Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

General Petraeus Reports on Iraq on Capitol Hill Today; Three Presidential Candidates to Question Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker; Olympic Torch Arrives in U.S.

Aired April 08, 2008 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Tony Harris.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, hello, everybody. I'm Betty Nguyen in for Heidi Collins.

You can watch event come into the NEWSROOM live on this Tuesday, April 8th.

Here's what's on the rundown.

The top commander in Iraq. His view of battle progress and troop withdrawal. General David Petraeus answers questions from your lawmakers this hour. We have live coverage.

HARRIS: A political combat. Intersecting with military strategy. The next commander in chief among the senators who will question the general.

NGUYEN: The Olympic torch arriving in the U.S. Protesters angry at host nation China. Fired up in the NEWSROOM.

HARRIS: Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, countless questions, where do we stand in the Iraq war? And where, where are we headed?

Just minutes from now on Capitol Hill, the view from the top two U.S. officials in Iraq, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify about fighting politics and the future.

CNN correspondents are covering all the angles to walk us through all of this today. What will we hear and what does it mean? CNN's Barbara Starr is at the Pentagon. Jill Dougherty is in Baghdad. Zain Verjee is at the State Department and Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill where three presidential candidates will be front and center today.

We have a lot of ground to cover before the proceedings get under way at the bottom of the hour, so we're going to break down the war into smaller components.

First, the military aspects. CNN's Barbara Starr at her post at the Pentagon.

Barbara, good to see you. David Petraeus will report the situation is much better overall in Iraq, but certainly the last few weeks, have seen a sharp turn, uptick in the violence. What do we expect the general to say about this?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tony, good morning to you. General Petraeus is going to try to keep himself out of that political theater. It remains to be seen if he can do that. He will say that the surge is working, that it's bought the time for Iraqi political reconciliation and the Iraqis to get their security house in order.

But he will get a lot of questions about, is that really the case, is that really what's happening, because this latest fighting in Basra and in Sadr City shows the Iraqis still have a long way to go before they're ready to fight for themselves independently of U.S. help and political reconciliation.

There is a ceasefire, one day fighting the next, a ceasefire the next day -- pardon me -- political reconciliation still seems to be way off.

HARRIS: Yes. Barbara, a couple of follow-ups here. What about the Iranian threat and its impact on our involvement in Iraq? What are we likely to hear on this topic from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker?

STARR: I think -- right. I think that that is something very much to watch at this point. It was just last week, Tony, when U.S. forces got the biggest haul ever of IED components, those armor penetrating bombs, that they saying are being made and shipped in from Iran. Enough components to make about 1,000 of those explosively formed penetrators.

General Petraeus, we are told, is very likely to talk very intently about Iran's continuing involvement in shipping weapons in and in supporting the Shia militia groups especially in the south.

HARRIS: And Barbara, we're going to hear a lot today about a pause, I'll ask you to explain that, but is it at all possible that further troop reductions could still come later this year beyond the reduction of the surge forces?

STARR: OK. Here's where we are on the calendar. General Petraeus's plan is to complete the withdrawal of the five surge brigades, those extra troops that went in, complete that by the end of July. Then, he wants a pause. Several weeks to just keep things status quo, assess the security situation especially with this latest fighting, see how things sort out before he makes a decision about any additional troop withdrawals.

But look at the calendar, Tony. That takes you into later in the year. It takes about six weeks, at least, to get a single brigade out of Iraq. So perhaps the best he can hope for is one or two more brigades, but by the end of the year, by the end of the Bush administration, all indications are they're still likely to be at least 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.

HARRIS: Terrific.

Barbara Starr, teeing it up for us at the Pentagon this morning, Barbara, appreciate it. Thank you.

STARR: Sure.

NGUYEN: OK. Now from the frontlines to the backrooms. The politics and diplomacy of war.

CNN's State Department Zain Verjee has that angle.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAIN VERJEE, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The U.S. military surge was supposed to give Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki and other Iraqi leaders breathing space to stop arguing and work together. But progress is painfully slow. A new report from the U.S. Institute of Peace warns, without political progress, the U.S. risks getting bogged down in Iraq for a long time to come.

PHEBE MARR, POLICY ANALYST: There is a profound struggle for power going on among communities, among political parties, which frankly is not going to come to any end on our timetable.

VERJEE: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been on the ground four times since January of last year, too few, her critics say, leaving most of the prodding to her ambassador, Ryan Crocker.

The Bush administration admits key benchmarks have not fully been met. The U.S. urged changes to Iraq's constitution to attract more Sunnis into the Shia-led government. Aside from forming a review committee, nothing's happened. Iraq's parliament voted to allow former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party back in government, but the new law only applies to low-level party members.

Washington pushed provincial elections to empower local leaders but factional disagreements have slowed that down. The Iraqi government is beginning to share oil revenue but hasn't nailed down a long-term deal. President Bush wants Iraqis to spend $10 billion on reconstruction. The government spent only a small fraction of that.

MARR: Reconciliation isn't going to come by sitting down at a table and signing a paper. It's going to come in over the long term, after quiet, after cutting deals.

VERJEE: The U.S. points to progress outside the capital, where provincial leaders from different factions are cooperating.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, sometimes it requires grassroots politics to get the folks in central government to respond.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NGUYEN: And Zain Verjee joins us now live from the State Department.

Zain, what do you expect to hear from Ambassador Crocker today, as he testifies? VERJEE: The State Department is telling us that he drafted it in Iraq and hasn't really shown it to anyone around here in this building, not even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But what we understand from (INAUDIBLE) senior officials that we spoke to, that Ryan Crocker is likely to say that there has been slow political progress but that it has been considerable and it is moving in the right direction.

He's also expected to point out there have been a bunch of legislative gains but points out, too, that there are some major difficulties and major gaps. He's expected to talk about Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and say, look, here's a man who's got major problems. There are difficulties in trying to make deals and -- with different factions, but he has been trying to reach out.

One other thing that we're told, too, that he's going to concentrate on the fact that there has been, they say, political progress really on the local level. They're pointing outside of Baghdad to the grassroots to the provinces and say -- and says that we just need to wait for that to filter up -- Betty?

NGUYEN: To wait and see. OK.

Zain Verjee joining us live. Thank you, Zain.

HARRIS: And now to Baghdad and the backdrop for the report, CNN's Jill Dougherty has the view on the ground.

Jill, good to see you. What impact is the so-called troop surge having right now in Iraq and let's parse this out a bit. We're talking about the American troop surge and the surge of Iraqi security forces as well.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, if you look at just what has happened in the last few weeks, it looks as if there has been certainly more violence. And the question would be: is a surge actually overall working, is that something else that's happening, or is that really a breakdown in the effectiveness of the surge. That's the question that nobody really at this point can answer. But I'll tell you, Tony, when you see it on the ground here, you realize how really, really complex this is.

Last night, fighting, lots of fighting, sporadic in Sadr City. You know, Basra, down in the south, is relatively calm now, but here it's in Baghdad and in the capital, very intense fighting and people are leaving that area. Then you had the latest wrinkle, which is the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was planning, he had called on his supporters, to turn out a million strong on to the streets of Baghdad tomorrow, Wednesday, and just this past hour, he called it off.

Now is that a step forward, a step back? It's very complex politics and it's very complex militarily.

HARRIS: Jill, do we have any idea about this complex relationship that you're referring to? Who is making out, reaching out, making the connections with al-Sadr's people so that we get what we're getting here, a call for a mass demonstration and then a day later, we're calling the whole thing off? Do we have any idea what the back channel communication is?

DOUGHERTY: That is very difficult to say because actually, there could be some going on, or it could be simply that chess match that al-Sadr is playing out. And certainly it's not only Muqtada al-Sadr. It's the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

HARRIS: Yes. Yes.

DOUGHERTY: Because he is trying to project his power and say that, look, it may look as if there's a lot of violence, but actually, that's us, with progress going against the criminals and other elements.

HARRIS: Yes. I'm just trying to figure out who has al-Sadr's ear right now.

Jill Dougherty for us in Baghdad, Jill, appreciate it. Thank you.

NGUYEN: Well, you know, people will be listening very closely to three senators in particular today -- John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama.

And CNN's Dana Bash joins us now live from Capitol Hill. And they'll be watching to see exactly how these three senators question Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus.

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You're right, Betty. You know, and when you think about this, if you sort of take it up to 10,000 feet, if you will, and look at the kind of dynamic you're going to see today, it really is a reminder of how one of many ways this political year is extraordinary because you are going to have a chance, or at least voters will, have a chance to see all of the potential candidates for president on display in the very same forum, or at least the same kinds of forum, questioning the man who very much is going to determine -- help determine whether or not their argument, their political argument, is successful on the campaign trail.

And boy, I mean, listening to these candidates on a host of issues, it is -- really is worth underlining how incredibly different and the divide, how deep the divide is, between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John McCain are on this issue of the war in Iraq. So what you're going to see, I think, are two fundamental questions and issues that all of these candidates are going to get at.

First, the fundamental question is, whether or not the so-called surge has been or is a success. Obviously John McCain argues all the time on the campaign trail that it is. And Democrats say, you know, it's not so much of a success because they point to, as Zain Verjee was talking about, the political progress that is so very much lagging that was supposed to be the whole point, they say, of this military surge.

And the other fundamental, really the biggest question that these candidates are going to get at -- will try to get at with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is how and whether the troops should come home or should stay on their watch if they are the next commander in chief. We hear it time and time again from these candidates on the campaign trail, but now you're going to see them again in the same exact rooms making very, very different points.

Listen to what both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, both of whom sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the first hearing this morning. Listen to arguments that they have made in teeing up this hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: A year from now, if I'm the president, we're going to begin ending American military involvement in Iraq. I think that's the right decision for America, for our military and for the Iraqis who have to come to grips with the fact that, you know, it's up to them to decide how to use the freedom that they've been given. We cannot impose a military solution. That's obvious.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There are those who today argue for a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Some would withdraw regardless of the consequences. Others say that we can withdrawal now and return if trouble starts again. What they're really proposing, if they mean what they say, is a policy of withdrawal and reinvade.

If we withdrawal hastily and irresponsibly, we will guarantee the trouble will come immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And Betty, that is the substance of the argument that the candidates make. Obviously a big thing is also going to be the stage craft and the atmospheric, the kind of sense that they give or don't give to voters. They hope that they could be the best commander in chief to deal with a situation like this -- Betty.

NGUYEN: Wow. Voters will definitely be watching very closely today, as will we.

Dana Bash joining us live, thank you, Dana.

BASH: Thank you.

HARRIS: Let's go get a check of weather now. Boy, some severe weather is moving across the Plains, Oklahoma, Arkansas, again. Boy, in the bull's eye.

There he is. Rob Marciano, the jacket's off. This is...

NGUYEN: I know you know it's serious when the jacket is off.

HARRIS: Yes.

ROB MARCIANO, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes. I don't think I'm going to bring the jacket tomorrow.

NGUYEN: Uh-oh.

HARRIS: That's OK.

NGUYEN: That's not a good sign.

(WEATHER REPORT)

NGUYEN: Absolutely. Thank you, Rob.

Well, security concerns in San Francisco to tell you about. Preparing for Olympic protests there. The flame did arrive in the city just a short time ago and CNN's Kara Finnstrom joins us now live in San Francisco this morning.

A lot of people have been watching closely to see if we're going to see the type of protests we've seen in London in Paris.

KARA FINNSTROM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. A major protests expected later today into tomorrow which is when that torch relay is actually expected to begin at around 1:00 local time, Betty. But earlier this morning we do have some videotape of the torch arriving here in San Francisco. It was brought in a plane, the flame was brought in a lantern knot, carried in by an entourage of handlers, who were quickly whisked behind closed doors, and then whisked through customs and out a back door.

It was a relatively uneventful arrival for this torch which has generated so much controversy overseas sparking those major protests in England and then in Paris. In Paris, some of those protesters blocking the route of the relay and then some of them actually trying to grab at that torch.

Here in the San Francisco area yesterday, a small, but very well organized protest. Three people scaling up the Golden Gate Bridge, unfurling some banners and also a Tibetan flag, saying that they were protesting the human rights record of China.

Now thousands more protesters are expected to take to take today and tomorrow as that relay gets under way. Police here say they are taking lots of extra precautions. They're going to have some extra patrols on the streets. They also are going to have some ambulances and fire fighters in place along the route, and they've also already shortened this parade route -- relay route, rather, from eight miles to six, and Betty, they say they may also make some other changes during the day as conditions warrant.

But one other piece of information to pass along to you that we did learn this morning is that one of those 80 torch bearers that were scheduled to carry this flame tomorrow has actually dropped out. They won't give us an official reason, but the parade organizers tell us that they could certainly understand why anyone with all of the protests that have taken place in different parts of the world would want to do so. NGUYEN: Yes, I was reading that today, too. And I heard yesterday as well, maybe you can verify it, that the head of the Olympic Committee says that he may even decide to cut short this relay around the world.

FINNSTROM: Yes. That -- those discussions are expected to take place Friday, which is huge. I mean, it shows just how serious they take these protests. Of course, this is expected to take place tomorrow here. So at this point, those discussions, it does not appear will impact the relay here in San Francisco.

NGUYEN: Yes. But what happens there may impact that decision on Friday. So we, of course, will be watching.

Thank you, Kara.

And CNN will bring you live coverage of the Olympic torch relay through San Francisco throughout the day tomorrow.

And you know, if you would like to see the complete Olympic torch relay route, here's what you can do. You can check it out at CNN.com. There's a special report there. It's called "Countdown Olympics 2008." You can find an interactive guide and you can send and share your iReports as the torch passes through your area.

That's at CNN.com/olympics.

HARRIS: More children found and removed from a Texas ranch. The compound is where members of a polygamist sect lived. Well, Texas Family Services officials now say they have 401 children in protective custody, all of them considered to be at risk for harm or victims of abuse or neglect. Authorities are still searching for more children who may still be at the ranch. Police are interviewing some of the women who also lived there.

The original raid was prompted by a phone call from a 16-year-old girl last week who said she gave birth to a 50-year-old man's child. Authorities aren't sure if she is among the women now staying at an area shelter.

NGUYEN: Answering to Congress. He is off the frontlines and in the political trenches. General David Petraeus, live testimony, begins at 9:30 Eastern in the NEWSROOM.

ANNOUNCER: CNN NEWSROOM brought to you by...

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And good morning, again, everyone. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Iraq, who's fighting whom, what's Iran's role? We will unravel the complexities as we lead up to General David Petraeus' progress report on Iraq, live from Capitol Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS: Betty, big occasion, evidence of that, look at the photographers, the men in the middle of that gaggle, General David Petraeus.

NGUYEN: Just sat down, I believe.

HARRIS: And ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. This will continue for a few more minutes at least. The hearing scheduled to begin before the Senate Armed Services Committee at 9:30 a.m. We get opening statements from the chairman, Carl Levin, from the ranking member, that is Senator John McCain, and then opening statements from Crocker and Petraeus.

We are talking throughout the morning about getting a handle on the complexities of Iraq. What a complex culture, torn by war.

CNN's Tom Foreman joining us now from Washington.

Tom, great to see you.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Tony.

HARRIS: Boy, let's take some time here and sort through some of this. We are going to hear a lot this morning about the surge and what we expect to hear from General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, outlining what they view as the success of the surge so far. What are we going to hear from them? How are these two men framing success?

FOREMAN: Well, I think the real question in Washington is how anybody frames success. In a military sense, what you're going to hear is what we've already heard before. Militarily, this has been a success. There has been a dramatic decrease in violence. There's been a lot of cooperation with Iraqi forces there. There's been a ceasefire by al-Sadr's forces. That's all made a big difference.

It hasn't all been about the surge because certainly the awakening movement out in Al Anbar Province with the Sunnis and then, as I mentioned, al-Sadr's ceasefire played a big role in things quieting down there. But militarily, it's been the success. If you define it that way, you cannot say it's not successful.

Politically...

HARRIS: Yes.

FOREMAN: ...you define it that way, it's trickier. There has been progress politically, not enough to satisfy Democrats here, but frankly, one of the debates here, Tony, is to what degree are our politicians here -- have they ever been willing to be utterly honest about it?

HARRIS: OK.

FOREMAN: The notion is the Republicans have said, as long as it's moving forward, that's enough, and in effect the president declared victory some time back and many people said, no, that belied the facts. But the flipside is also true. Some people now say the Democrats have declared it cannot get better, and now they're ignoring facts of progress because they don't want that to play to them politically. So there's...

HARRIS: But Tom...

FOREMAN: ...enough damage to go around.

HARRIS: Exactly. And so I'm wondering, where we really are in this? If you get the unvarnished truth on this from the number of people that you've talked to for your show...

FOREMAN: Sure.

HARRIS: ..."This Week at War" I'm wondering what the assessment is from those folks. And I'm wondering also where we would be today if not for the ceasefire declared by Muqtada al-Sadr?

FOREMAN: If it weren't for the ceasefire declared by Muqtada al- Sadr, it looks like we might be very close to where we were months and months ago.

HARRIS: 2006?

FOREMAN: There's probably some progress, yes, because of the surge, but not overwhelming progress because certainly, these folks laying down their weapons and saying, we won't fight for a while, made a big difference. He's a very influential person over there.

But that said, I think that the overall read...

HARRIS: Yes.

FOREMAN: ...that I've had from people on the ground there is that there is progress in Iraq. Genuine progress. Military progress and political progress.

HARRIS: Yes.

FOREMAN: But that political progress is creeping along at a sort of glacial pace, especially as long as our young people are over there in harm's way. That's the concern.

HARRIS: Absolutely.

FOREMAN: Is it simply enough.

HARRIS: And Tom, let me move forward to another area that we will hear a lot of discussion about today, that is, the influence of Iran in Iraq. What is the really strategy we're likely to hear today on combating Iran's influence in Iraq?

FOREMAN: The fundamental complaint about the Iran strategy all along from all the experts I've spoken to is that there simply isn't one. That it needs to be a very broad based approach that combines diplomacy, not just with Iran and not just with Iraq, but all of the neighbors as well to get this under control. Now that said, there have been signs over the past six months that there is some backdoor diplomacy under way. There was, for example, a sign that Iran might not be sending as many weapons in to Iraq as before.

However, that was followed up a couple months later by indications that they may yet be training people and trying to send people in. Look, Iran doesn't have an utterly open door here. There are people in Iraq who would like to be tied to them and allied with them, but there are many Iraqis, for their own cultural reasons and their own history, who want nothing to do with Iran.

HARRIS: Yes.

FOREMAN: But that still doesn't address the bigger question. What is our real policy toward Iran and that has not been really clearly stated in terms of how we will make that work with Iraq.

HARRIS: Tom, clearly a big occasion on Capitol Hill today. I know that you're going to watch the hearing and will also be a guest on "AC 360" tonight. Love your show, "This Week at War." Hope we get it back on the air soon.

Tom Foreman for us out of Washington, appreciate it, thanks.

FOREMAN: Thanks, Tony.

NGUYEN: (INAUDIBLE) a live picture right here, Senator Clinton has arrived in the room. We also will see Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, all of them questioning General David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker today, as this hearing gets under way in just a few minutes. They will be answering to Congress. He is off the frontlines and in the political trenches.

General David Petraeus, live testimony begins at 9:30 Eastern in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN. The most trusted name in news. Now back to the CNN NEWSROOM.

BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Betty Nguyen in for Heidi Collins.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone, I'm Tony Harris. Let's get you -- before we get to the hearing -- to New York Stock Exchange. The bell sounding just moments ago as we get the business day started. The Dow starts today at 12,612 after pretty much a flat day yesterday, Betty.

So let's look forward. The market is still processing the March jobs report. And the 80,000 pink slips issued last month. Earnings reports are starting to roll in. Stock futures indicating a bit of a down morning, but we are going to be keeping an eye on your money even as we stand by and listen to the hearing this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The progress report on Iraq, happening in moments.

NGUYEN: And the status of the war in Iraq. That is topic number one on Capitol Hill right now. Just where does the U.S. stand in the Iraq war? And where are we headed?

General David Petraeus, the Pentagon's top commander in Iraq, is talking to Congress today and tomorrow, looking at a live picture of all the media there as people prepare to hear what the Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus have to say. They are on Capitol Hill at this hour. And opening statements, they are just minutes away.

So CNN correspondents will be helping us understand all of this. What will we hear and what does it mean?

CNN's Barbara Starr is at the Pentagon. Jill Dougherty is in Baghdad. Zain Verjee at the State Department. Jamie McIntyre at the Iraq fact desk and Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill where three presidential candidates will be front and center today.

You know, the Iraq war, billions of dollars spent, thousands of lives, many elements to consider. First, though, the military aspect.

CNN's Barbara Starr is at her post in the Pentagon and as we wait for this, you know, a lot of people wondering, are we going to hear anything different than we heard last year when it comes to the progress that's being made in Iraq?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Betty, I think what you're going to hear General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker say is the surge has been working. That these extra troops on the ground have given the Iraqis some time to buy some progress. Progress both politically and militarily. But enough progress, that's what the senators are going to ask.

All of this is going to be about the question, when will more U.S. troops come home from Iraq. General Petraeus is unlikely to make any commitment to the calendar on that question, Betty.

NGUYEN: All right. Barbara, thank you. And this hearing is about to get under way as you're seeing there. All of them lined up. Let's get you now to Chairman Levin as he begins.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), CHAIRMAN ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning, everybody. First, let us welcome General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. We thank you for joining us today. We thank you for your service to our nation. And please express our deep gratitude to the men and women serving in Iraq, both in our Armed Forces and the civilian agencies of our government. We look forward to your report and recommendations, as to where we go from here.

Until recent attacks on the green zone, heightened attacks on our forces and violent events in Basra and Baghdad, the surge along with other factors appeared to have achieved some success in reducing violence in Iraq. This new increase in violence raises questions about the military's success of the surge. But more significantly, the purpose of the surge, as announced by President Bush last year, which was to give the Iraqi leaders breathing room to work out a settlement has not been achieved. That reality leads many of us to once again challenge President Bush's policies.

During my recent trip to Iraq, just before the latest outbreak of violence, a senior U.S. military officer told me that when he asked an Iraqi official, why is it that we're using our U.S. dollars to pay your people to clean up your towns, instead of you using your funds, that the Iraqi replied, as long as you are willing to pay for the cleanup, why should we do it?

This story crystallizes the fundamental problem of our policy in Iraq. It highlights the need to change our current course in order to shift responsibility from our troops and our taxpayers, to the Iraqi government. To force that government to take responsibility for their own future politically, economically, and militarily.

Our current open-ended commitment is an invitation to continuing dependency. An open-ended pause, starting in July, would be just the next page in a war plan with no exit strategy. As another senior U.S. military officer in Iraq put it two weeks ago, it is time to take the training wheels off and time to take our hands off the Iraqi's bicycle seat.

The Bush administration's strategy has been built on the assumption that so long as we continue to provide the Maliki government with plenty of time, military support, and financial assistance, they will take responsibility for Iraqis' future. But the major political steps that they need to take have not yet been taken by the Iraqis. Including the establishment of a framework for controlling and sharing oil revenue, adopting an election law so in October 1 provincial election to take place, and considering amendments to their constitution.

Even the few small political steps that have been taken by the Iraqis are in jeopardy because of the incompetence and excessively sectarian leadership of Mr. Maliki. Last week, this incompetence was dramatized in the military operation in Basra.

Far from being the defining moment that President Bush described. It was a haphazardly planned operation, carried out apparently without meaningful consultation with the U.S. military or even key Iraqi leaders. While Maliki made unrealistic claims, policies, and threats.

In January of last year, when President Bush announced the surge, he said the Iraqi government planned to take responsibility for security across Iraq, by November 2007. The president also pledged to hold the Iraqi government to a number of other political benchmarks which were supposed to be achieved by the end of 2007.

But instead of forcefully pressing for political progress, President Bush has failed to hold the Maliki government to their promises, showering them instead with praise that they are bold and strong. The president has ignored the view of his own military leaders, who according to a State Department report less than five months ago, concluded that, quote, "The intransigents of Iraq's Shiite dominated government is the key threat facing the United States' effort in Iraq, rather than al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian backed militias.

Well now violence appears to be on the rise and President Bush would once again take pressure off of Maliki if he announces that reductions of our troops will be halted in July and that that pause is open ended.

On the economic side, five years after the war began, skyrocketing oil prices have swelled Iraqi oil revenues beyond all expectations. 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.

But Iraqi leaders and bureaucrats aren't spending their funds. The result is, that far from financing its own reconstruction, as the administration promised five years ago, the Iraqi government has left the U.S. to make most of the capital expenditures needed to provide essential services and improve the quality of life of Iraqi citizens.

American taxpayers are spending vast sums on reconstruction efforts. For example, the U.S. has spent over $27 billion to date on major infrastructure projects, job training, -- excuse me, education and training, and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

On the other hand, according to the special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, the Iraqi government budgeted $6.2 billion for its capital budget in 2006, but spent less than a quarter of that.

And as of August 31, 2007, the Iraqi government has spent somewhere between 4.4 percent, according to the GAO, and 24 percent according to the White House, of its $10 billion capital budget for 2007. As of last Thursday, the United States is paying the salaries of almost 100,000 Iraqis who are working on reconstruction.

To add insult to injury, in addition to spending tens of billions of U.S. Dollars on reconstruction, American taxpayers are also paying $3 to $4 a gallon on gas here at home, much of which originates in the Middle East, including Iraq. The Iraqi government seems content to sit by, build up surpluses, and let Americans reconstruct their country and Americans foot the bill. But the American people surely aren't content with that, and the Bush administration shouldn't be either.

Militarily, five years after the war began, the Iraqi army now numbers 160,000 soldiers. Over 60 percent of whom, according to our own statistics, are capable of taking the lead in operations, carried out in conjunction with U.S. troops.

However, in four key northern provinces, where the Iraqis have 50,000 trained soldiers, and the United States forces number 20,000, we were told on our recent visit that from December 29th, 2007 to March 16th, 2008, there were 110 combined U.S.-Iraqi operations of company size or greater, but the Iraqi army led in just ten of those 110 operations.

Is the fighting in Basra and Baghdad demonstrate, we are being drawn deeper into what General Odierno described here last week, as an inner communal conflict. And that conflict, which has nothing to do with al-Qaeda and everything to do with civil war, appears to be growing.

There is a consensus among the president's supporters and critics alike, that there is no military solution to this conflict and that there will be no end to it unless the Iraqi political leaders take responsibility for their country's future.

An announcement of an open-ended pause in troop reductions starting in July would simply send the wrong message to the Iraqi leaders. Rather, we need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations.

The way to do that is to adopt a reasonable timetable for a change in mission and redeployment of most of our troops. Promptly shifting responsibility to the Iraqis for their own future, politically, militarily and economically, is the best hope for a successful outcome in Iraq, and represents finally an exit strategy for most of our troops.

Senator McCain.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back to our two distinguished witnesses. We've come a long way since early 2007 and quite a distance even since General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared before our committee last September.

We owe these two patriotic Americans a debt of gratitude for their selfless service to our country. At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq. Four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return.

Sectarian violence in Iraq were spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for survival and a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive in entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists.

Yet, rather than retreat from Iraq and face thereby the terrible consequences that would ensue, we chose to change strategies and try to turn things around. Instead of abandoning Iraq to civil war, genocide, and terror, and the Middle East to the destabilizing effects of these consequences, we changed the strategy and sent additional troops to carry it out.

And by the time our two witnesses testified in September, it had become clear that these new efforts were succeeding. Since the middle of last year, sectarian and ethnic violence, civilian deaths, and deaths of coalition forces had all fallen dramatically. This improved security environment has led to a new opportunity, one in which average Iraqis can in the future approach a more normal, political, and economic life. Reconciliation has moved forward and over the weekend, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders backed the prime minister in a statement supporting his operation in Basra, and urging the disbandment of all militias.

Much, much more needs to be done. And Iraq's leaders need to know that we expect them to show the necessary leadership to rebuild their country, for only they can. But today, it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq and the outcome of our efforts there.

While a job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished, as the recent fighting in Basra and elsewhere vividly demonstrated, we're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.

Success -- the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threats to its neighbors, and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. This success is within reach.

And with success, Iraqi forces can take responsibility for enforcing security in their countries and American troops can return home with the honor of having secured their country's interests at great personal costs and of helping another people achieve peace and self-determination. That's what I hope every American desires for our country and our mission in Iraq.

Yet should the United States instead choose to withdrawal from Iraq before adequate security is established. We will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long-lasting. Al-Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory, and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full-scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East.

Iraq would become a failed state. It could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations. Iranian influence would increase substantially in Iraq and encourage other countries to seek accommodation with Tehran at the expense of our interests. An American failure would almost certainly require us to return to Iraq or draw us into a wider and far, far costlier war.

If on the other hand, when the Iraqis are able to build on the opportunity provided by recent successes, we have the chance to leave in Iraq a force for stability and freedom, not conflict and chaos. In doing so, we...

LEVIN: We're going to ask you please to sit down. No more demonstrations or if there is another one, we're going to have to ask our capitol police to remove any demonstrations.

MCCAIN: I have had this experience previously, Mr. Chairman. If on the other hand, when the Iraqis are able to build on the opportunity provided by recent successes, we have the chance to leave in Iraq a force for stability and freedom, not conflict and chaos.

In doing so, we will ensure that the terrible price we have paid in the war, a price that has made all of us sick at heart, has not been paid in vain. Our troops can leave behind a successful mission, and our nation can leave behind a country that contributes to the security of America and the world.

To do this, we must continue to help the Iraqis protect themselves against the terrorists and the insurgents. We must press ahead against al-Qaeda, the radical Shiite militias, and the Iranian- backed special groups. We must continue to support the Sunni volunteers, the Iraqi awakening as they stand up to al-Qaeda in Iraq. We must continue to build the capacity of the Iraqi security forces so they can play an ever stronger and more neutral role in suppressing violence.

This means rejecting, as we did in 2007, the calls for a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces at the moment, when they are succeeding. I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there.

Our goal, my goal, is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal perhaps sooner than many imagined. But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership.

Achieving our goals in Iraq will require much more than a military effort. The Arab neighbors should increase their investment engagement including an overdue dispatch of ambassadors to Baghdad. We should encourage greater United Nations involvement, building on the work its representatives have done on the Kirkuk issue.

Iraqis must continue the reconciliation that has help dampened violence over recent months and they need to move a portion of their growing budget surpluses into job creation programs. Move toward an end to their reliance on outside sources of aid and look for other ways to take on more of the financial burdens currently borne by American taxpayers.

This is especially important as the government of Iraq continues to take in revenues it finds difficult to disperse, through its own government channels. One way they might begin to do this is by contributing significantly to the commander's emergency response program, SERP, which pays for employment and reconstruction projects throughout the country. This is a start.

Other programs of this type can and should be funded by the Iraqis themselves. By giving our men and women in uniform the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq, we have before us a hard road. It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country, served so well by these individuals. The sacrifices made by these patriots and their families are incredibly great. Yet the alternative path is in the end. The far costlier one.

As we convene this hearing and as we continue to debate our future in Iraq, Americans continue to risk everything, everything to accomplish their mission on our behalf.

For the untold costs of their failure, and the benefits offered by success, the Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose instead to succeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEVIN: Thank you, Senator McCain. And our warm welcome to you, General Petraeus and Admiral Crocker.

General Petraeus, will you begin.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDING GENERAL, MULTINATIONAL FORCES IRAQ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command.

Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago, there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaeda, Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows.

The capabilities of Iraqi security forces elements have grown and there has been note worthy involvement of local Iraqis and local security. Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and enumerable challenges remain.

Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible. Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September. And it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war, and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.

A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made. First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of coalition and Iraqi forces. You're well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge. Adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.

The second factor has been the employment of coalition and Iraqi forces in the conduct of counter insurgency operations across the country. Deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue al-Qaeda Iraq, and to combat criminal elements and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.

Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni awakening in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected Al Qaeda Iraq's indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognize that they could not share in Iraq's bounty if they didn't participate in the political arena. Over time, awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis, some former insurgents, to contribute to local security as so-called sons of Iraq. With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of al- Qaeda Iraq, the threat posed by AQI while still lethal and substantial has been reduced significantly.

The recent flare up in Basra, Southern Iraq, and Baghdad underscored the importance of the ceasefire declared by Muqtada al- Sadr last fall. Another factor in the overall reduction in violence. Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again.

Though al-Sadr stand down resolved the situation to a degree, the flare up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.

As we look to the future our task together with our Iraqi partners will be to build on the progress achieved and to deal with the many challenges that remain. I do believe that we can do this while continuing the ongoing draw down of the surge forces.

In September, I described the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq as a competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition continues, influenced heavily by outside actors and its resolution remains the key to producing long-term stability in Iraq.

Various elements push Iraq's ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists and criminal gangs pose significant threats. Al Qaeda's senior leaders who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy send funding direction and foreign fighters to Iraq. Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq's challenges.

Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports al-Qaeda Iraq. And Iran has fueled the violence as I noted in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to these special groups.

Finally, insufficient Iraqi governmental capacity lingering sectarian mistrust and corruption add to Iraq's problems. These challenges and recent weeks of violence not withstanding, Iraq's ethno-sectarian competitions in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence.

In fact, the recent escalation of violence in Baghdad and Southern Iraq was dealt with temporary at least, by most parties acknowledging that the rational way ahead is through political dialogue, rather than street fighting.

As I state it at the outset, though Iraq remains a violent country, we do see progress in the security arena. As this chart illustrates for nearly six months, security incidents have been at a level not seen since early to mid 2005, though the level did spike in recent weeks as a result of the fighting in Basra and Baghdad.

The level of incidents has, however, began to turn down again, though the period ahead will be a sensitive one. As our primary mission is to help protect the population, we close and monitor the number of Iraqi civilians killed due to violence. As this chart reflects, civilian deaths have decreased over the past year to a level not seen since the February 2006 summer mass bombing that set off the cycle of sectarian violence that tore the very fabric of Iraqi society in 2006, and early 2007.

This chart also reflects our increasing use of Iraqi provided reports with the top line reflecting coalition and Iraqi data, and the bottom line reflecting coalition confirmed data only. No matter which data is used, civilian deaths due to violence have been reduced significantly, though more work clearly needs to be done.

Ethno-sectarian violence is a particular concern in Iraq. As it is a cancer that continues to spread if left unchecked. As the box in the bottom left of this chart shows, the number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence has fallen since we testified last September.

A big factor has been the reduction of ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad. Density plots for which are shown in the boxes depicting Iraq's capital over time. Some of this decrease is to be sure do to sectarian hardening of certain Baghdad neighborhood. However, that is only a partial explanation as countless sectarian fault lines and numerous mixed neighborhoods still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere.

In fact, coalition and Iraqi forces have focused along the fault lines to reduce the violence and enable Sunni and Shiite leaders to begin the long process of healing in their local communities.

As this next chart shows, even though, the number of high profile attacks increase in March since al-Qaeda lashed out, the current level of attacks like this remains far below its height the year ago. Moreover, as we have helped improve security and focused on enemy networks, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of such attacks. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence in particular has remained relatively low illustrating the enemies' inability to date, to reignite the cycle of ethno-sectarian violence.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxantshop.com