Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Iraq Report Card
Aired September 10, 2007 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HUGH RIMINTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Can the Philippines afford to lose so many doctors?
DR. RODEL NODORA, HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES: Well, essentially, no.
RIMINTON (voice over): Dr. Rodel Nodora is the government point man in stemming the flow, but he admits the plan chiefly involves offering scholarships for training tied to 10 years' service afterwards. Already he says some hospitals are running for a year at a time without ever seeing a doctor.
NODORA: No doctors are going on duty. Imagine that. I mean, this is a hospital setup and there are no doctors. Only nurses.
RIMINTON: But a few do buck the trend. Dr. Dovid (ph) came back from the U.S. after just five months of nursing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Being a nurse is a good job. Being a nurse is a noble job. But in my case, I prefer to be a doctor. I love being an anesthesiologist.
RIMINTON: Pediatrician Josefina Salcedo admits the only thing that stopped her going was her son's refusal to leave his friends. So, she's changed her approach, cutting her earnings still further to attend to more of the desperately poor patients from Manila's shantytowns, and she says she's happy.
DR. JOSEFINA SALCEDO, PEDIATRICIAN: Aside from earning, I also give something back to these people, to my country, to help these needy.
RIMINTON: The Philippines will have to find many more like her to prevent a generation growing up here without a doctor in sight.
Hugh Riminton, CNN, Manila.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everybody. I'm Heidi Collins.
"YOUR WORLD TODAY" is being preempted today now for a fourth hour of CNN NEWSROOM.
It is Monday, September 10th. Here's what's on the rundown.
Grading the troop buildup. The president's top military men in Iraq on Capitol Hill right now this hour, trying to convince Congress he needs more time.
Political wildcard -- why hasn't the Iraqi government done more to unify the splintered country?
Payoff question -- when will U.S. troops leave the war zone?
A crucial day in the fight for Iraq, in the NEWSROOM.
The Iraq war at a crossroads on Capitol Hill. This hour, the war's top American commander delivering a long-awaited assessment and facing a lot of skepticism.
CNN Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash setting the stage for us first.
Dana, what kind of reception will General Petraeus get today?
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly a skeptical one, Heidi. And General Petraeus is actually here already on Capitol Hill. He went into the room where that will be his stage, the stage that many people here, most people here in Congress, have been waiting months and months for.
It certainly was anticipated to be a very pivotal moment. There are -- I'm not far from where the room is right now. There are -- there's a very long line of some anti-war protesters, and also just everyday Americans waiting to get in. In fact, there's an overflow room there's so many people here to see this -- this event.
However, having said that, from what we hear in terms of what General Petraeus is expected to say, that he does see some progress and is not recommending a major change in strategy now, this is not going to be the September politically that most people here in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, had anticipated in terms of that pivotal moment. Already, we are seeing the battle lines politically being drawn, Heidi.
Democrats before General Petraeus is even talking are questioning the statistics that he's using, saying that he's cherry-picking them. And essentially trying to downplay the impact of this testimony here today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JANICE SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: Right now what I think we're seeing is a dog and pony show. And the good news is that a lot of people, unlike the lead-up to the war in the first place, aren't buying it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now, there you see sort of the general theme among Democrats, trying to attack the numbers, if you will, and the assessment, not necessarily the man in General Petraeus. But there is an ad, a full-page ad in the newspaper, "The New York Times" today, by the anti-war group, MoveOn.org. And you can see it says "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the Books for the White House".
That is the kind of personal attack that most Democratic leaders were trying to avoid. And privately they say they are not necessarily happy with this.
Republicans are seizing on this big time. We have gotten a slew of statements from Republicans essentially trying to make the point that Democrats aren't even giving this general a chance and that this ad from this anti-war group proves it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MINORITY LEADER: I also resent the comments of those who sat comfortably in their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away from the firefights and the roadside bombs, and tried their Washington best in recent days to impugn the general's good name. These childish tactics are an insult to everyone fighting for freedom in Iraq and they really should be condemned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: So there you have the political dynamic that General Petraeus is about to step into when he goes before a lot of House members, dozens and dozens of House members, because this, of course, is going to be a joint hearing with the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee. This, again, was not exactly what people anticipated in terms of whether or not this would be a make-or-break testimony in terms of the president's strategy, but certainly we're going to hear some tough questions from Democrats and skeptical Republicans as well -- Heidi.
COLLINS: Yes, Dana. Something interesting, too, a little bit earlier on our air that I heard Duncan Hunter say, who was on "AMERICAN MORNING," along with Rahm Emanuel. And you mentioned the statistics and Democrats questioning them, and he said something to the effect, you know, in the beginning the Democrats were asking that the president really listen to his generals for the first three years of this war, and now it seems like, at least in his mind, that now they are saying don't listen to this general.
Is there more talk of that, or does it seem like that's something that's at the heart of at least what we're going to see today?
BASH: It is at the heart of what we're going to see today. And you're exactly right. That's why if you listen to what Democrats are saying, the kind of message that they're trying to get across here is they are trying to say this isn't necessarily General Petraeus or even the testimony that he's going to give that is at issue as far as they're concerned. It is the Bush plan.
It is the Bush Iraq strategy that is at issue. That's why you hear them use the term "The Bush Report," not necessarily the Petraeus report.
And that is why they want to make abundantly clear that they believe that the statistics that are coming out, that the report that is coming out, is coming from the administration, not necessarily the general. That may be hard to sell, especially if you look at today's polling that came out in "The New York Times". It showed that almost 70 percent of Americans think that the general is the right person to dictate what happens with our strategy on the ground in Iraq.
COLLINS: All right.
CNN's Dana Bash reporting for us this morning.
Dana, I know you'll be watching closely. We'll continue to get live pictures in of those proceedings so far today.
Meanwhile, we want to get to the political implications of today's Iraq progress report. For that we go to our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, along with senior political correspondent Candy Crowley.
Candy, let's begin with you. What are we going t see today?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think we may be seeing more of the same. I think Dana is exactly right. This may not prove to be the pivotal moment that everyone thought it would be.
If General Petraeus says what we believe he will say, which is we need to do this for several more months until the spring, this puts some Republicans in a real dilemma. Obviously, the election year is fast coming. There is unrest within the Republican Party.
That is really the audience here from the Bush administration's point of view and from the Democrats' point of view. It is those Republicans who might join Democrats in some kind of timetable or some sort of forcing the president's hand. It is those Republicans that everyone is looking at right now to see how they might be swayed by this Petraeus report.
COLLINS: All right, Candy. Thanks for that.
And Bill Schneider standing by as well. Some new polling numbers here to tell us about, Bill. What do you have?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. Well, in our CNN poll, we asked Americans, "Do you trust the top U.S. commander to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it is?" And 53 percent said no.
And, in fact, today, the Gallup poll released a poll with almost exactly the same result -- "Do you think that General Petraeus' report will be independent and objective, or will it be a biased report that reflects what the Bush administration wants the public to believe?" And in their poll, also 53 percent said that they expect this to be a biased report.
That suggested there's a lot of skepticism in the public about the objectivity of General Petraeus' report. You noticed Dana said that Americans trust the military 70 percent. Well, the question is by "The New York Times" is, who do you trust more, the military or Congress or President Bush? Well, in that choice, people trust the military. But when asked directly about the report they're about to hear, the public is about to hear, I would say the public is very skeptical.
COLLINS: All right. CNN's political analyst, Bill Schneider, for us as well this morning.
Bill, thank you for that.
Also want to talk a little bit about military objectives and political maneuvering in all of this. They seem to be intertwined. I want to go and check at the Pentagon now with CNN's Barbara Starr.
Barbara, we are all waiting to hear exactly what he's going to say. I think some of the headlines here that we already at least know a little bit about are he's going to be asking for more time.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think he will, in part, ask for more time, Heidi, as conditions unfold on the ground in Iraq over the next several weeks and months.
Really underlying all of this, after we get done talking about the numbers, the numbers of attacks, the numbers of troops, all the statistics, underlying all of this is General Petraeus' assessment of risk. What is the risk to Iraq? What is the security situation? How much risk can be tolerated? How many troops can come home without risking security on the ground?
We understand from our sources that General Petraeus will say, depending on circumstances on the ground one year from now, he expects the surge to be over. They will have withdrawn the 30,000 troops that they brought in in February for the security operation.
What will be critical is, will it be any more than that from now? Will there be fundamentally a real reduction in forces a year from now?
And as for the reduction in the surge, when will he begin it? When will he say the risk is acceptable to the security situation to bring some of the troops home that are part of the surge force?
There is one calculation out there that certainly calls -- that they have looked at for starting to bring the troops home before April, when they had expected to start bringing them home. I think people in the military will be watching very carefully for that specific question. Will he be able to slide forward the surge withdrawal 30 days, 60 days, 90 days? Could any of the troops be home by Christmas?
That's what people are going to be looking for -- Heidi.
COLLINS: Yes. And as you mentioned the military families and so forth, too, we know a lot of the men and women have been there for 15- month tours or more, the time that they are able to spend at home between deployments, because as you well know, many of them serving two, three, four different times. It seems to be decreasing, the amount of time they can spend at home. Those military families are going to be waiting to hear about the plan obviously as well.
STARR: Well, absolutely. And, you know, everyone characterizes General Petraeus as, you know, he will focus today solely on giving his best military advice. Make no mistake, he understands the environment in which he is operating, the political environment on Capitol Hill, the need to send a political signal to the Iraqi government that U.S. troops are not going to be there forever. And fundamentally, back here in the Pentagon, what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been saying behind the scenes.
The troops are exhausted. The troops are doing 15-month tours on the ground, on the front line. Many of them now on their second or third tours in Iraq.
This is just something that the entire U.S. military says can't go on. There's a lot of pressure to bring the troops home, let them rest, recuperate, and retrain for any future military operations.
One of the things that the Joint Chiefs have been saying behind the scenes is, you cannot have the war in Iraq break the back of the U.S. military. Who knows what may come up next? And they're very concerned about that.
Those are all the tradeoffs. Those are all the risks that General Petraeus well knows. He will give his best military advice about the war in Iraq. That is his number one priority, but he does understand the environment he's operating in -- Heidi.
COLLINS: Understands it very well.
All right. CNN's Pentagon correspondent for us this morning, Barbara Starr.
Actually, I should say not this morning, this afternoon now, at 12:13.
Thanks so much, Barbara, to you.
And count on CNN throughout the day to bring you the best coverage and analysis of the Iraq war progress report. We're about 15 minutes or so away from the beginning of these hearings.
And even when you're not in front of your television, you can still watch the hearings live on your computer. Just go to CNN.com. You will find live coverage throughout the day.
ANEESH RAMAN, CNN MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT: I'm Aneesh Raman live in Baghdad. Capitol Hill is just moments away from hearing about the situation in Iraq. The view from the ground, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: The case for war in Washington cause for concern in Baghdad. This week could shape the future of U.S. involvement in the country.
CNN's Aneesh Raman is live in Baghdad now.
Aneesh, what does this hearing that we are going to see in the matter of about, oh, 10 minutes or so mean for Iraq's leadership?
RAMAN: Yes, Heidi, good afternoon.
It will add to the pressure Iraq's government already faces to find compromise on key issues. We heard from Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki this morning speaking to parliament. He stressed he needs more time to build up the numbers and capability of Iraq's security forces.
What he didn't mention is that he needs more time to put his own political house in order. His support within the government has been vanishing over the past few months. According to officials I'm speaking with, he has a tenuous, at best, relationship with many of the major political parties. And he's presiding over a country with uneven progress.
Yes, there has been a decrease in violence in Anbar province, in Baghdad. But keep in mind, just last month was the single deadliest attack since the war began. More than 400 people killed in the northern province of Nineveh. And just a few weeks ago, close to 60 people killed in Shia-on-Shia violence in the city of Karbala.
So, expectations are high on this government to come through, make compromise on key issues like de-Ba'athfication, oil revenue- sharing, provincial elections. They said at the end of August they had a roadmap towards that. Parliament yet to take any action -- Heidi.
COLLINS: Well, we've also heard Nuri al-Maliki say that the surge is working. Any talk of that strategy changing, then?
RAMAN: Yes, he's grabbed hold of the success that has been seen in Anbar and in Baghdad, a decrease in violence. The issue, though, is that even when you look at the Al Anbar province, the area where the Sunni population has been divided against al Qaeda, we spoke to a sheikh in Falluja who commands directly some 3,500 fighters that are now explicitly backed by the American military. The problem is all but a fourth of them are not under the Iraqi security force fold. So, they're in the middle.
You have al Qaeda decreasing in prominence and in effectiveness, but you don't have Iraqi security forces replacing them. In the south, you have Shia militias in a large part controlling those areas.
So, for the prime minister, the surge success he understands will end at some point. The numbers will have to go down. And there's no credible evidence Iraq's government or security forces are ready yet to step into that void -- Heidi.
COLLINS: All right. CNN's Aneesh Raman reporting live for us from Baghdad this afternoon.
Aneesh, thank you.
And that progress report on Iraq getting lots of attention around the world, as you might imagine. We're going to check in with Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour. She's coming to us from London today.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Jamie McIntyre at the CNN Iraq Fact Check Desk. We're going to be scrutinizing what General Petraeus says. I'll tell you how we're going to do it, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The rest of the world also watching today's testimony on Capitol Hill.
Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour is in London now to give us a little bit more perspective on what people are thinking across the world.
Christiane, the fact that the so-called surge seems to be showing some sort of progress, some movement on the ground, I wonder, what does the rest of the world think? What do they see happening in Iraq?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in short, they're very worried, because they see, as, in fact, General Petraeus himself admits in an open letter to his own troops ahead of this report on Congress, that, yes, they are making some progress in some areas. He's said to his own troops, we have the ball and we're driving it down the field. But in short, we are a long way from our goal.
They are happy, of course, the change at the moment in the Anbar province, which used to be the most dangerous. But it's now much more safe because some of the sheikhs and would-be insurgents have switch sides and joined the U.S. against al Qaeda. But then they see at other parts of Iraq how sort of as the surge is squelching some activity in some parts of Iraq, it's sort of coming up and showing itself in other parts, the violence. So, around the world people are looking at that and wondering how this is going to proceed.
The British themselves, who are the main coalition partners of the United States, have withdrawn their troops from a high of 30,000 during the war and the immediate aftermath of the war to now less than 5,000, and they have withdrawn completely from the urban area they were responsible for, Basra in the south. And they are at an air base. And, of course, that's being carefully looked at as to see the effect of that and what that might mean for the future.
But in short, the rest of the world is exceptionally anxious. Leaders in the region do not think that there can be potentially any progress. They are very concerned about this administration. They feel that it's a lame-duck administration, and they are very concerned about the future of Iraq, because it has massive ripple effects in this whole region.
COLLINS: Christiane, as we're talking to you, I just want to let everybody know what we are seeing on the other side of the screen there. We now see General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, Ambassador Crocker, sitting down at the table. Waiting for them to begin their testimony here today in front of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee. That will begin in just a few minutes.
Just want to let everybody know what they are looking at, those live pictures coming in to us there.
Christiane, talk for a moment, if you would, about the international community and their view of the Iraqi government. There's been so much talk about this military progress that we might be seeing, but very, very little political progress. Iraqis, are they stepping up to the plate?
AMANPOUR: Well, again, if you remember, the justification by President Bush for the surge was to allow space for the political process, for political reconciliation and real representative, effective government to be able to take hold. Well, again, General Petraeus has said in his open letter -- and it's plain for everybody to see -- that they -- this has not happened as they hoped it would happen.
In other words, the surge was meant to give the space for a top- down, reordering of the political process. That has not been possible. And the American military, namely General Petraeus and the diplomat there, the ambassador, Ryan Crocker, have essentially had to do an end run around the Iraqi government and build a sort of bottom- up solution if they can to this process. In other words, going to the sheikhs in Anbar, trying to reach out to different political parties and trying to solve this situation, or at least make it slightly better in a bottom-up kind of way, as opposed to what was envisaged when the surge was first authorized and implemented as a top-down Iraqi government situation that could really kick in and provide the necessary change.
In the region, the people and leaders in the rest of the region are looking on with great fear and anticipation and a great deal of anxiety. For many of America's Sunni allies, the failure of the Shia- dominated government is causing a great deal of distress in the region, while for the Iranians, of course, who support the Shia- dominated government, this is an opportunity for them to have their own allies in power.
But the continued destabilization is not something that is looked upon with any glee in any quarters in terms of its effect that it's having on the rest of the world. Of course, some say that the Iranians are able to profit from the -- from the -- from the essential political morass there, but in general, this is something that's been looked upon with -- with increasing gloom in terms of a political solution there.
COLLINS: CNN's Christiane Amanpour bringing us some insight from the international community and how they see things in Iraq as we continue to look at these live pictures now -- Christiane, thanks so much to you -- coming in to us.
As we already know, that General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are seated at the table. They will begin their testimony here in just a matter of minutes.
And while we wait and see those pictures into a very, very crowded room, just tons of people, tons of media, as you can see there, we want to go to Jamie McIntyre.
We know that the general and ambassador will be laying out their views on the Iraq war, and our senior Pentagon correspondent will be watching and checking the facts.
Good afternoon to you, Jamie.
MCINTYRE: Well, thank you, Heidi.
You know the old expression that everybody's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts? Well, that's what we're going to be watching very carefully today as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify.
You know, he's been accused of cherry-picking some of the information to look things -- to make things look better than they really are. And, of course, you know, a lot of times the facts are true, but it's the context that's important. So we're going to be hanging on every word.
We've assembled the team that produces the CNN show "THE WEEK AT WAR," hosted by Tom Foreman on Saturdays and Sundays, and we're all going to be listening very carefully.
And General Petraeus has a pretty big hurdle to overcome here. Take a look at this CNN-Opinion Research poll here about whether Americans that the so-called surge, the troop buildup, is succeeding. And according to the poll numbers, 54 percent believe that it is not -- it is failing. And only 40 percent believe that it's actually succeeding.
Now, we got a hint of what General Petraeus was going to be saying, how he was going to be tempering some of his remarks when he sent that letter to the troops last week.
COLLINS: Right.
MCINTYRE: He said that the -- that it's like being in a football game. He said we're marching down the field, but we're a long way from the goal line. One part of the letter, he also admitted that this idea of having breathing space had not worked out as well as he had hoped.
So, we're going to be hanging on every word so you don't have to, but -- and we'll be taking -- taking what he said and putting it to the test of, is it in the proper context?
COLLINS: Jamie, what do you think it is that the American people at home watching this today, or if they are watching on their computers, as we've been telling them they can do all day long, are really waiting to hear? What is the headline that they will be hanging on?
MCINTYRE: Well, you know, what everybody really wants to know is, is the strategy, not just the surge, but is the strategy working, and is it going to allow U.S. troops to come home? And how soon are they going to be able to come home?
And what we're expecting General Petraeus to say is, I'll get back to you on that in March.
COLLINS: And so, from your view of things, obviously from the Pentagon, is that something that people will be satisfied with? Or are they just going to be more frustrated?
MCINTYRE: Well, it's going to be a tough -- it's going to be a tough sell that it's -- that this far into the so-called surge strategy that they're still not able to make any significant troop cuts. It's possible they can bring a small number of troops home, but that they're not going to be able to bring those higher troop levels down until sometime next year.
And frankly, and commanders like General Petraeus are well aware of this, the American people are running out of patience, and so is the Congress.
COLLINS: It's been two and a half months that we have -- since the, quote, "surge" has been in place. Does it seem understandable from a military perspective that it might, indeed, take more time to see results?
MCINTYRE: Oh, absolutely. From a military perspective, counter- insurgency operations, which is what we're sort of in -- or ending a civil war, which some people would argue we are facing here -- take years and years and years to accomplish.
But, of course, what the United States is trying to do is get the Iraq is to accomplish that. And even though they have been able to build up a significant -- been able to achieve significant military milestones, and do things like build up the number of Iraqi forces, they still haven't been able to make the whole thing work.
There are more Iraqi troops, for instance, but they are not as capable as they need to be. There are operations that have brought more peace and stability to some areas of Iraq, but other areas are just as dangerous. And even with the lower levels of violence, they still have -- they are still in a very, very violent period.
One of the things, by the way, we'll be looking for is whether numbers really mean what they say they do. For instance, U.S. troop casualties, which is something we look at all the time, are going down slightly. But we've had periods in the past where troop numbers, casualty numbers, have gone down during a time when things were actually getting worse in Iraq. So, we're going to be trying to take a listen very carefully what General Petraeus says and try and put it in perspective for you.
COLLINS: Yeah, a little bit earlier, Jamie, we had a chance to speak with Brigadier General David Grange, our retired military analyst, who was talking a lot about momentum. By way of the insurgents and terrorists just running out of places to hide. We know that whole term "whack a mole", where we see something like successes in Anbar Province and then they just go somewhere else.
MCINTYRE: Well, one of the things that U.S. commanders are well aware of is that you can't kill your way to victory. You can't just keep killing enemy fighters and kill enough of them that you're going to turn the tide of battle, not in a situation that is a counter- insurgency or a civil war, because there's always somebody to replace them.
And one of the lessons of Vietnam is that a low-tech enemy, if it is dedicated and believes it has something to fight for, can fight much longer than even a high-tech army that would be, on paper, overmatched for them. So, that's why the political dynamic is so important here. And, again, what has succeed to the extent the surge has succeeded is the military and what hasn't is the political.
All right, Jamie McIntyre, sitting in for us at the Iraq Fact Desk. We'll be watching very closely along with him.
We do hear the gavel now. And we know everyone is seated and in place. Let's go ahead and listen in to the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
REP. IKE SKELTON (D), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES CMTE.: ... seating problem, I hope the staff can get it squared away in the next minute or two.
And I'll also say that we're going to have no disturbances in this room, and those that disturb are immediately asked to be escorted out. Do that right now. Out they go. Are they gone?
The -- we need to make a couple of housekeeping announcements. The acoustics are bad in this room, and we'll ask to have the audience as quiet as possible, because it's difficult to understand the questions and the answers from our witnesses. As I mentioned before, no disturbances will be tolerated. And we mean that.
Remind members to turn their cell phones off. Keep their Blackberries below the desk, because they interfere with the microphones. We'll adhere strictly to the five-minute rule, with the exception of the chairman and ranking members, which is customary. Also members should be advised that at 2:25 we'll have a five-minute break for witnesses and again, at 4:45, a five-minute break.
And the members should also know that if it's necessary, I doubt it will be, but if it's necessary to go into a classified session later, we have arranged room 2118, the Rayburn room, for this purpose. However, as I said, I do not expect that. So, welcome to the meeting, joint meeting of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for what may be the most important hearing of the year.
You know, today I have the pleasure to welcome two of America's finest, General David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and I would like to thank each of you for appearing before us today. It's wonderful to see you both again. And let me remind members that the testimony we'll be receiving reflects the best judgment of these two leaders. And later this week, the Congress will receive the presidential report required by the 2007 supplemental appropriations bill, which will reflect the reports of our two witnesses today. This is their first appearance, public appearance, regarding the report.
I'll start by commending all of those troops, foreign service officers, who serve under our witnesses, and their mission is most challenging. And they, and their families, have sacrificed tremendously and have served valiantly. We know that where there's been progress on the ground, it's due to their heroic efforts.
Today it's a critical moment. This Congress and the nation are divided on the pace with which the United States should turn over responsibility to the Iraqis. But every member here desires that we complete our military involvement in Iraq in a way that best preserves the national security of our country.
I think it's -- where we must begin by considering the overall security of this nation. It's our responsibility here in Congress, under the Constitution, to ensure that the United States military can deter, and if needed, prevail anywhere our interests are threatened. Iraq is an important piece of that overall equation, but it's only a piece.
There are very real tradeoffs when we send 160,000 of our men and women in uniform to Iraq. Those troops in Iraq are not available for other missions. They're not available to go in Afghanistan to pursue Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders who ordered an attack on us one day short of six years ago.
These troops and their depleted equipment are also not easily available to respond to a new conflict that might emerge. It is the issue of readiness. My colleagues have heard me say this before, but in my 30 years in Congress, we've been involved in 12 military contingencies, some of them major in scope; almost all unexpected. Right now, with so many troops in Iraq , I think our response to an unexpected threat would come at a devastating cost.
Our troops have become outstanding at counterinsurgencies, but we need them for the full spectrum of combat. This is a lesson that we learn again and again. In 1921, in his book "America's Duty", General Leonard Wood addressed a similar situation from his day. By saying, the Spanish war gave little training, as did the Philippine insurrection, campaigns of this kind are of limited value as a preparation for war with an organized, prepared power. Wars stress armies. We should make sure that the strain on our force is undertaken consciously, and that this war is vital to our national security. We must be sure.
If we talk about continuing the effort that Iraq is the war worth the risk of breaking our army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation. That's the strategic context in which I consider the situation in Iraq today. The problem for me also is how we've gotten to where we are in Iraq. We remember the discussion of weapons of mass destruction, the mission accomplished sign, the General Garner's short tenure. We recall Paul Bremer. The long debate over the summer of 2004 about whether or not there was an insurgency and then the grudging admission from the then-secretary of Defense, that fall that, yes, there was, in fact, a growing insurgency.
We recall the first and second battles of Fallujah, the idea that we could quickly train the Iraqi security forces to replace us. We should remember this history as we evaluate the current status of our efforts in Iraq. The surge is just the latest in a long line of operations. It frankly looks as if there has been tactical progress in the security area, but we should at this point temper any enthusiasm with the caveat that this is Iraq. And nothing has been easy there.
In a poll of Iraqis released this morning, sponsored by ABC News, the BBC, and the Japanese broadcaster NHK, we learned that at least 65 percent of Iraqis say the surge is not working, and 72 percent say the U.S. presence is making Iraqi security worse. This is troublesome. Our valiant troops are improving security in the areas where they're deployed. This makes good sense. They're the best. So, of course, things improve when we deploy more of them.
Some called for more forces to be deployed immediately after the invasion, we just might have avoided a lot of the current troubles had we done so. One of the great ironies of this hearing today is that General Petraeus, who sits here before us, is almost certainly the right man for the job in Iraq. But he's the right person three years too late and 250,000 troops short. If we had your vision of approach, General, early on, we might not have gotten to a point where our troops are caught in the midst of brutal sectarian fighting without an Iraqi government bridging the political divides that drive the violence.
The surge was intended to provide breathing space. Breathing space the Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides with real political compromises. But while our troops are holding back the opposing team to let them make a touchdown, the Iraqis haven't even picked up the ball. The president's July report and the GAO report of a few days ago showed the lack of progress on individual benchmarks. And no one can make the case that the Iraqi government has made great strides.
The witnesses must tell us why we should continue sending our young men and women to fight and die if the Iraqis won't make the tough sacrifices leading to reconciliation. What's the likelihood that things will change dramatically? Will there be political progress in the near term? Are we merely beating a dead horse? The commission on the Iraq security forces, chaired by retired General Jim Jones, from which my committee heard from just the other day, puts it well. He said, at the end of the day, however, the future of Iraq hinging on the ability of the Iraqi people and the government to begin the process of achieving national reconciliation, and to ending the sectarian violence. For the time being, all progress seems to flow from the most pressing requirement.
These are powerful words, and it's powerful truth. But the disappointing part is that the Iraqis have not stepped up to the challenge. We know there have been local political gains in Anbar Province. The Marines have done impressive work, helping to turn local sheikhs and tribal leaders against Al Qaeda in that country. It may well be that such local, tactical gains will set the stage for the political partition of Iraq. This, of course, will carry with it additional problems.
Cementing any progress requires reconciliation at the national level. Does anyone think that a national government run by the sectarian Shiite and Kurdish leaders will, in the long run, provide funds and arms to former Sunni insurgents, who they suspect still wish to overthrow them? And how long will the Sunnis wait quietly to be given assurances about revenue and power sharing?
I hope General Petraeus, and I hope, Ambassador Crocker, that you can persuade us that there is a substantial reason to believe that Iraq will turn around in the near future. You have the burden of answering these fundamental questions to those of us who have been watching Iraq for years. And every promising development so far has not turned out to be a solution for which we had hoped. Columnist Tom Friedman said something wise in his column not long ago when he asked -- "He'll convey to you that the surge is working and worth sustaining? His answer was, if I saw Iraq's Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni leaders stepping forward, declaring their willingness to work out their differences by a set deadline, and publicly asking us to stay until they do.
Well, I think Mr. Friedman had a point. And one we need to keep in mind while we consider where we go from here in Iraq. The Iraq leaders have not done this, and, sadly, I don't think there's likelihood that they will in the future.
I will call on Chairman Lantos, ranking member Hunter, ranking member Pearless Lathan (ph), and then we will proceed under the five-minute rule. We'll appreciate everyone's cooperation in that regard.
Chairman Lantos?
REP. TOM LANTOS (D), CHMN. FOREIGN AFFAIRS CMTE.: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And on behalf of all the members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I want to extend the most cordial welcome to our two distinguished witnesses.
Two of our nation's most capable public servants have come before us today to assess the situation in Iraq. General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, every single one of us wants you to succeed in your efforts to the maximum possible extent. We admire the heroism and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and the dedication of our diplomatic corps in Iraq. And we fully understand the terrible burden on their families.
Our witnesses have been sent here this morning to restore credibility to a discredited policy. We and the American people already know that the situation in Iraq is grim, and the growing majority of this Congress, and of the American people, want our troops out.
In October of 2003, I flew in a helicopter with you, General Petraeus, over northern Iraq around Mosul. As we passed over the countryside, you pointed out to me several ammunition dumps that had once belonged to the army of Saddam Hussein. I don't have enough troops to guard these places, you said, some day this might come back to haunt us. Well, General Petraeus, you saw it coming. Those unguarded ammo dumps became the arsenals of insurgency. Those weapons have been turned against us. How very typical of this war.
The administration's myopic policies in Iraq have created a fiasco. Is it any wonder that on the subject of Iraq, more and more Americans have little confidence in this administration. We cannot take any of this administration's assertions on Iraq at face value anymore, and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility.
This is not a knock on you, General Petraeus, or on you, Ambassador Crocker, but the fact remains, gentlemen, that the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say, I don't buy it. And neither does the independent General Accountability Office or the commission headed by General Jones. Both recently shoot deeply disturbing and pessimistic reports.
The current escalation in our military presence in Iraq may have produced some technical successes. But strategically the escalation has failed. It was intended to buy time for Prime Minister Maliki and the other Iraqi political leaders to find ways to move toward the one thing that may end this terrible civil conflict, and that, of course, is a political settlement.
As best we can see, that time has been utterly squandered. Prime Minister Maliki has not shown the slightest inclination to move in the direction of compromise. Instead of working to build national institutions, a truly Iraqi army, a competent bureaucracy, and a nonsectarian police force, Maliki has moved in the opposite direction. The so-called unity accord announced with such fanfare a couple of weeks ago is just another in a long list of empty promises.
Instead of acting as a leader for Iraq as a whole, Maliki has functioned as the front man for Shiite partisans, and he has presided over a Shiite coalition that includes some of the most notorious militias, death squads, and sectarian thugs in Iraq. This is not what the American people had in mind. And when Mr. Maliki states, as he recently did, that if the Americans leave, he can find, quote, "new friends," we are reminded most forcefully of his and his party's intimate ties to Iran. In his recent visit to Anbar Province, the president made much of our cooperation in the fight against Al Qaeda with Sunni tribal militias. This alliance may, in the short run, be a positive development, but it also raises some serious and profound questions. Anbar, of course, includes just 5 percent of the population of Iraq, an important 5 percent but still only 5. What's more, by arming, training, and funding the Sunni militias in that province, we are working against our own strategy of building national Iraqi institutions.
America should not be in the business of arming, training, and funding both sides of a religious civil war in Iraq. Did the administration learn nothing from our country's actions in Afghanistan two decades ago? When by supporting Islamic militants against the Soviet Union, we helped pave the way for the rise of the Taliban. Why are we now repeating the short-sighted patterns of the past?
In Iraq today, we are wrecking our military, forcing their families to suffer needlessly, sacrificing the lives of our brave young men and women in uniform. And the enormous financial costs of this war is limiting our ability to address our global security needs as well as pressing domestic problems such as health care, crumbling infrastructures and public education. The cost of this war in Iraq will be passed along to our grandchildren and beyond.
In the last few days, General Petraeus, media have reported that you are prepared to support a slow drawdown of our forces in Iraq, beginning with a brigade or two, perhaps at the end of this year. This clearly is nowhere near enough. We need to send Maliki's government a strong message, loud and clear. Removing a brigade is nothing but a political whisper, and it is unacceptable to the American people, and to the majority of the Congress.
As long as American troops are doing the heavy lifting in Iraq, there is no reason, none at all, for the Iraqis themselves to step up. Military progress without political progress is meaningless. It is their country, and it is their term. Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi politicians needed to know that the free ride is over and that American troops will not be party to their civil war. The situation in Iraq cries out for a dramatic change of course. We need to get out of Iraq, for that country's sake and for our own. It is time to go and to go now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SKELTON: Thank the gentleman, the gentleman from California.
Mr. Hunter?
HUNTER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put my written statement into the record.
SKELTON: Without objection.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Chairman, we generally pass the threshold question when we have witnesses appearing before us, that threshold question being -- the credibility and the credentials of the witnesses. But I think it would be interesting to General Petraeus to know, and perhaps he does know, and Ambassador Crocker to some degree, that the last week or so has been spent attacking your credibility, with major attacks here in the United States, some of them emanating from right here.
Saying essentially that your testimony today is going to be, and I quote my friend from California, Mr. Lantos, not your testimony but the -- but testimony which is written by, quote, "political operatives". In fact, I know that's not the case. I haven't reviewed your testimony, but I know this: duty, honor, country. Those are the principles by which our great officers in the United States Army and the other services derive their careers and base their careers on.
We've asked you for an independent assessment. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, the idea that we have spent the last week prepping the battlefield by attacking the credibility of the messenger, is something that I think is -- goes against the tradition of this great House.
And the last thing that I saw that particularly irritated me was a massive full-page ad in, I think it was "The New York Times," stating that General Petraeus is, in fact, "General Betray Us". That's Moveon.org.
Mr. Chairman, one of the great assets of this country is the professionalism and the capability and the integrity of the people who lead our armed forces. General Petraeus is coming back not just as a guy who's going to give us his take on the Iraq situation, but as the leader of more than 160,000 American personnel in uniform in Iraq. And they're not only watching his testimony, but they're also watching our testimony. They're watching how we treat him. They're watching this Congress to see if we give credibility to what people in uniform say.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I think it's an outrage that we spent the last week prepping the ground, bashing the credibility of a general officer, whose trademark is integrity, who was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate for his position and unanimity in the U.S. Senate is almost a majority these days. And also Mr. Crocker, who brings an outstanding, unblemished record in the United States State Department to this very difficult position.
Now, you know, I haven't read the General Petraeus report, but I do know some of the facts. I know the fact that we had 1,350 attacks in Anbar Province last October, that that is down by 80 percent. Now, my friend, Mr. Lantos has pointed out that Anbar is about 5 percent of the population.
I say to my friend, that's true. But at times in this war, it has been 50 percent of the American casualties. And, therefore, what happens in Anbar Province is of importance to Americans. And not just to the general public, but to the mothers and fathers and to the service people themselves who serve in that very difficult theater.
Now, in my estimation the stand up of the Iraq military is the key to stabilized Iraq. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
