Opening Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Situation in Iraq

Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen

April 10, 2008 -- "Welcome, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. We appreciate your willingness to appear before the Committee this afternoon, and we thank you for your dedication and service.

The issue before us isn’t whether or not we want to succeed in leaving Iraq stable and secure. We all seek that goal. The question is how to maximize the chances of success, and whether the course we are on is the right one.

Marines with 3rd Battalion 8th Marine Regiment sleep at Combat outpost Hawk: Photo by USMC

Since the beginning of this conflict, we’ve tried repeatedly to get this Administration to change course and put responsibility on the Iraqi leaders for their own future since all agree that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict. The Administration, however, has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis.

In January 2007, President Bush said in announcing the surge that “the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November” of 2007. Clearly the Iraqis have not taken the lead on security “in all of Iraq’s provinces.” As of March, 2008, the Iraqi Government had not assumed security responsibility for the most populous provinces, and as the fighting in Basrah demonstrated, Iraqi security hold in provinces for which it is responsible is tenuous at best.

In February of this year, Secretary Gates said that there was within the Department “a broad agreement that the drawdown should continue” as the added pre-surge brigades left. Secretary Gates in his written statement to the Committee this afternoon refers to a period of consolidation and evaluation as a “brief pause.” That stands in direct contrast to what General Petraeus said to this Committee two days ago. Under questioning, General Petraeus pointedly refused to use either “brief” or “pause” to describe how long reductions might be suspended under the approach he recommended.

General Petraeus’ recommendation was that there be “a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation” beginning in July, which will then be followed by a “process of assessment” which will determine, “over time,” when he can make recommendations for further reductions. In September, in other words, a period of assessment will just begin. General Petraeus repeatedly refused to estimate how long this assessment period would last, or how low U.S. troop levels in Iraq might be by the end of the year, even if all goes well.

What recommendation did President Bush adopt a few hours ago – General Petraeus’ open-ended approach or Secretary Gates’ brief pause? The answer is – General Petraeus – since the President said General Petraeus “will have all the time he needs” and even went so far as to say that “Some have suggested that this period of evaluation will be a pause. That’s misleading….”

In summary, instead of continuous reductions beyond pre-surge levels or even a brief pause, what President Bush did this morning is reinforced our open-ended commitment in Iraq, by suspending troop reductions in July for an unlimited period of time.

The Administration’s current policies are perpetuating Iraq’s dependency on the United States politically, economically, and militarily and take the pressure off the Iraqis to reach a political solution. The Administration has repeatedly expressed its unconditional support for the excessively sectarian government of Prime Minister Maliki. Key legislation for reconciliation – including a hydrocarbon law, elections law, and amendments to the constitution – have not been passed, and the success of other laws will depend on their implementation.

Our continuing funding of Iraq’s reconstruction makes utterly no sense, particularly in light of Iraq’s cash surplus resulting from the export of two million barrels of oil a day. Prior to the start of the Iraq war, the Administration told Congress that Iraq would be able to “finance its own reconstruction” through oil revenues in fairly short order.

Five years later, the U.S. taxpayers have paid at least $27 billion for reconstruction activities while Iraq has reaped the benefits of skyrocketing oil prices. Iraq now has tens of billions of dollars in surplus funds in their banks and in accounts around the world, including about $30 billion in U.S. banks. Furthermore, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Iraqi Government budgeted $6.2 billion for its capital budget in 2006 but spent less than a quarter of it.

The President said today that “Iraqis in their recent budget would outspend us on reconstruction by more than 10 to one.” However, as of August 31, 2007, according to the Government Accountability Office, the Iraqi Government had spent only a fraction of its $10.1 billion capital budget for 2007. Senator Warner and I wrote to the Government Accountability Office on March 6 asking the Comptroller General to look into why the Iraqi Government is not spending more of its oil revenue on reconstruction, economic development and providing essential services for its own people.

Ambassador Crocker told this Committee on Tuesday that quote “the era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure projects is over” and the U.S. is no longer “involved in the physical reconstruction business.” However, as of last Thursday, the U.S. government is paying the salaries of almost 100,000 Iraqis who are working on reconstruction. And listen to this, and while Crocker was saying that and the President said today that “American funding for large scale reconstruction projects is approaching zero”, just this week the Committee received a notice that the Department of Defense intends to increase U.S. funding for reconstruction for the year by over 50% by reallocating $590 million of Iraq Security Forces Funds previously designated for training, equipping and sustainment of the ISF. The increased funding would be used, for example, to build 55 new police stations. I sent a letter to Secretary Gates earlier today requesting that the Department of Defense notice of its plan to use U.S. taxpayer money to pay for Iraqi reconstruction be withdrawn.

Supporters and critics of the Iraq war may disagree over much of the Administration’s policies, but can’t we at least agree that Iraq – a country awash in cash even as oil tops $110 a barrel – should be using the resources they have to pay for their own reconstruction? I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon."

Source: Senator Carl Levin

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •