Senator Carl Levin Opening Statement at Hearing on Iraq with General David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker

Article continues below...

September 11, 2007 -- Senator Carl Levin: Today we welcome General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for an update on the situation in Iraq.

We thank you for your service to our country under very difficult circumstances. We ask you both to pass on our heartfelt thanks to the men and women you lead in this endeavor, particularly those who risk their lives on a daily basis. While people here have differing views of the war and will continue to vigorously debate the strategy, tactics, and policies relating to that war, we are united in our admiration and appreciation for those who serve there, and for the families who love and support them.

The assessments we will hear today follow other important assessments, including the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, and the reports of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq and of the General Accounting Office on the Iraqi Government’s performance with regard to legislative, security and economic benchmarks it has set for itself.

There is much disagreement relative to the facts on the ground in Iraq on the issue of whether the surge has produced significant progress in terms of security. Recent public polls in Iraq indicate that Iraqi citizens feel even less secure than before. According to an ABC News analysis, “the surge broadly is seen to have done more harm than good, with 65 to 70 percent [of Iraqis] saying it's worsened rather than improved security in surge areas, security in other areas, conditions for political dialogue, the ability of the Iraqi government to do its work, the pace of reconstruction and the pace of economic development.” Is Baghdad actually safer for citizens to go about their normal business, or are large sectors of Baghdad, and electricity and fuel distribution, controlled by the Mahdi Army and neighborhood militias as detailed in The New York Times last Sunday?

While the facts relating to security are debated and are debatable, there seems to be little dispute on three key points that go to the heart of the matter:

First, the stated purpose of the surge – to give Iraqi politicians breathing space to work out a political settlement – has not been achieved.

Second, there will be no end to violence until Iraqi national leaders work out their political differences. As the Jones Commission reported last week: “Political reconciliation is the key to ending sectarian violence in Iraq.”

And third, the Iraqi politicians haven’t done that. They haven’t kept the commitments they made a year ago to set the date for provincial elections, to approve a hydrocarbon law, to approve a de-Ba’athification law, and to submit constitutional amendments to a referendum.

General Petraeus said three years go that Iraqi political leaders were “stepping forward,” leading their country “courageously,” and “making progress,” in his words. Well, if they were, progress sure has stalled politically.

Ambassador Crocker is telling Congress that Iraqi leaders have the “will to tackle the nation’s pressing problems” and “approach the task with a deep sense of commitment and patriotism” even though they ignore their own benchmarks, and he inappropriately compares Iraq’s sectarian strife and slaughter to our “civil rights movement.”

So, the Administration’s message to Iraqi leaders continues to be that they are doing just fine. That is the exact wrong message to send to Iraqi leaders who dawdle while their nation is torn apart by sectarian strife, and while their people are killed and forcibly ejected by sectarian militias or killed if they refuse to be ethnically cleansed. The Iraqi politicians dawdle while our casualties and our expenditures keep climbing.

GAO told us last week that most of the key promises of Iraq’s political leaders – the benchmarks they set for themselves with relevant timetables – have been ignored by those leaders.

On January 14, 2007, President Bush said, “America will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks it has announced.” Those words ring hollow – there have been no consequences for the Iraqi political leaders’ failures to do what President Bush said they must do.

Year after year, the Administration has touted progress in Iraq along with calls for patience. It has been a litany of delusion. Just listen to President Bush’s repeated claims of progress:

In October of 2003, President Bush stated: “We’re making progress about improving the lives of the people there in Iraq.”

On September 25, 2004, the President said: “We’re making steady progress in implementing our five-step plan....”

On October 28, 2005, the President said: “Iraq has made incredible political progress....”

On May 25, 2006, the President said: “We’re making progress on all fronts.”

On March 19, 2007, the President said: “There has been good progress.”

And on July 4, 2007, the President said: “Victory in this struggle will require more patience....”

There has been little progress on the political front, and the American people’s patience with Iraq’s political leaders has run out. Success in Iraq depends on Iraqi leaders finally seeing the end of the open-ended U.S. commitment. Success depends on doing what James Baker, Lee Hamilton, and the rest of the Iraqi Study Group said we should do a year ago: “the United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq” and “if the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.”

Success also depends on a transition of missions. According to the Iraq Study Group, “by the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue.”

Finally presenting Iraq’s political leaders with a timetable for transition of our forces from mainly combat to mainly support roles, as opposed to a timetable for ending the surge, which is a fact of life which was going to happen by necessity anyway, is the only hope that Iraqi leaders will realize that their future is in their hands – not in the hands of our brave men and women who proudly wear America’s uniform. Establishing a timetable for the transition of missions will also recognize another fact of life – that the stress on our forces, especially the wear and tear on the Army and Marines, must be reduced.

Telling the Iraqis the surge will end by the middle of next year, and then we will make a decision as to whether to reduce our troop level from the basic pre-surge level of 130,000, does not change our course. It presents an illusion of change to prevent a real change of course from occurring – it is aimed at taking the steam out of the engine of change. I hope that we aren’t deterred from continuing to press for true change and that the momentum for a true change of course is not defused. It must continue until by our deeds we get the Iraqi political leaders to understand that for our security and theirs, the American presence in Iraq needs to be significantly reduced after four and a half years of U.S. sacrifice, and that the future of their country is in their own hands.

Again I welcome and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Source: Office of Carl Levin