our allies, with our coalition partners. So people know what it is that we're doing and how it is that we are moving forward.
As an early step, and one of the I think very best ideas of Ambassador Ricciardone and General Kicklighter, the transition planning team sent out very expert people to Iraq to try to tell us what were the main sectors that needed to be dealt with in this transition. And they came up with 15, 16 sectors that we're now moving forward on every day, and these sectors are broken down into individual tasks or milestones. Every one of them need to be accomplished. And although we list on our major charts, 15 or 16 of these milestones, in fact the sectors relate to more than 500 milestones that we have. And just to show you that, we've got a series of charts that we're using to make sure that those with the responsibility to do these jobs are doing them.
And, Senator Warner and Mr. Levin, I would invite members of the committee or members of the committee staff to come and have a look at these. They're all on the web and at the State Department on our classified systems, and people are welcome to come and look at them at any time and see how it is that we are doing. There is a responsibility. There is a completion date. There is a desire to get these things done, and we intend to do them. It's obviously a living document. New issues come up each day. New responsibilities have to be assigned. But we are doing our very best to keep to this plan.
I'd like to take today, of these 15 or 16 items, four of them just to talk about briefly.
First, let me talk about people. State Department officers, as both Ambassador Wolfowitz and General Myers know, have been in Iraq from the very beginning with General Garner in ORHA and now under Jerry Bremer in CPA, and we have 170 people in Iraq today. And like Secretary Wolfowitz and General Myers, we are also immensely proud of our people's work that are being done in Iraq. And I can tell you that they have come from dozens of Washington agencies, dozens of missions overseas, foreign service, civil service, from brand-new officers to sitting ambassadors.
The question we are asking ourselves now is how big will this embassy be on the 1st of July, and one of the questions you asked me in your letter of invitation. We at the State Department have so far announced positions for 142 American employees and 155 locally engaged staff. In addition, Secretary Powell has written to all of his Cabinet colleagues, asking them to identify the contributions that they wish to make to this embassy. And to date, he's received 10 replies for requests for a presence in our mission in Baghdad for a total of 254 Americans and 280 locally hired personnel looking forward to the fiscal year 2005. Long term, because these 10 aren't the only people who will look for representation at the mission, we look for a total of between 350 and 400 permanently assigned Americans from probably 12 to 15 Cabinet agencies that will serve under the chief of mission in Iraq. And I'd also note that a number of people who work at CPA today we hope will also move under the embassy and allow us to continue with the great expertise that they have developed.
I can also report to you that, of this announced 142 positions for our new embassy at the State Department, we've had over 200 bidders on these jobs. We have not had any problem at all enticing people to be assigned to Iraq. And of the 142 positions that we've announced, we've assigned 97 people, another 32 are pending, and we will have all of these people assigned well in time to meet our obligations. And we also, Senators, are starting to begin the process to hire locally hired people, Iraqis, which is a big challenge as you might imagine. But we've hired our initial Iraqi employees and they are undergoing training here in Washington so they can help us then hire more.
Mr. Chairman, one of the questions that is around and was in your letter of invitation was what is going to be the responsibility of the American ambassador there, given the obviously large military role that will remain in Iraq after the 1st of July.
And I can tell you that the American ambassador, once confirmed by the Senate, will carry with him to Iraq a letter from the president, as all our ambassadors carry letters from the president, that spells clearly his authority. It will say that he, as the chief of mission and personal representative of the president, reporting through the secretary of State, will have full responsibility for the direction, coordination and supervision of all United States government executive branch employees in Iraq except those under command of a U.S. area military commander or on the staff of an international organization.
Of course, as Paul and I have talked about a lot, our ambassador and our military commanders will need to work very closely together. We do this around the world. We will be able to do this successfully in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, the second of these areas is security. Obviously, our top priority is security. It was our top priority before the last couple of weeks. It remains our top priority. And we've already begun the security upgrade of the planned interim embassy buildings and have selected a site for a future new embassy compound, based largely on security features. We've got 32 officers from the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service already in Iraq to define the mission's security requirements and begin to meet them, as well as to help protect CPA officers and visitors.
And as you know, Deputy Secretary Armitage and our assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security were in Iraq over the past few days to continue this consultation.
Iraq is, not just for our military colleagues but for us as well and for all of our civilian colleagues, a dangerous place to work. Our people know that. That is worth saying out loud. And protecting our people in a wartime environment's difficult, it's expensive, but we will continue to meet our responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, also, in terms of a building, I have laid out in my statement our plan for creating interim facilities for the 1st of July and then our plan for building an embassy after that. I just want you to know it's there, and I'm glad to talk about it. We're glad to consult about it at any time.
And then finally is the question of finances. How much is it going to cost? And do we have the money? And let me just share with you our current thinking on the financial resources needed to ensure a smooth transition to Embassy Baghdad and, if I could, just emphasize as much as can that the costs I report to you today are a snapshot. They're where we are on the 20th of April, because we've got some responsibilities to meet. And we believe that they will be costly, but we can meet them.
In order to open an embassy on the 1st of July, we've got to, as I said, meet basic security needs, technology needs, housing needs for our people. And so far the Congress has provided us money with which to do some of this job. We've got in FY '04 $97 million for an interim embassy facility and interim operations. In addition, we expect to have available in the fourth quarter a portion of the operating expense budget appropriated to the CPA-that's about $198 million-and, pursuant to the FY '04 supplemental, up to 1 percent of the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund which could be transferred, which is about $184 million.
We're also now working to determine the joint mission costs, which I would say to you are going to be in the range of $500 (million) to $600 million for the balance of fiscal year 2004, and how we'll allocate those costs among the various embassies.
And in addition, we're trying to figure out and look for the amount of money that we need to move forward to operate our mission in 2005, which could be on the order of a billion dollars. We're working closely with CPA, with the Defense Department, OMB to refine these estimates. We look forward to providing you as accurate information as we can. And we'll consult with you and your colleagues before anything is made final.
Mr. Chairman, I've talked in my statement a little bit about Iraq's transition to sovereignty. But I think Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz with his charts and comments has made many of the comments that I would have wanted to do, and also about the Iraqi interim government.
Might I just jump, if I could, to talk for a moment about what-the United Nations Security Council resolutions, since both you and the ranking member had raised this issue. And obviously, we are looking to go for another Security Council resolution. Both President Bush and Secretary Powell have discussed this. We're now in a conversation inside of the administration about what kind of resolution might be appropriate, how to go forward with it, when to go forward with it, and the possible elements of that resolution. As you both said in your statements, the new resolution should extend a hand to this new Iraqi government. It could also deal and regularize reconstruction activities, including the future of the Development Fund for Iraq, deal with the continuing need for security to enable the Iraqi people to complete the political process. It could encourage other nations, as you both said, to get involved on both security and reconstruction efforts, and a new resolution could structure a role for the United Nations in this new political framework, particularly in supporting progress towards elections.
Mr. Chairman, you both-and the ranking member talked about Afghanistan. Let me just be brief, if I could, about those two issues, since I think they are extremely important, and we do need to keep paying attention to them. We have tried to pursue a policy in Afghanistan that has to do with increased security, reconstruction and economic growth and the growth of constitutional, democratic and effective government. These things are all related. And as we move forward on one and have success on one, we believe that they will have positive-a positive outcome on the others. As you both said, the challenges in Afghanistan remain daunting, and we need to pay particular attention to them.
You asked me in your letter about elections. President Karzai announced that elections for the presidency and the lower house of parliament would take place in September. And we are doing all we can to support the United Nations effort to help the Afghans have a successful election. This announcement is consistent with the Afghan-with Afghanistan's new constitution, which said that these parliamentary and presidential elections ought to be held together. As you said, there was the Bonn agreement, there was the loya jirga of 2002, the constitutional loya jirga of 2004, and we believe that we can make progress here toward these elections.
The United Nations reports that about 1.8 million Afghans have registered to vote as of last week with registrations so far focused on urban centers, and the number will rise significantly as people reach out to other Afghans. I would say just parenthetically that 29 percent of registered voters are women, and that percentage is steadily rising. And over the past two weeks women have represented 39 percent of those registered.
Finally, a word about narcotics because, as you say, this is a great-this is a very important challenge to what we're doing in Afghanistan. Narcotics production and trafficking is probably the single most serious threat to our common mission in Afghanistan. And just as you and the ranking member said, all indicators point toward a significant increase in poppy cultivation this year, and we should make no bones about that. This is a real challenge that we are going to have to deal with. We're working with President Karzai. I know that you saw a couple of weeks ago at the Berlin conference he called for a jihad against drug trafficking. And we are doing all we can to fight this problem with him.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in the carve-up of responsibilities in Afghanistan, the United Kingdom has the lead on counter-narcotics initiatives. And between the United Kingdom and the United States, we now have a very comprehensive strategy to try to deal with some of this problem.
The United Kingdom's efforts started this month. Ours will start at the beginning of next month. We've put about 40 extra million dollars into a government-led eradication program. We're training teams to do eradication. And President Karzai has set himself the goal of eradicating 25 percent of the crop this year, and we want to help him succeed in meeting that goal.
Just let me end by saying that, although we've talked a lot about Iraq hear and Afghanistan has come at the end of your statement, the end of my statement, this is something we're paying tremendous attention to, and I'd be glad to talk about this and anything else in the question period.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We'll now proceed to a round of six minutes for each member.
My question is going to come down to one sentence, after I make a preliminary observation. What's the status of the American GI on the morning of July 1st? I'm going to assume that there's an Iraqi interim government in place following the procedures that you've alluded to today. I'd like to know what's the probability of the status of forces agreement likewise being in place, and what are the guidelines that will be followed in writing that up?
By way of background, I make the following observations: We're using interchangeably now the terms that on July 1, there will be a transfer of power to the Iraq interim government. Others, including the president, have said there will be a transfer of sovereignty. Well, the word sovereignty is pretty well carefully defined. It can mean everything. So I'd like to know who's going to give that GI the orders, and what is he expected to do?
Now, we have the TAL, Transitional Administrative Law, which says, as follows: Iraqi armed forces will be, quote, "a principal partner in the multinational force operating in Iraq under a unified command, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511." So I go to that. And that's very generalized. And by the way, that was dated 16 October, 2003, and an awful lot of developments have occurred since that time. But it generally says, "authorizes a multinational force under a unified command to take all necessary means to contribute to the maintenance, security and stability in Iraq," and so forth and so forth.
I think this has got to be updated and clarified. And to the extent that you can advise this committee this morning, and I put the question to all witnesses, who's going to give the orders to the security forces on July 30th (sic)? And should there be a difference of views between, say, the U.S. military commanders as to what should be done to meet whatever contingency may arise on July 30th (sic) and thereafter, who's going to reconcile those differences between the professional military and a brand new government who will have been in office for but a day?
Mr. Secretary, can you lead off?
MR. WOLFOWITZ: I will, and I'm sure that General Myers and Ambassador Grossman can supplement here. The question you ask, obviously, is a crucial on, and we've spent a lot of time studying it. I would emphasize, it's not a unique situation. We went through transition to a sovereign government in Afghanistan, as I noted earlier, in December of 2001. We've been operating with our forces in Bosnia with a sovereign government since the Dayton Accords of 1995.
And indeed, if you look around the world, there are many, many countries where you have sovereign governments and American forces under American military commanders, not least Korea.
Each one of these cases is different. In the case of Iraq, the principal authority is in fact the authority that you cited, provided by --
SEN. WARNER: I beg your pardon. What is --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Case of Iraq, the principal authority is the authority in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511, which creates a multinational force to provide for security of Iraq until a permanent constitutional government is established, which would be the end of next year, and that that force is under the command of an American commander.
As you also noted, the Transitional Administrative Law has the Iraqi Governing Council placing Iraqi forces under that command, as part of that command. In fact, Iraq is one of the most important if not the most important members of that coalition force. That provides enormous authority and discretion to our commanders. Should there be another U.N. Security Council resolution-I think Ambassador Grossman can comment on the likelihood; I think it's very likely-we would I assume either continue that authority or specify it in any further detail if it were necessary or useful.
Further, we have Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17 I believe it is that goes into more detail about the rights and privileges and immunities that pertain to foreign forces providing for security in Iraq.
And finally, after an elected government-transitional elected government takes power, takes office next January and --
SEN. WARNER: You know, we can-excuse me, Mr. Secretary. We can get to January. I'm still worried that, say, there's a major insurrection that occurs early on in July and our military commanders have to decide to the extent that force must be applied. And we've seen recently in the Fallujah operations where there's been some honest difference of opinion between members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the current governing body, and our military commanders as to the timing, the quantum and otherwise the use of force. Fortunately, as you say, Fallujah may be taking on a brighter status here if these negotiations continue to be fruitful.
But given military operations, you can't sit down and deliberate over an extensive period of time what to do. You've got to react and react very swiftly. And if you're going to give them sovereignty, and at the same time our military commander, as I believe you're saying, has the authority to make those decisions as to how to apply force, I see a basic conflict of interest here.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: But, Mr. Chairman, the issue, as I think your comment correctly implies, is political, not legal. We had that issue today with a different legal framework. The use of force in someone else's country is always got potential political ramifications and political controversy. We've had this on numerous occasions with President Karzai's government in Afghanistan. And the answer there is you have got to be prepared to discuss, to negotiate, and also at the end of the day to use the authority that is granted to us. That is-I would say describes the way we're proceeding in Fallujah. It's the way we will have to proceed until such time as the Iraq is fully in control of whatever forces are there.
(To General Myers.) General Myers, do you want --
SEN. WARNER: But the safety and welfare of the American GI may be at risk in a matter of hours if there's indecision and a lack of I think specific authority as to who can make what decisions.
General, can you address this?
GEN. MYERS: Sure, I can-I don't think I'm going to say anything different than what the secretary said, but there is nobody that believes, Iraqi or coalition, that on 1 July the security situation is going to dramatically change. It's going to be what it is --
SEN. WARNER: Correct.
GEN. MYERS: -- and it's going to go over.
SEN. WARNER: Let's hope it improves, that-that's a goal.
GEN. MYERS: Certainly. Certainly. But from 30 June to 1 July, we don't-there's not-there's not going to be a change to the security situation, nor in the responsibility of the coalition forces as outlined in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511, which is the basis for our action even today and will be the basis for action in the future if we don't get a new U.N. Security Council resolution. And I'll let Secretary Grossman speak to that.
The way we have structured our military forces for the post-1 July period is to have a partnership with Iraqi forces that goes from the tactical level all the way up to the political level in Iraq, to the Ministry of Interior, to the Ministry of Defense. The command and control, the command post that we'll have set up will be in partnership with our-with Iraqi security forces. And that's the way it's set up. I don't see a problem with our authorities right now, given the transitional administrative law, given the provisional-Coalition Provisional Authority mandates and the U.N. Security Council resolution we just talked about. Our forces will have the authority and the wherewithal to do what they need to do to provide security, as they must, for Iraq.
SEN. WARNER: So irrespective of the word "total sovereignty" or power going over, that-General Abizaid or his deputies can make the decision to use or not use force in their own judgment. They may consult the government, but it is their decision as to how, when and where to apply force.
GEN. MYERS: That's correct. And as I said, I mentioned the word "partnership" as this-as we proceed down this path, we want this to be more of a partnership. But in the end --
SEN. WARNER: But partners disagree, and you can't have a lot of disagreement.
GEN. MYERS: But-right. And-but I said in the end, or I was going to say in the end, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to do what we have to do.
SEN. WARNER: All right.
And Secretary Grossman, do you agree?
GEN. MYERS: And we think we have the authority to do that as well.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Just as we do in Afghanistan, for example, or in Bosnia.
MR. GROSSMAN: I have nothing to add except to say, as both have invited me to, I certainly believe we will be seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution, and one of the elements of it will be to see if we can not just maintain our authorities under 1511, but see if we can get others to join us in carrying them out.
SEN. WARNER: So we transfer sovereignty, but the military decisions continue to reside indefinitely in the control of the American commander. Is that correct?
GEN. MYERS: That's correct.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will submit for the record these points that I would have made.
SEN. WARNER: Correct. Did you have adequate time to reply to the important question raised by myself, Senator Levin and Senator Kennedy about that 700 million (dollars)? That's --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: If I could have a few more minutes, I would --
SEN. WARNER: I think I'll give you a minute or two, because it's very much on the minds of all of us.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: In the course of-that $750 million number comes from a set of tasks that CENTCOM put together in the summer of 2002 as things that they would want to have in the event of an Iraq contingency. The DOD comptroller looked at this list with a view to those things that were consistent with existing authorities in the supplemental appropriations of the global war on terror, and to distinguish between those and things which would be Iraq-specific, as I said.
After-based on that exercise, in August and September of 2002, 178 million (dollars) was made available to support CENTCOM's global efforts, including funding for communications equipment, fuel supplies, humanitarian rations and improvements to CENTCOM's forward headquarters. All the investments were designed to strengthen our capabilities in the region or support ongoing operational requirements. No funding was made available for those things that had Iraq as the exclusive purpose.
On October 11th, as you're well aware, Congress passed the Iraq resolution, and consistent with congressional statutory requirements regarding military construction activities, we did notify the Congress about $63 million in MILCON. And after October 25th, some $800 million was made available over the following months to support Iraq preparatory tasks, consistent with that joint resolution.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: Senator, I must say there are seven colleagues waiting. It is an important issue. Senator Levin and I will address the issue.
And may I also thank you for bringing up the question on the contractors. And General Myers, that's a matter that's before the committee for review right now, because they're providing an absolutely essential service not only to our security side but the logistics side. And we've got to do what we can, particularly those that have affiliation with the coalition partners --
SEN. REED: Mr. Chairman --
SEN. WARNER: Yes?
SEN. REED: I appreciate the fact-I apologize to my colleagues-this is an astounding statement by the deputy secretary of Defense, saying that if he wants us to get the information, he'll give it to us, but if he doesn't, he won't. And it's not for any legal --
SEN. WARNER: I -- (off mike) -- I interpret it that way --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: This not a personal thing, Senator Reed. You know-I think you know that there are issues about what documents are predecisional and what things need to be shared. Let's be clear. The Eikenberry report is something I did personally push for, because I thought it was important to have a thorough examination of this issue. And it was-it met some resistance because people are afraid sometimes to have things examined. I said-and I repeat-I will do my best, if I am permitted-it's not me personally-to make that report available to the Congress.
SEN. WARNER: We are now reviewing, Senator Levin and I, in the context of some requests by Senator McCain, the committee and others, as to how we're going to work out a smoother and a more understandable exchange of information --
SEN. REED: Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me for one moment?
SEN. WARNER: Yes.
SEN. REED: My understanding is that reports that are prepared by the Department of Defense are classified and that subject to those classifications, people have access to it. I assume we have a sufficient clearance level on this committee to have access to the report I'm talking about and probably everything that's prepared at the Department of Defense. If I'm in error --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Senator Reed, I'm going to do everything I can to get you the report. I just did not want to promise something I'm not sure I can deliver. I will do my best.
SEN. REED: Well, so --
SEN. WARNER: Senator Reed, we just simply have to move on, in fairness to my colleagues and your colleagues on both sides here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: I would just observe one of your responses, Secretary Wolfowitz: the sooner the Iraqi governments gets in, the sooner they can invite other nations to join. But let's make it clear from what you said, once they join and contribute forces, it's the commander in chief, the president of the United States that has control over the use of those forces, am I not correct?
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Absolutely. Can repeat it multiple times. It's very important.
SEN. WARNER: Everybody talks about giving sovereignty, and you look at the definition, it's everything. But it's sovereignty, but the security remains clearly within the control, as we've stated, with the president on down.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: Senator, we have to make it pretty brief --
SEN. ENSIGN: Okay, this is going to be a very brief question, and maybe I can get it in writing. Two quick questions, and I'll take the responses back in writing. One is on the oil-for-food program that we had and the corruption involved with the oil-for-food program. And it has to do with the countries that were involved at the United Nations security level with the oil-for-food program and the corruption that was involved, could we have at any time, in your opinion, gotten their support, ever? I mean, there is this talk of more internationalizing the efforts in Iraq. Could we have-was there any way to get their support?
And the second question has to do with the drug problem that we have going on in Afghanistan. I asked this-it was in a classified session, but it wasn't a classified question. I asked this last year on the drug problem in the support of terrorism. And last year there wasn't a lot of import put into this, and I thought at the time that it was one of the biggest problems that we had in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world in supplying the money to the terrorists. And at that time-as a matter of fact, it was not-there was not a lot of import put on the question. So I would like the response, whether it's in a classified response, I'm not sure, but the bottom line is how much money is being-from the drugs and also, you know, the complete strategy on how we're dealing and how aggressively that we're dealing with that.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you, Senator.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Can we reply for the record? But if I could make a quick comment on the first one --
SEN. WARNER: It's a very important question, and I associate myself with that question.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: -- and Mr. Grossman on the second one.
On the first one, just very quickly, I think the notion that I can't predict what France might have done if we had waited six months or 12 months or 18 months. But the notion that we wouldn't lose anybody by waiting is wrong-or at least not knowable. I think if we'd had this May 12 bombing in Riyadh not after the liberation of Iraq and after we were able to tell the Saudis we were finally going to take our Air Force out of Saudi Arabia, after 12 years of bombing Iraq out of Saudi Arabia, we might have had a very different result. We had some people who were with us in critical ways in that war who could have been shaken by any number of events. So the notion that if we had simply waited, we would have had more people, I think fails on both counts.
Ambassador Grossman might say something on the counternarcotics.
MR. GROSSMAN: If I might, just very quickly. First of all, I'd be glad to try to answer the question in specifics on the numbers because I think it's very important.
But I think you make an extremely important point, Senator, which is that drugs fuel terrorism. And I have testified in this committee on a number of times about what we're doing in Colombia. And two years ago, we started to call people what they are, which is narco- terrorists. And there is not a separation there. And around the world, as you say, particularly in Colombia, but I think again in Afghanistan, we will find there is this connection. And I'd be glad to answer the question, but it's something we take very seriously. And they're narco-terrorists and we ought to call them that.
SEN. ENSIGN: Just real quickly, Mr. Chairman. The reason I brought that up as a question is because-and my question last year is why aren't we going all out with the military against, for instance, in Afghanistan? We're more limited in what we can do in Colombia.
But we are not limited on what we can do in Afghanistan on these poppy fields. And obviously, we are limited in what we do with Pakistan. But once again, Afghanistan is someplace where we have our military there to affect a great deal of the drug trade. And I just didn't see a huge effort going toward that.
SEN. WARNER: I think that question needs to be answered. Now, I'm going to have to ask you to do it for the record --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: We'll do it for the record.
SEN. WARNER: -- because we've got colleagues --
MR. WOLFOWITZ: We are increasing our effort as --
SEN. WARNER: Well, I can't overemphasize the importance of that question, because I asked it when I was in Afghanistan just weeks ago.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: Well, senator, I'd like to also say I associate myself and I-earlier in this hearing my first question was on this question of sovereignty. The dictionary-this is a dictionary definition: "Supreme and independent power or authority in a state." And I think we-take note in this hearing of the concern of myself, the senator, and perhaps others. I think we should start using the term "limited sovereignty" at this time rather than kind of saying we're transferring sovereignty. I really feel strongly we could be raising expectations and problems in the future if we don't be careful right now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: Senator Clinton, I'd like very much to work with you on that issue of education. I share that.
SEN. CLINTON: Thank you.
SEN. WARNER: And I'll bring to your attention some interesting research I've done on the subject.
We're going to discontinue now this hearing-excuse me. Secretary Grossman, would you like to --
MR. GROSSMAN: If I might --
SEN. WARNER: Please do, sir.
MR. GROSSMAN: Senator, I apologize. I don't want to hold up the show here.
SEN. WARNER: No, no apology at all.
MR. GROSSMAN: But I hope that you might also take for the record some information I'd like to provide to Senator Clinton on what's going on, on women and girls, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
And I wasn't quick enough, after Senator Sessions spoke and General Myers responded, to just thank General Myers for noting the role of the State Department in the creation of the Iraqi police force. And I just wanted to let Senator Sessions know that we are committed to this, that we are committed to support that mission, that-are training people in Jordan, training we're doing in Iraq. The money that the Congress has given us-that's something that we want to absolutely support, and that's part of our mission as well, and I wanted you to know that.
SEN. WARNER: Fine.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
I say to my witnesses: Do you feel there's any issue that we've covered today-and we've covered a great many issues in what I think is an excellent hearing-that you felt that you needed another minute to address any particular point?
MR. WOLFOWITZ: I think one thing I'd like to do for Senator Levin is get back to him as quickly as I can first on his request for information that you said you'd been looking for for months and what I was trying to reconstruct from memory about those briefings, because I want to confirm that my memory --
SEN. WARNER: Fine. Well, I think you made that clear.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: Thank you. My quick roundup, I want to direct my thoughts to Secretary Grossman. I appreciate your joining us today.
This chart that's been displayed here: Could you tell us the extent to which the United Nations was involved in formulating that? Whether the Secretary General has-understandably Dr. Brahimi has indicated this is basically his format-has the Secretary General, so to speak, associated himself with the accuracy of this, and the extent to which the Security Council has reviewed this chart and, so to speak, gives their blessing to it?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, Senator, the chart, of course, comes from the transitional administrative law, which was designed by -- (inaudible) -- and so, no, that was not something that the United Nations was involved in.
SEN. WARNER: No, but it was adopted, I think by the --
MR. GROSSMAN: By the Governing Council.
SEN. WARNER: -- Iraqi Council, which --
MR. GROSSMAN: That's right. That's their job, and we were there-we obviously participated in that, but that's their document, and a good document.
That, the transitional administrative law then laid out this process. And then what you had after the transitional administrative law was the Iraqi Governing Council and the CPA write to the Secretary General of the United Nations, and say we need help. We need help here in putting together the interim government, and we also need some help and some advice on whether it's possible to have elections, as the TAL originally talked about.
As you know, Brahimi has been there-Ambassador Brahimi's been there a couple of times -- (inaudible) --
SEN. WARNER: Speak into your mike directly.
MR. GROSSMAN: I'm sorry.
SEN. WARNER: We're losing some of your voice.
MR. GROSSMAN: Ambassador Brahimi's been there a couple of times now.
SEN. WARNER: Right.
MR. GROSSMAN: And he'll go back in the beginning of May. As I said, Miss Perelli has been there to help on the election side. So, I think it would be fair to say-they have to speak for themselves-that everybody has essentially adopted this timeline. We'll have to wait and see when Ambassador Brahimi reports to Kofi Annan. He will come out and say, "Yes, you know, I accept this. My guys -- (inaudible) --
SEN. WARNER: So, that's important.
MR. GROSSMAN: Absolutely.
SEN. WARNER: That bridge has not been crossed yet.
MR. GROSSMAN: No, sir.
SEN. WARNER: And the Secretary General is reviewing this?
MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: Right.
MR. GROSSMAN: Ambassador Brahimi-just a technicality-is went to Italy after he was in Iraq, and he will be on his way to New York to make a report to the Secretary General.
SEN. WARNER: Correct.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Actually, Brahimi did help to negotiate details specifically on the point that the interim government doesn't have to be elected. As you recall, that was the big point of dispute between the governing council and Sistani.
SEN. WARNER: Right. That I understood. Now the Security Council, the extent to which they have given any views with regard to this.
MR. GROSSMAN: They have not given views --
SEN. WARNER: Have not.
MR. GROSSMAN: -- in regard to this yet. No.
SEN. WARNER: So, the use of this chart today is I think much clearer now in my view. And i want to make that distinction for the record.
Lastly, Secretary Grossman, this issue which a number of us have raised about the use of the word "sovereignty", and I think-if I'm not mistaken-I followed the president's press conference the other day very carefully. I believe he used the word "sovereignty" without any qualifications.
Do you have some concern that expectations could be raised unduly if we don't start using phraseology which indicates very clearly that-limited sovereignty at this time or some-something, because I do not find that what we're doing is consistent with the dictionary definition nor with the common acceptance of the term "sovereignty" in international law.
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, you asked us to take seriously what this committee has said today, and we certainly will. But I think what Paul said earlier in response to a question is right, which is to say that there is limited sovereignty in Iraq, certainly, on the 1st of July. It's limited by the transitional -- (inaudible) -- law and it's also --
SEN. WARNER: All right, but you have to use the word "limited."
SEN. LEVIN: Limited by what?
MR. GROSSMAN: By the Transitional Administrative Law and also by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511. And it seems to me-now, my opinion about this is, is Iraqis, near as I can tell, have a vision for where they'd like to take their society, and they realize they can't get to that vision without security, and they can't get to security without the support of the coalition. So that's --
SEN. WARNER: I concur in that totally. I just think that in the use of the term on what's happening on the 30th, we'd be wise to employ some equivocation-or maybe not equivocation, but some limitation on what the sovereignty is.
MR. GROSSMAN: I take your point.
SEN. WARNER: Fine. Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, on whether the TAL binds a sovereign government, are you saying that the agreement that was arrived at without a sovereign Iraqi government being involved is binding on a sovereign-limited or otherwise-Iraqi government?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, we certainly believe that it's binding on the government that will take over on the 1st of July.
SEN. LEVIN: Okay. Could you give us the legal opinion on that? I think it is very important. These questions about-because it affects our status of forces, among other things, also the Iraqi group, the survey group, but a lot of other things. Could you give us the legal opinions on this issue that a number of us have raised as to whether or not a sovereign government in Iraq is bound by the TAL, is bound by-and whether the U.N. resolution relative to the force that is there protects our force after July 1st to take whatever military action we determine is appropriate, despite what the wishes could be of a sovereign government? I think we need to get the legal opinions that support this.
SEN. WARNER: Those are the points that we've made.
SEN. LEVIN: And for myself, I hope it's true, by the way, okay? So I'm not questioning the --
SEN. WARNER: Wisdom of the --
SEN. LEVIN: -- the sufficiency or the wisdom, but we've got to be comfortrable that our forces in fact have that kind of power and are not going to be restricted by a sovereign government. Otherwise, there's going to be a limbo, there's going to be a period of great uncertainty which our troops should not be confronted with.
SEN. WARNER; And I'd simply add, should there be some disagreement as to the conduct of, say, an individual soldier or military person, what recourse could be taken against them, and how we're going to protect them in the performance of their duties.
And while, General, you say quite appropriately the Iraqi army then becomes a partner, I would hope that they would not be issuing any orders. I'm not sure what partnership means when it comes to the military. I want to make certain that U.S. commanders and, to the extent the British commanders are associated in that chain of command, and coalition commanders, that is the chain. And when we introduce the Iraqi army as a partner, I think we need clarification exactly what that would mean on the command chain.
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Mr. Chairman, we'll get you that information. I think it's very important to have clarity, and I appreciate the opportunity.
I think it's also important to be clear this is not something brand new. I mean, we have a similar situation in Afghanistan. The government, the sovereign government of Bosnia has been constrained by Dayton ever since it was established.
And in the-I don't want to make too much comparison-these are different situations-but with our NATO allies and with Korea, there are obviously provisions in wartime that transfer the military command to U.S. commanders.
SEN. WARNER: Fine. And I just want to make certain that those protections are in here because you can use those as examples, and in the 25 years I've been here I've worked through almost all of those situations. But here we got one hundred-plus thousand Americans involved, and it is exceedingly important-and a level of insurrection which is most regrettable at this point in time, and no certainty that that's going to cease and desist on the 30th of June.
SEN. LEVIN: Would you include in that, please, what did the president mean, then, when he said the other night that we would be negotiating the status of forces agreement with the new sovereign government on July 1? What did he mean by that? If we already have a status of forces agreement under U.N. resolution and under the TAL, then what does that mean when he said that? If you could include that, it would be helpful.
SEN. WARNER: My own view is I hope a lot of this is rewritten carefully, not to rely on the U.N. resolution of October 3rd, 2003; that we really have a new resolution that will bring greater clarity to this entire situation of status of forces and what degree of sovereignty Iraq will have on the 30th of June.
Thank you very much. We'll now go upstairs to 222. (Sounds gavel.)