Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Nuri al-Maliki Gets Tough With Muqtada al-Sadr; Olympic Protests: Torch Relay in San Francisco Tomorrow
Aired April 08, 2008 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Years of fighting, thousands of lives, billions of dollars. Where do we stand on the war and where are we going? The fight for Iraq unfolding on Capitol Hill.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Plus this, Brianna -- hide and seek, duck and cover. They're the new Olympic events these days, at least when it comes to the torch. San Francisco braces for a very rough relay.
Hello, everyone. I'm Don Lemon, live here at the CNN world headquarters in Atlanta.
KEILAR: And I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Kyra Phillips.
You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.
LEMON: All right. Live pictures now from Capitol Hill, where moments ago Ryan Crocker, the ambassador, and also David Petraeus, spoke in front of the Armed Services Committee talking about the war in Iraq and the plan forward. But it wasn't without some controversy, as usually happens with these things. There were some protesters who showed up.
Let's take a listen to it.
That was just as they were adjourning and preparing to go to lunch. And you see the protesters there. A little bit earlier on in their testimony, one protester had to be removed for interrupting David Petraeus during his testimony.
The Foreign Relations Committee meets a little bit later on. They're going to testify. Senator Barack Obama gets his chance to question both gentlemen there.
America's top military man and diplomat in Iraq, both have been facing questions from senators. Early on, a protester was let out after he started chanting, as I said, "Bring them home," a reference to U.S. troops. But General David Petraeus cautioned against any rapid troop pullouts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, MULTINATIONAL FORCE, IRAQ: The capabilities of Iraqi security force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis and local security. Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory, and innumerable 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And perhaps there's no better way to judge progress in Iraq than from the streets of Baghdad.
And our senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, was recently in one of those city's toughest neighborhoods, and he joins us now.
Tell us about that tough neighborhood.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Don, that was Sadr City. The prime minister here, Nuri al-Maliki, has recently gotten tough with the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. And what he has told Muqtada al-Sadr is, disband your militias. And those militias are strong in Sadr City, and that's where we were, Iraqi/U.S. Army troops trying to fight off those militias.
But what's been happening over the past couple of days, past three days in that area, 48 people have been killed and 176 wounded. And right now it looks like that cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, is going to sort of try and play the humanitarian/savior role in Sadr City, if you will.
He's called off -- or postponed, at least -- a million-man march for tomorrow. There was supposed to be a massive demonstration against the government. He's called that off, calling the government siding with the United States, saying his supporters might get killed by government forces. But what he seems to be doing is sort of planning here to try and take the moral high ground as people get injured and killed as these intense street firefights go on in Sadr City -- Don.
LEMON: Nic Robertson reporting from Baghdad. Nic, thank you for your report.
KEILAR: A look now at where the presidential candidates stand on Iraq. Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton supports ending the war and removing American troops. She introduced legislation last year to end the authorization for the war.
Clinton's Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, supports a clear timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and he introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January of last year.
Senator John McCain supports continued U.S. military action in Iraq. The presumptive Republican nominee had a distinguished military career. He was taken prisoner of war in Vietnam in 1967 and held for more than five years.
LEMON: All right. Let's get you now back to Washington. Senator Carl Levin speaking in front of the microphones. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Our troops were drawn into what he admitted was a poorly planned Iraqi operation, and that the Iraqis ignored his advice that they go slow and that they do the planning more carefully.
Next, I was disappointed that he would not even give an estimate relative to additional reductions, even after I asked him, "Well, what if everything goes well? Can you then give us some estimate?"
So he keeps saying it's conditions-based, and I said, "Well, what happens if everything goes well? Can you give us some estimate as to reductions?" And he would not even do it when I gave him an assumption relative to those conditions.
And finally, Ambassador Crocker's statement that, "We are no longer involved in the reconstruction business," is utterly incredible.
We are very deeply involved in the reconstruction business. We've got almost 100,000 Iraqi employees there now, not including the people who work at bases, not including the Sons of Iraq. We have about $12 billion in unexpended funds, most of which are involving the reconstruction of Iraq.
LEMON: Senator Carl Levin speaking about the testimony this morning from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, talking about the reconstruction of Iraq, as you heard him there, and also a withdrawal date. A withdrawal date.
Of course, he's a Democrat, and he is the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He's speaking out about what happened this morning. They have adjourned. We showed you that.
And we also want to tell you that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will get to hear from General David Petraeus. That will happen at 2:30 Eastern. Barack Obama is a member of that panel, and he'll get the chance to question the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and we'll have live coverage when that hearing gets under way -- Brianna.
KEILAR: The Olympic flame arrived quietly in San Francisco this morning, but for days now, anti-China crowds have been protesting loudly against its visit. The torch really runs through the city streets tomorrow, two days after the chaotic Paris leg.
And CNN's Dan Simon is live in San Francisco with the very latest.
What are you hearing there, Dan?
DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Brianna.
You can see some of the protesters here right now. We are in the United Nations plaza here in San Francisco.
These are pro-Tibet supporters. You can see many of them have flags. Actor Richard Gere and Archbishop Desmond Tutu actually expected to join these folks a bit later today for a candlelight vigil. These people right now are hearing from speakers, and in a short while they're going to be marching to the Chinese Consulate.
As you mentioned, the Olympic flame arrived here in San Francisco very early this morning. It came under the cover of darkness. Right now it's being held at an undisclosed location until the torch relay begins tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. local time.
Of course, the big concern is security. A very daunting task for San Francisco police, how to prevent that kind of massive chaos that we saw in London and in Paris.
We know the mayor here, Mayor Gavin Newsom, met with the ambassador to China to discuss security. One thing that they're talking about is actually having police officers run alongside the torch bearers tomorrow to protect them and to protect the flame.
And before we go, we can't go without showing you what happened yesterday. Very dramatic at the Golden Gate Bridge, where you had three people scale the south side, scaling up the cables, and unleashed those pro-Tibet banners.
We now know that the planning stages for that event, they were planning it for at least one year in advance. So no doubt they've had a lot of time to prepare for this torch relay. There are a lot of demonstrations here in San Francisco, probably more demonstrations here than anywhere else in America. So police are prepared for these kinds of things, but, of course, they're not taking anything for granted -- Brianna.
KEILAR: Dan Simon for us in San Francisco. Thank you.
And San Francisco's mayor says the torch route could change between now and tomorrow, and even after the relay's already started. But as of now, the torch's six-mile route takes it along the central waterfront and past famed Fisherman's Wharf. It then loops back around for a closing ceremony at Justin Herman Plaza.
And you can stay with CNN. We're going to have live reports all day tomorrow on the San Francisco torch relay. And of course we'll be covering protests and any other developments this afternoon and tonight.
LEMON: It's called the awakening program, and it's aimed at getting insurgents to turn on their other insurgents to win the war in Iraq. So how is it working? We'll find out in a report from Iraq.
Also, America's historically black colleges -- what's the draw? We'll find out from our Chris Lawrence, who's going back to school. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right. Senator John Cornyn stepping up to the microphones now, giving the Republican response to the testimony this morning.
Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: ... that were we to leave Iraq before the Iraqis are able to govern and defend themselves, it would increase the likelihood that it would become a failed state like Afghanistan was, following the exit of the Soviet Union in 1989, which, of course, as we all know, gave rise to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and we know obviously that on September the 11th, that -- the consequences of that.
They both confirmed that the same danger is inherent in Iraq if Iraq is left and it becomes a failed state. And so I do think that they drew a path for us of success, and one that eventually will allow us to bring our troops home, but one that would bring them home on success, making America a safer place in the process.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, obviously, you know how I feel about the surge. So the fact that I support Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus is not going to make news, but I think it is fair for everybody in the Senate to comment on their work product.
If you had to grade these two men in terms of what they've accomplished over the last year, what kind of grade would you give them? What I would say about General Petraeus is that he will go down in American history as being one of the most successful military commanders in our history, because what he inherited in Iraq in January 2007 was a chaotic situation militarily.
Ambassador Crocker inherited a country that was paralyzed economically and politically. So when you look from January 2007 to July 2008, you're going to have one thing to compare it to.
In January 2007, there was 140,000 troops in Iraq. In July 2008, there will most likely be 140,000 troops in Iraq.
What happened in the middle? What happened in the middle I think is astonishing.
The political reconciliation that's been brought about in the last three or four months was directly related to better security. The breathing space that's been provided by the surge at the Baghdad central government level has been seized upon in a way to bring about progress that did not exist before.
LEMON: All right. So there's Lindsey Graham. He stepped to the microphones after John Cornyn of Texas.
Lindsey Graham, of course, of South Carolina. Both Republicans here giving the Republican side.
Of course, they're talking about what the administration calls a surge, appears to be working, and sort of in direct contradiction to what the Democrats have been saying. The Democrats are asking for withdrawal, and also wanting to know just how much this is going to continue to cost. The Republicans there backing Petraeus, saying that the surge is working and to give it a little time.
We'll continue to update. And, of course, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 2:30 that hearing picks up. And we'll get that to you.
There's a shot of Capitol Hill. As soon as that happens, we'll bring it right to you here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
KEILAR: Let's turn to the experts now.
Joining us now from Washington with their take on today's testimony, on Capitol Hill, Daniel Serwer with the United States Institute of Peace, and Larry Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, and also a former assistant secretary of defense.
Gentlemen, thanks so much for being with us.
LAWRENCE KORB, SR. FELLOW, AMERICAN PROGRESS: Nice to be with you.
DANIEL SERWER, UNITED STATES INST. OF PEACE: Hi, Brianna.
KEILAR: And Larry, I want to start with you. We saw that General David Petraeus was refusing to give any sort of timeline, even when he was asked by, of course, a Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, if things were to go well. So, at this point, things are not clear-cut. They're really fuzzy. Is that a problem or is that a necessity?
KORB: Well, I think it's a problem, because remember, the purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqis the breathing space to do the political reconciliation. They haven't taken advantage of it.
The so-called -- the laws that they passed when you read the fine print, most of them really are not effective, whether it's the amnesty law, the de-baathification law, or even the provincial elections. And by not setting a timetable, basically you leave our security in the hands of the Iraqis, because as long as we're going to be there, they're not going to do the hard work of reconciliation.
KEILAR: And Daniel, I suspect you see things differently?
SERWER: I think there has been some progress on the legislative front. The laws that Larry refers to are better passed than not passed. I happen to agree with him that having some sort of time horizon for the American presence would mobilize the Iraqis to do the right things.
KEILAR: And Daniel, you touched upon something there, how much progress has been made. That's really the question that so many people want to ask when they're looking at these hearings. That's a question that was addressed by Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Let's play a little bit of his sound from the hearings, and then I'll get your perspective on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN CROCKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: Hard does not mean hopeless, and the political and economic progress of the past few months is significant. These gains are fragile, however, and they are reversible. Americans have invested a great deal in Iraq in blood, as well as treasure, and they have the right to ask whether this is worth it, whether it is now time to walk away and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Now, gentlemen, depending on how you look at this, at Crocker's comments, you could say the glass is half empty, you could say the glass is half full, right?
KORB: You could.
SERWER: You could.
KORB: Yes, but I think the key thing is what's happening to American security in the interim. We don't have enough troops to go to Afghanistan. That's getting worse. We're undermining the readiness, particularly of our Army and the Marine Corps.
So you have to ask yourself, is it worth whatever the progress has been made? And if the progress was so good, why, for example, were the Iraqi security forces not able to defeat a militia when they invaded Basra? Because they're not loyal to the Iraqi central government yet because there's been no real reconciliation.
KEILAR: And I want to get both of your takes on our final question, because, I mean, you can argue all day long whether the glass is half empty or whether it's half full. Let's talk about who is going to be in the White House next -- if it's going to be one of the Democrats, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, they want to talk about a timetable to pull troops out, or John McCain, who supports the efforts in Iraq.
Just tell me briefly your projections for either situation here.
SERWER: I think that the candidates, all of them, will want to re-evaluate the situation in January 2009. I don't want to discount campaign promises too much, but the fact is that anybody worthy of being president of the United States would want to take a look at the situation once they assume office, and make a decision at the margin at that time, and not project from here exactly what they're going to do in eight or nine months' time.
KEILAR: And Larry, do you think maybe it would change what these different candidates who would be -- one of them obviously going to be president -- it would change depending on the situation in eight or nine months?
KORB: I don't think so. I think Senator McCain will stay until he achieves whatever the objective is.
I think if the Democrats are going to get elected, they'll start pulling the troops out, just as Eisenhower did out of Korea and Nixon out of Vietnam. Both fulfilled their campaign promises, did not wait until events on the ground dictated it or gave the other side a blank check.
KEILAR: All right. Daniel Serwer and Larry Korb, thanks so much for being with us, gentlemen. Appreciate it.
SERWER: It's a pleasure.
KORB: Thank you.
LEMON: Braving the mean streets to battle a mean epidemic. A Brazilian neighborhood's double-barreled dilemma.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Several countries are battling outbreaks of Dengue Fever, but Brazil looks to be the hardest hit, with at least 67 confirmed deaths. Eradicating the mosquito-borne virus can be a challenge at the best of times, and it's not the best of times in one poor neighborhood in Rio.
CNN's Harris Whitbeck filed this report, part of our "Planet in Peril" investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS WHITBECK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Caxias, Rio de Janeiro's most notorious and dangerous slum. Tens of thousands of people live here. The neighborhood is ground zero in the Dengue epidemic that's hit the region.
We visited Caxias on a day when local volunteers combed the streets looking for the stagnant water where Dengue-bearing mosquitoes breed. Drug dealers and their gangs control these streets. It's rare for outsiders to enter.
As we were about to find out, the reason is simple. It's simply too dangerous.
(on camera): Just to illustrate how restricted the access to this neighborhood is, I'm with the president of the neighbors' association here. We've been walking down the street trying to get to a major canal where a lot of mosquitoes have been breeding. And suddenly, he told us to stop, and he told us to stop because there was a group of alleged drug dealers who said we could not go further until they say so.
(voice-over): Threats of violence accompany the fears of disease. It seems everyone here either has been sick or knows someone who's been struck with Dengue.
Thirteen-year-old Joel Rafael (ph) tells us of the fever and body aches he suffered just a couple of few weeks ago. He then asks why the authorities don't come in to fumigate every day.
(on camera): Just keep the camera rolling.
(voice over): They don't, because it can get pretty dangerous here.
(on camera): He brought us in here for safety?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
WHITBECK: Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think so. I think so.
WHITBECK: Yes?
Well, I don't know if you can here, but there's gunfire right now. Basically, we've been doing something very innocent, just walking around the neighborhood with the president of the neighbors' association. And gunfire has suddenly erupted, and our host suggested we come into his office, which is really a shack made of painted cardboard for protection.
So this pretty much illustrates how difficult it is for people who are trying to combat this epidemic to do their work.
(voice-over): The shooting stopped and we were able to move back into the street. Julio Cesar Moredo (ph), the neighbors' association leader, says the lack of attention from the government is nothing new.
"We've always been abandoned by the authorities," he says. "The government doesn't want this place to grow anymore, so we've basically been abandoned." And that, says the municipality and secretary of health, is the real reason behind the Dengue epidemic.
"Dengue is not a result of bad public health," he says, "it's a result of poor urban infrastructure."
The filthy streets and canals of Caxias, vehicles for an epidemic that just arrived. And witnesses to violence nearly out of control.
Harris Whitbeck, CNN, Rio de Janeiro.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: And we want to tell you on Earth Day, April 22nd, CNN will air an encore presentation of our special "Planet in Peril" documentary. It's also available online and in stores now.
KEILAR: Well, you might call it a government dream job. We'll tell you why hundreds of federal workers get to go shopping for a living. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Hello, everyone. I'm Don Lemon live here at the CNN world headquarters in Atlanta.
KEILAR: And I'm Brianna Keilar in for Kyra Phillips. You're in the NEWSROOM.
LEMON: America's top military man in Iraq and the top U.S. diplomat gearing up for round two on Capitol Hill. They finished testifying before the Senate armed services committee, where they credited the U.S. troop surge, what they call the surge, with improving Iraqi security.
Now the two are about to go before the Senate foreign relations committee where they're sure to repeat their assertion that the surge is working. You're looking at live pictures now of the room where they will be speaking.
But is the surge, what they call the surge, is it working? Let's take a closer look with our state department correspondent, Zain Verjee. Zain, everyone has been asking, is it working, is it not working, when are they going to pull out?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Right, Don. Exactly. Well, ambassador Ryan Crocker said today, look, Iraq is basically a work in progress and the U.S. has to stand by Iraq and make sure that it doesn't turn the corner and completely fails.
But remember the word "benchmarks?" Those were goals that the U.S. set for Iraq in order to meet them and try and move the country toward political reconciliation and some degree of stability. Well we went back and looked at those benchmarks to see how much progress has actually been made on the ground.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VERJEE (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 into 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. And 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.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, sometimes it requires grassroots politics to get the folks in central government to respond.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VERJEE: But it may be a long time in coming, Don. Iraq experts over at the U.S. Institute Of Peace say that U.S. expectations are just too high, and they predict that any lasting progress could take something like five to ten years, but only if there is full, unconditional commitment by the U.S. -- Don?
LEMON: Five to ten years. I mean, to most people here, because of the -- sort of the frustration that they've had with the war, that seems like quite a long time, doesn't it, Zain?
VERJEE: Yes. Absolutely. It seems like a very long time and Americans are beginning to ask themselves, do we really want to be in this, blood, sweat, tears and money is going into Iraq, and is that how long it's really going to take?
Ambassador Crocker today in his testimony said that if the U.S. deserts Iraq it could end up in failure. He said that the U.S. has to stick by Iraq because there are some gains. He called the gains very fragile, but he said they could easily be reversible if the U.S. left.
LEMON: And you're right about that. One of the very first things he said, Zain, and one of the very first things to make the wire, as a headline, that they should stick by it and it was actually the surge, as he calls it, is actually working.
All right. Thank you very much for that, Zain Verjee, our State Department correspondent. And we want to tell you -- do we have live pictures of that room now? Yes. The committee starts up in just a little bit.
But I want to tell you after that, of course, you can catch it online, streaming once that starts. But the foreign relations committee, they're just getting underway. Of course, Joe Biden is a chair there and he'll be speaking first. Go to CNN.com/live and you can see it live online. That's it, in the middle of the computer. My mistake. I didn't even see that. That's the room right there where they're going to be holding that testimony.
KEILAR: It is 35 after the hour, and here are three of the stories that we're working on in the CNN NEWSROOM. Former Florida middle school teacher, you remember her, Debra Lafave, well, she can take off her monitoring bracelet in July.
She's been under house arrest for two and a half years for having sex with a 14-year-old student. Today a judge said she can serve the last three months on straight probation which does not require a monitor.
Zimbabwe's high court has adjourned for the day without any ruling on releasing election results. It is expected to reconvene tomorrow.
And singer Toni Braxton is reported in good condition at a Las Vegas hospital. She was admitted last night, but no word on why she's hospitalized.
The Tibetan flag flying from the Golden Gate Bridge, ahead of the Olympic torch's flight to San Francisco. The city bracing for even more protests tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Let's listen in to Senator Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this coming ahead of testimony from General David Petraeus and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: ...to defend the security of the United States of America. In your assignment to do so is focused on Iraq. And you performed that mission with extraordinary skill and courage, in my view.
This country owes you and all the women and men who serve under each of you a genuine debt of gratitude, both those in uniform and out of uniform. I want to, as one of the many on this platform who've visited Iraq on scores of occasions, or on many occasions, point out that there are -- that civilians are being killed.
U.S. foreign service personnel are wounded, civilian personnel are injured as well as our military women and men and we owe them all, all of them, a great debt of gratitude. A debt, to state the obvious, we're not going to be able to fully repay.
But gentlemen, your mission is limited to Iraq, and Congress and the President have a broader responsibility. We have to decide where and when to spend troops, how to spend our treasure, not just in Iraq but around the entire world. We have to prioritize among the many challenges to our security. I know you're fully aware of what they are, but the many challenges to our security and the many needs of the American people that extend and exceed Iraq. We have to judge how our actions in one place affect our ability to act in other places. And we have to make hard choices, based on finite resources.
As you rightly said this morning, General, it is not your job to answer those questions, although you're fully capable of answering those broader questions, it's the responsibility of those, as you put it in exchange, as I recall, with Senator Warner, who have a broader view to make these larger decisions about allocation of resources. Your focus is, and should be, and has been well-focused on America's interest in Iraq and how our interests are affected, based on how things go in Iraq.
Our focus must be America's security in the world, and how to make us more secure at home overall. The purpose of the surge was to bring violence down so that Iraq leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down. But the Iraqis have not come together, at least not in the fashion that was anticipated.
Our military has played a very important role in the surge, has played a role in reducing the violence. But so, as you've acknowledged in other developments, first the Sunni awakening, which preceded the surge, but was in fact enabled by the surge. Second, the Sadr cease-fire, which to state the obvious, could end as we're speaking. And third, the sectarian cleansing that has left Baghdad, much of Baghdad, separated with fewer targets to shoot at and to bomb over four and a half million people displaced in and out of Iraq.
And the these tactical gains are real, but they are relative. Violence is now where it was in 2005 and spiking up again. Iraq is still incredibly dangerous and despite what the president said last week, it is very, very, very far from normal. These are gains, but they're fragile gains.
Awakening members, frustrated at the government's refusal to ingrate them into the normal security forces, as you know better than I, General and Ambassador, could turn their guns on us tomorrow. Sadr could end his cease-fire at any moment and maybe his cease-fire is beyond his ability to maintain. Sectarian chaos could resume with the bombing of another major mosque.
Most importantly, the strategic purpose of our surge, in my view, has not been realized. And that is genuine power sharing that gives Iraqi factions the confidence to pursue their interests peacefully. What progress we've seen has come at the local level. With deal and truces made among tribes and tribe members and other grassroots groups, that is political progress, very different than was anticipated. There's little sustainable progress, though, at the national level. And in my view, little evidence we're going to see any anytime soon.
Yes, Iraqi leaders have passed some law, but the details as they emerge and implementation as it lags this progress seems likely to, in many cases, undermine reconciliation as opposed to advanced it. Despite this reality, it is your recommendation that when the surge ends we should not further draw down American forces so that we would -- for fear we'd jeopardize the progress we've made.
If that's the case, we're appreciably closer -- or what the question is, are we appreciably closer than we were 15 months ago to the goal the president set for Iraq when he announced the surge? And that is a country that can, "govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself in peace."
If we stay the course, will we be any closer 15 months from now to that goal than we are today? It seems to me that we're stuck where we started before the surge with 140,000 troops in Iraq and no end in sight. That, in my view, is unsustainable. It is unsustainable from a military perspective, according to serving and retired military officers, and it is unacceptable to the American people.
The president likes to talk about the consequences of drawing down our forces in Iraq. And he makes a dire case which you echoed this morning. That's a debate we should have. The president's premises are highly debatable. We've heard detailed testimony in this committee from military and civilian experts that disagree with the premises and the conclusions as what would follow if in fact we withdrew from Iraq.
Would starting to leave really strengthen al Qaeda in Iraq and give it a launching pad to attack America, as has been asserted? Or, would it eliminate what's left of al Qaeda's indigenous support in Iraq? What about al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the people who actually attacked us on 9/11? We know where they live, we know who they are, and we don't have the capacity to do much about it.
If we leave, would they be emboldened? Or, would -- to paraphrase a national intelligence estimate on terrorism -- would they lose one of their most effective recruiting tools, the notion that we're in Iraq to stay with permanent military bases and control over the oil? Not our stated goals, but the propaganda tool being used. And would they in fact, if we left Iraq, risk the full measure of American might, which they're able to avoid now in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
What about Iran? Would leaving actually increase it's already huge influence on Iraq? Or, would it shift the burden of Iraq from us to them and make our forces a much more credible deterrent to Iranian misbehavior? These are open questions.
Equally competent people as you have testified before us that the results would be the opposite that you and the president have posited. Worth debating. Would our departure accelerate sectarian chaos? Or, would it cause the Iraqis leaders and Iraqis neighbors to finally begin to act responsibly and make the compromises they have to make in order to literally be able to live, if they're as exhausted with fighting, as is asserted? We should debate the consequences of starting to leave Iraq. It's totally legitimate.
But more importantly is the debate we're not having. We should also talk about what the president refuses to acknowledge, the increasingly intolerable cost of staying in Iraq. The risks of leaving Iraq are debatable. The cost of staying with 140,000 troops are totally knowable and they get steeper and steeper and steeper every single day. The continued loss of life and limb of our soldiers, the emotional and economic strain on our troops and their families due to repeated extended tours, as Army Chief of Staff, George Casey, recently told us.
The drain on our Treasury, $12 billion every month that we could spend on housing, education, health care, or reducing the deficit. The impact on the readiness of our armed forces. Tying down so many troops that we've heard from Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Richard Cody, we don't have any left over to deal with new emergencies. The inability to send enough soldiers to the real central front in the war on terror, which lies between Afghanistan and Pakistan where al Qaeda has regrouped and is plotting new attacks and is alive and well, and we know where they live.
Last month in Afghanistan, General McNeil, who commands the international forces, told me that with two extra combat brigades, about 10,000 soldiers, he could turn around the security situation in the south where the Taliban is on the move. But he then readily acknowledged he knows they're not available. There's no way he can get 10,000 troops, because they're tied down in Iraq.
Even when we do pull troops out of Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, says we would have on to send them home for a year of rest and retraining before we could even to send them to Afghanistan, where everyone acknowledges more troops are need. Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Service Committee and I wrote to Secretaries Rice and Gates to request that, like you, General McNeil and our ambassador to Afghanistan testify jointly before our committees so we can make logical choices based on specific requests coming out of each of those theaters -- as to which is the place we should spend our limited resources.
We've spent less in six years in Afghanistan than we spend in three weeks, three weeks, in Iraq. So -- we still don't have a response, I might add. Fifteen months in to the surge, we've gone from drowning to treading water. We're still spending $3 billion every week, and we're still losing, thank God it's less, but 30 to 40 American lives every month. We can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves. That's what the president seems to be asking us to do.
He can't tell us when, or even if, Iraqis will come together politically. He can't tell us when, or even if, we will draw down below the pre-surge levels. He can't tell us when, or even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. He says Iraqi's army will stand down, the Iraqi army stands up. Which Iraqi army? A sectarian Iraqi army made up of all of Shia, or an inner-ethnic Iraqi army trusted by all the people? He can't tell us when or even if this war will end.
Most Americans want this war to end. I believe all do, including you gentlemen. They want us to come together around a plan to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. They are not defeatists as some have suggested. They're patriots, they understand the national interest and the great things America can achieve if we responsibly end the war we should not have started.
I believe it's fully within our power to do that and the future of our soldiers, our security and our country will be much brighter when we succeed in getting out of Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
I yield to my colleague, Chairman Lugar.
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R), RANKING MINORITY MEMBER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I join you in welcoming General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
We truly commend their skilled service in Iraq and the achievements the United States military and diplomatic personnel have been able to bring forward under their leadership. We're grateful for the decline in fatalities among Iraqi civilians and United States personnel and the expansion of security in many regions and neighborhoods throughout Iraq.
Last week, our committee held a series of hearings in anticipation of today's hearing. We engaged numerous experts on the situation in Iraq and on strategies for moving forward. Our discussions yielded several premises that might guide our discussion today.
First, the surge has succeeded in improving the conditions on the ground in many areas of Iraq and creating, quote, "breathing space," for exploring political accommodation. Economic activity has improved and a few initial political benchmarks have been achieved.
The United States took advantage of Sunni disillusionment with al Qaeda tactics, the Sadr factions desire for a ceasefire and other factors that construct a multiple ceasefire agreements with tribal and sectarian leaders. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis who previously had sheltered al Qaeda and targeted Americans are currently contributing security operations drawn by their interest in self- preservation and United States's payments.
Second, security improvements derived purely from American military operations have reached or almost reached a plateau. Military operations may realize some marginal security gains in some areas, but these gains are unlikely to be transformational for the country beyond what has already occurred. Progress moving forward depends largely on political events in Iraq.
Third, despite the improvements in security, the central government has not demonstrated that it can construct a top-down political accommodation for Iraq. The Iraqi government is afflicted by corruption and shows signs of sectarian bias. It still has not secured the confidence of most Iraqis or demonstrated much competence in forming the basic government functions, including managing Iraq's oil wealth, overseeing reconstruction programs, delivering government assistance to the provinces or creating jobs. Fourth, though portions of the Iraqi population are tired of the violence and would embrace some type of permanent ceasefire or political accommodation, sectarian and tribal groups remain heavily armed and are focused on expanding or solidifying their positions.
The lack of technical competence within the Iraqi government, external interference by the Iranians and others, the corruption and criminality at all levels of Iraqi society, the departure from Iraq of many of its most talented citizens, the lingering terrorist capability of al Qaeda in Iraq, seemingly intractable disputes over territories and oil assets, and power struggles between and within sectarian and tribal groups all impede a sustainable national reconciliation.
Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future. And if some type of political settlement can be reached, it will be inherently fragile.
Fifth, operations in Iraq have severely strained the United States military. These strains will impose limits on the size and length of future deployments to Iraq, irrespective of political divisions or the outcome of the elections in our country.
Last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Richard Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army testified, and I quote, "Today, our army is out of balance. The current demand for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds our sustainable supply of soldiers, of units and equipment and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies."
"Our readiness, quite frankly, is being consumed as fast as we build it. Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time at home stations have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and on their families, testing the resolve of the all-volunteer force like never before." End of quote from the general.
Later in the hearing, General Cody said, and I quote again, "I've never seen our lack of strength of strategic depth be it where it is today," end of quote.
Limitations imposed by these stresses were echoed in our own hearings. General Barry McCaffrey asserted that troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced, stating that the army is experiencing significant recruiting and retention problems and that 10 percent of recruits should not be in uniform.
Major General Robert Scales testified and I quote, "In a strange twist of irony, for the first time since the summer of 1863, the number of ground soldiers available is determining American policy rather than policy determining how many troops we need. The only point of contention is how precipitous will be the withdrawal and whether the schedule of withdrawal should be a matter of administration policy," end of quote.
Now, if one accepts the validity of all or most of these five premises, the terms of our inquiry today are much different than they were last September. At that time, the president was appealing to Congress to allow the surge to continue, to create breathing space for a political accommodation. Today, the questions are whether and how improvements in security can be converted into political gains that can stabilize Iraq, despite the impending drawdown of United States troops.
Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient. Debate over how much progress we have made and whether we can make more is less illuminating than determining whether the administration has a definable political strategy that recognizes the time limitations we face and seeks a realistic outcome designed to protect American vital interests.
Our witnesses last week offered a wide variety of political strategies for how we might achieve an outcome that would preserve regional stability, prevent the worst scenarios for bloodshed and protect basic United States national security interests.
These included focusing more attention on building the Iraqi army, embracing the concept of federalism, expanding the current bottom-up ceasefire matrix into a broader, national accommodation, negotiating with the Iraqis in the context of an announced U.S. withdrawal and creating a regional framework to bolster Iraqi security.
But none of our witnesses last week claimed that the task in Iraq was simple, or the outcome would likely fulfill the ideal of a pluralist Democratic nation closely aligned with the United States. All suggested that spoiling activities and the fishers in Iraqi society could undermine even the most well-designed efforts by the United States.
Unless the United States is able to convert progress made thus far into a sustainable political accommodation, that supports our long-term national security objectives in Iraq, this progress will have limited meaning. We cannot assume that sustaining some level of progress is enough to achieve success, especially when we know that current American troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced and spoiling forces will be at work in Iraq. We need a strategy that anticipates a political endgame, and employs every plausible means to achieve it.
I thank General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for joining us. I look forward to our discussion of how the United States can define success and then achieve our vital objectives in Iraq.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BIDEN: Thank you. Gentlemen, Mr. Ambassador ...
KEILAR: All right, this is a pretty tough crowd here on Capitol Hill For General David Petraeus who commands the Multi-National troops in Iraq and for U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.
This is round two of testimony on the Hill today. They're testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and we -- just heard from both Senator Joe Biden, the chairman of the committee, a Democrat, and fro Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican and the ranking member on the committee. Both pretty critical of President Bush's Iraq War strategy.
We're going to be continuing to follow this, round two of hearings for General David Petraues and Ambassador Crocker right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
The next hour of the CNN NEWSROOM starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxantshop.com
