Press Conference with House Democrats, Subject: Iraqi Security Forces
Statement
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH HOUSE DEMOCRATS, SUBJECT: IRAQI SECURITY FORCES
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
REP. WATERS: We're here today -- my name is Maxine Waters. I represent the 35th congressional district in the greater Los Angeles area, and I chair the Out of Iraq Caucus.
We're here today to discuss an important issue. I'm here with my two colleagues -- well, many colleagues -- who will speak this morning. But Barbara Lee, as you know, and Lynn Woolsey are co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus. And the Out of Iraq Caucus and the Progressive Caucus have been working together to advance a vision about how we can get out of Iraq and how we can do it in a way that is safe and secure for our soldiers. But meanwhile, we have a number of other issues that we're dealing on as we work to end this war.
We're here to discuss another important issue which, if left i, has potentially dire consequences for the peace and stability of the Middle East. We're here to discuss our military's training and equipping of Iraqi security forces and the so-called reformed sectarian fighters our military is now working with.
Much of the administration's justification for continued military involvement in Iraq rests on the premise that the Iraqi security forces will soon be able to control the violence in Iraq and replace American troops. Unfortunately, this is a dangerous assumption.
The ISF will not be capable of taking responsibility for their nation's security and will not be able to replace American troops on the ground. Without a unifying central government to which a majority of Iraqis are loyal, we are merely training different factions of a violent power struggle.
More importantly, by continuing to train and equip Iraqis, we risk the danger that weapons provided to them will one day be turned against the United States and our allies in the region. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were both supported and equipped by the United States in the past under very similar circumstances. Now we can be sure we're not putting hands -- how can we be sure we're not putting guns into the hands of a future enemy and empowering them for generations to come?
In fact, there's already widespread evidence of sectarian infiltration of the Iraqi security forces. Iraqi police and military personnel have been alleged to be involved in death squads, extrajudicial killings and kidnappings throughout Iraq. American guns given to the security forces, 190,000 of which have been lost, according to a recent GAO report, are now showing up in Turkey, having been used in violent crimes.
The general charged with leading the training and the equipping of the Iraqi security forces from 2004 to 2005 failed to abide by basic and well-established procedures for accounting and tracking the weapons transfers to the Iraqis. Unfortunately, that man, that general that I'm referring to, is General David Petraeus. He has been promoted to command the entire military operation in Iraq.
Now General Petraeus has been tasked with delivering an important report to Congress next week on the progress of his efforts in Iraq. Six of the 18 benchmarks for progress in Iraq asked for improvement from the ISF. But according to the report by the comptroller general of the GAO released yesterday, all six of these benchmarks have failed.
I've recently introduced legislation that will effectively address this problem. H.R. 3134, the Responsible Security in Iraq Act, would prohibit the use of federal funds for the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians. This is a simple and common-sense response to President Bush's misguided policies, and I hope and I think many of my colleagues will rally around the idea.
The training and equipping of Iraq security forces is not a case of a good idea put into practice poorly. Plain and simply, it's just a bad policy. Continuing to train and equip the Iraqi security forces and sectarian fighters is a dangerous practice that must be halted. Policymakers have to confront the consequences of raising a military in a failed state and must resist adding further fuel to the fire that is raging in Iraq.
And now I'd like to have one of my colleagues again, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, present some remarks, followed by another colleague, Barbara Lee. So I'd like to ask Lynn Woolsey to please come forward, then Ms. Lee, and then we'll hear from our generals and the other members.
REP. WOOLSEY: Thank you, Maxine Waters, for your leadership on this. Thank you, all my colleagues and wonderful generals that are willing to stand up and speak to the truth.
The American public elected Democrats to act boldly and to stand up to the president on his failures in Iraq. And that's exactly what we're here to do. As we get closer to next week's report by General Petraeus, the White House spin machine is already up and running, trying to convince the American public that all we need is a little more time and a little bit more sacrifice to achieve victory in Iraq.
But the American public has waited long enough. They've sacrificed more than enough to realize that there is no such thing as a military victory in Iraq. There's only more bloodshed and more pain.
It's time that we recognize the unfortunate reality of the situation, that by arming and training the Iraq security forces, we're only furthering and contributing to the violence and the bloodshed that has come to mark Iraq as a country in the middle of a civil war.
We're not only arming one side against the other in this war. We are arming both sides against our very own troops. That's why we're taking this step and introducing and signing on to Maxine Waters' bill, H.R. 3134. Iraq's security and stability is in the hands of its own people when we pass this legislation.
The most basic truth of our occupation of Iraq and our continued military support of its armed factions is that we are only fueling the violence, the violence that has taken hold of the country and is making things worse.
Our troops have performed bravely, honorably and to the very best of their ability. They've done everything that has been asked of them. Now it's the Iraqis' turn to step up and to control their country. And it is our responsibility to bring our troops home.
Thank you very much.
REP. WATERS: Thank you.
REP. LEE: Good morning. Let me first thank our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for her leadership, and for bringing us all together here once again to really move this agenda forward, to end this occupation and bring our troops out of this civil war in Iraq.
Thank you, Congresswoman Waters. This is a very important piece of legislation that we are supporting and that we are talking about today.
Also I want to thank Congresswoman Lynn Wolsey and all of our members here today who have done everything they can do to bring an end to the president's failed policy in Iraq; also to our experts today, our speakers, our generals, I want to thank them for their expert perspective on the consequences of our current policy with regard to the Iraqi security forces, and also for their courage and for their commitment to end this occupation.
Despite the Bush administration's rhetoric and photo ops, the fact remains that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. The redeployment of United States troops from Iraq is a precondition to restoring our national security and our efforts to fight international terrorism, in seeking global peace and security and putting us on a path toward a foreign policy that provides real regional stability.
Nonetheless, many people who understand that we need to withdraw United States troops from Iraq seem to feel that we must leave behind a substantial number of troops to train Iraqi forces. While that may sound like a reasonable idea, as our speakers today have attested, the results would be catastrophic, and have been catastrophic.
The bottom line is that the civil war is taking place in Iraq, and it is raging within the very security forces that we are arming and training. The weapons and the expertise we are providing are being used to kill American forces and Iraqis, and Iraqi civilians, and also they're being used to commit acts of terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
This policy only serves to further endanger our troops and pour gasoline on an already out of control civil war. Congresswoman Waters has introduced H.R. 3134, the Responsible Security in Iraq Act, to provide -- or excuse me, to prohibit the use of federal funds for the training and equipped of Iraqi security forces and civilians.
As we work to limit the already extensive damage caused by the administration's failed policies in Iraq, I encourage my colleagues to reconsider the blind commitment to arming and training Iraqi security forces, and to support Congresswoman Waters' bill.
Congress has the power to bring an end to the president's failed policy in Iraq by denying the funding as this bill would do to provide for the arming and training of Iraqi security forces; also to deny funding for the war. But we do need to move forward and fully fund, as we have said over and over again, the safe, timely, and responsible redeployment of United States troops and military contractors. And when we do this we must make sure that they all come home, and that we do not allow for permanent military bases. And also we must end this policy of equipping and training the Iraqi security forces.
So thank you, Congresswoman Waters, for once again giving us a bill that we all need to rally around and support.
REP. WATERS: Thank you very much.
At this time we are going to bring forward our expert witnesses. And following that, I would like very much to have you entertain the presentations from many of our members who have been to Iraq on our break. They're here, and they can share with you some of what they experienced, and what they saw.
At this time I would like to introduce General William Odom, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former director of the National Security Agency.
We also have Dr. Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of Defense. And last but not least we have John Bruhns with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and a veteran of the Iraq war, one of the very first to come on the Hill and to advise us about what was going on, and to take a strong courageous stand against the war.
I'd like them to come forward at this time.
GEN. ODOM: Well, thank you, Congressman Waters, and your colleagues here for giving me this opportunity to chide the Congress as well as the president. My words to the Congress are not meant for this group or anybody that supports the bill. They are meant for those who don't have the courage to support it.
Now as a citizen I've been appalled at the irresponsible and feckless behavior of the Congress over this war in Iraq. Each time it tries to stop the war the president bamboozles and confuses it so that it does not act to reverse the policy. And this has to stop.
Now he's now demanding more money to misuse in Iraq, namely to train a new army and police force, and also for arming Sunni insurgents allegedly to fight on our side.
At least three things are wrong with this policy. First, there are no historical examples that I know of that when the United States has armed its enemies in a client state facing an insurgency and achieved a desirable outcome.
What's the precedent that would suggest this has even a remote chance for a desirable outcome? Both Sunni insurgents and the government forces are our enemies. Why don't you in the House and the Senate confront the administration with these facts?
Second, the implication for political consolidation in Iraq, the very thing that General Petraeus and others say is essential, are adverse. Those Sunnis who are accepting the offer to fight al-Qaeda, in return for weapons and ammunition, do so because they mistrust the government. Both say so openly.
In other words they will fight on the U.S. side precisely because they don't trust their own government. That tells us we're arming the enemy of the government whose election and legitimacy we sponsored.
Perhaps the president can explain why he favors such a strange policy. Does this mean that Prime Minister Maliki's government is now our enemy? Does this mean the Baathists and other Sunni elements are now our new choice to replace the present government in Iraq? His policy implies a yes answer to both questions.
Third, the historical record holds no examples that I know of where stable states have been created by diffusing weapons and power to local and regional groups. On the contrary, it has inexorably led to civil war, chaos, and sometimes to the disappearance of those states as their neighbors gobble them up.
The muddled, contradictory, and ludicrous nature of the policy would deserve a horse laugh if it were not so tragic. The Congress shames itself by merely considering the legislation, much less passing it, to support it. However, this is -- there is a way to give this kind of policy coherence. And let me suggest what it means.
It is to admit that we need Saddam to govern and stabilize the country today, and therefore we must support the Ba'athists in the ongoing civil war. If they win Iran's influence will be reduced; our Arab allies in the Persian Gulf states will be delighted; our present politics has them in a state of fright and desperation.
To take this rational approach, of course, would be to admit that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic disaster in the first place. If we only want rid of al Qaeda, the easiest way to do that is to withdraw. Now that the Sunnis are turning against it, it has no other allies in Iraq. Only our presence has kept it alive this long.
Only in El Salvador in the 1980s we -- there, as we essentially did the same thing as supporting the Ba'athists would do in Iraq. It put the old -- we put our old (arena ?) elites back in power in San Salvador under different names, and today they rule using death squads that we pretended to close down. The government prevailed against the insurgents not because of their efficiency but because Gorbachev cut off the supplies as a promise to the first George Bush.
This is the most likely outcome in Iraq in any case, unless it breaks up beforehand. Our choices are to withdraw and refuse to provide over such an outcome, or to take sides in this civil war and reap the moral responsibility of all the bloodshed that results. In all events, the road to political instability is civil war, not counterinsurgency, and a governance policy of U.S. colonialism by ventriloquy.
Thank you.
REP. WATERS: Thank you.
Dr. Korb?
MR. KORB: Well done, General.
REP. WATERS: Thank you very much.
Would you please say a few? Stay up here. They're going to have a lot of questions. (Laughs.)
MR. KORB: Congresswoman Waters, distinguished members of the House of Representatives, it's a great privilege to be on the -- share the podium with General Odom and Sergeant Bruhns who will follow me.
As General Odom put out -- mentioned, we've got to get out of Iraq, and I think what we need to do is we need to set a withdrawal date. And if we set a withdrawal date, we can get out within 10 to 12 months. And we've documented all of these -- the way that you could do it in our studies at the Center for American Progress. And until you set a date to get out, the countries in the region who are involved in a non-constructive way in Iraq are not going to work with us. But once we set a specific date, they will have every incentive to work with us to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state or a threat to them.
It is the -- also the only leverage we have to get the Iraqi government to do what they need to do. We've seen with the GAO report -- we've seen all of the other indicators that despite our surge and the deaths of 800 more American men and women, if anything the Iraqis have gone backwards politically. And until they have that reconciliation, it doesn't matter how many forces you train, they are not going to be able to carry out their mission.
If you take a look at the situation with Iraqi security forces, counting the military and the police, there's something like 350,000 of them. The question is not training or equipping. In fact, many of them have more training than the young men and young women we're sending over to Iraq right now. What the question really is is motivation. And until you have the reconciliation that there's an Iraq that they're willing to fight and die for, it doesn't matter how much training you give them or how many weapons you give them. And if you continue to give them weapons, what will happen? They will continue to turn them on each other; they will continue to turn them on us; and many of them will find their way into the hands of countries like Iran who do not wish us well.
So what we need to do, as this bill says, is stop training and equipping the Iraqi forces. They're trained and equipped well enough to carry out their mission. After all, we're not asking them to take on a major conventional enemy, as for example the Soviet Union on the plains of Europe in the Cold War. We're asking them to deal basically with 20,000 insurgents, basically to do police work. And they will only do that if there's an Iraq that has a reconciliation process.
So it's time for us to stop training and equipping them. And when we leave, we have to be wary of the fact that those weapons could be turned upon us, our brave young men and women.
So we need to set a date, stop training and equipping them, and until we do that, our national security interests around the world continue to be affected adversely.
Thank you.
REP. WATERS: Thank you.
Sergeant John Bruhn.
MR. BRUHN: First, I'd just like to say it's a real honor to be here with these distinguished members of Congress who had the prescience and the foresight from the beginning to realize that this war was going to be a total catastrophe, as opposed to the architects of this war, who had absolutely no idea what thy were doing.
I invaded Iraq on day one, and -- I don't really know how to begin to say this, but we were not greeted as liberators. It was an extremely -- the Iraqi people were not receptive to the United States' invasion of Iraq. They were not -- absolutely not. And it was almost as if we were in, like, daily combat operations. And we needed a solution to get out. And in 2004, my commanders told me -- they said, "Sergeant Bruhns, we're going to start training Iraqi security forces in order for these security forces to take over security and stability operations from the American military, and we want you to join in with the first training cycle from our division."
So as a good soldier, I said yes, and I took the orders and I went. I went to the Green Zone, Camp Falcon, where we were training Iraqi security forces. I was disappointed in their training, to say the least. Words actually can't describe how disappointed I was in the training of the Iraqi security forces. When I was there, their training was only one week long, and I was -- I had a platoon to myself -- an Iraqi platoon. And I would march these Iraqi soldiers and call cadence in English while they spoke Arabic. And while I'm calling cadence, I have a translator translating my English to those Iraqis in Arabic, and they were stepping all over each other. (Laughter.) And it's not a laughing matter. This is very serious.
And in the phase two of their training, all I did was hand them an AK-47, and they -- all they had to do was pull the trigger. They didn't even have to qualify. They just had to pull the trigger. And when I gave them the AK-47, my unit commander said, "Sergeant Bruhns, you stand directly behind those Iraqi troops in case they try to turn the weapon upon you. And if they do, you jump them and you kill them, right then and there, no questions asked. No questions asked." So there was absolutely no trust factor whatsoever between the U.S. military and the Iraqi military -- none.
When the training was over, we incorporated the Iraqi units into our units and we took them on missions with us. But when we did, prior to these missions we never told the Iraqis where these missions would be carried out because we were so afraid that the militias and the insurgents and the terrorists had infiltrated the Iraqi military, and had we told them, they would tip off the insurgency as to where the operations would take place and when those operations did take place, we would walk directly into an ambush. There was absolutely no trust between us and them. Sorry to sound repetitive, but that's the only way to get this point across is to say it over and over and over again.
When they did form up, and when they did get in formation to accompany us on missions, once they found out where they were going, they would cover their faces. Seventy-five percent of them would cover their faces with masks out of fear or shame of being seen with the U.S. military. Could you imagine being, you know, a rifle team leader, such as myself, meeting an Iraqi unit down an alley in Baghdad, and when you turn around, you see five Iraqis with masks on their faces? They looked like terrorists themselves. They were carrying AK-47s. My anxiety level was absolutely through the roof. And when we did make enemy contact, sad to say, the Iraqis did not hold their own. They did not hold their own.
And right then and there I knew that in order for us to get out of Iraq, they would have to take over security and stability operations. But from my perception, from what I saw, it's an absolute impossibility. And President Bush, all he wants to do is prolong the inevitable. Well, it's unacceptable, if you ask me. I'll never forget June of 2005 when President Bush went to Fort Bragg, to a friendly audience, in another one of his propaganda stunts, and said the United States military will stand down when the Iraqi military stands up. Well here we are now over two years later, have we made any progress? Absolutely not, absolutely not.
I have friends that were true believers in this mission, during the first wave of the invasion and during the first year. I talk to these soldiers now who have done a second tour, and they say, "John, we're following you, and we're following your work, and you're on the right path, but John, it's worse than you think, it's so much worse than you think. The corruption -- you cannot fathom the corruption, John."
I hear stories from my friends who tell me that Shi'a soldiers will capture who they perceive to be Sunni insurgents, take them into custody, and then sell them to Shi'a death squads, and vice versa. And when these soliders -- American soldiers question the Iraqi leaders in charge, the Iraqi leaders say this is a sovereign nation, this is none of your business, you don't tell me what to do. And then when they go to complain to their commanders -- the American commanders -- the American commanders talk to these soldiers as if look, we're just counting the days to get out of here. It'll work itself out. Well, you know what, it is not working itself out. It isn't.
So, here I am. I'm an average guy, an Iraq war veteran. And all I have is my experience and what my friends tell me when they come home, but I can say this. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that President Bush can't be trusted with one more dime of money to carry out this war. He is continually misled the American people and used our military. Enough is enough.
We have to stop handing weapons and uniforms over to the Iraqis who are using those weapons to fight amongst each other. There's multiple warring factions in Iraq, multiple warring factions. Shi'a- on-Shi'a, Sunni-on-Shi'a, al Qaeda, the insurgency, other multiple groups that are infiltrating from outside -- outside neighboring countries in the Middle East. And you know they're all killing each other. But guess what? They share one common goal, killing American soldiers. And with 190,000 missing weapons that we provided them, I mean, I think it's pretty safe to assume that they're using these same weapons to kill our troops and it's wrong.
So, Congresswoman Waters, you're absolutely right with HR 31, and furthermore, not only are you right, you've been right from the start. And we need to bring our troops home.
Thank you. Thank you for listening.
REP. WATERS: What a powerful presentation.
Do we have members who would like to make a statement now? I thought we'd do that, after that presentation, I think we're ready to go to questions and answers unless you're ready.
Well let's get the -- okay. All right. Go ahead, yes, go ahead.
REP. : All right. We want to thank my friend, John, thank you, make me proud to be my constituent buddy and --
MR. BRUHNS: Thank you.
REP. : -- and General Odom, Dr. Korb, and all of our colleagues who have shown such leadership on this issue from the very beginning.
You know, we went to Iraq to pacify and unify that country, and instead, we have weaponized and divided it. And after thousands of lost lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all borrowed that we have invested in that country, we will look back and see that we have transformed it into a Shi'a theocracy that will repress women's rights and suppress human rights and ally itself fundamentally with Iran. And when we ask ourselves how can we justify that? We will come to the conclusion that it's wholly unjustifiable, and the time to stop was several years ago when we realized the direction in which we were going and, now, by empowering the Shi'a militia primarily through the Iraqi police, we turned Baghdad which was divided 50/50 from Sunni Shi'a to more than 75 percent Shi'a.
We have driven out four million Sunni middle class people who were experienced in running that country. That's equivalent to 50 million Americans. We devastated that country. And when we ask the administration what are we going to do, they keep telling us about military victories. This will not yield itself to a military victory. They began by saying it's about political reconciliation and we're going in the wrong direction, and that's why legislation like this is so important.
This is not about al Qaeda, they'll deal with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda goes in and Talibanizes these villages. Sunnis aren't going to tolerate that, they're secular. When they say it's a sin to smoke and they'll cut your fingers off if you smoke, everybody in Iraq smokes. Al Qaeda is not the threat, they will take care of al Qaeda. But we've got to get those weapons out of there. We've got to enable those people to find ways to reconcile with each other. And the people we're supporting now have no interest in a national government. They're using us to avenge grievances that go back for generations. We're heading in the wrong direction, we've got to reverse course, and that's why this legislation is so important.
Thank you.
REP. WATERS: Next we will have Ms. Gwen Moore then we'll have Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee and Jan. Schakowsky.
Will you kind of wrap it up for us? Okay.
REP. GWEN MOORE (D-WI): Good morning, Gwen Moore from Wisconsin.
The president has told us that this is a mission accomplished, but we have heard today from our sergeant, from our general, from our experts and from Congresswoman Maxine Waters that this is mission untrue, that this is mission impossible and that this mission unknown, we don't even know who are friends and enemies are. I am so happy to be here to support Congresswoman Waters' legislation and we hope that this is the beginning of a surge for the truth.
REP. WATERS: Thank you.
Sheila?
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Thank you, Congresswoman Waters for your leadership. Sergeant, thank God for your leadership, thank God for your service --
MR. BRUHNS: Thank you.
REP. JACKSON LEE: -- thank God for our military and may God bless those who rest in peace because they have lost their lives in the fallen battle of Iraq and a misdirected mission that this president has continued to take the American people through.
You know, you may send soldiers into battle, but you sent America into war, and that is what this administration has done, it has placed America at war with no direction to its mission.
General, you are correct that this Congress must confront this administration, and I would like to see us declare quite the contrary, a military victory for our soldiers to be able to bring them home. There is no blame game for the United States military. The original effort of changing the Iraqi government of, in essence, allowing for a democratic election has occurred. Our soldiers have been victorious in the mission that they were directed to do, albeit we voted against it. Now is time to bring these soldiers home as heroes. And then if some would mourn the fact that we are suggesting that you should not fund the weaponry of the Iraqi government, may I just take away your mourning or your sympathy or your questioning. The Iraqis have oil. They are able to fund every aspect of their government.
All they need to do is to have, as the generals have said, political reconciliation and run the government as, allegedly, they were supposed to do, recognizing Kurds, recognizing Sunnis, recognizing Shi'as. No political reconciliation means no functioning government, and the United States military cannot be part of diplomacy or political reconciliation.
So to the American people, you have done your job. America has been brave. We have lost our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, grandfathers and grandmothers. And now it's time, as the sergeant has said resoundingly, bring the troops home now. And as the legislation suggests, let us not foolishly direct federal funds to kill our soldiers, to kill Iraqi people and to prolong this dismal, misdirected catastrophe in Iraq. Let the Iraqi people take charge, let them pay for their weapons, pay for their training and pay for the running of their government. May God bless our soldiers in the United States military.
REP. WATERS: At this time, I'd like to call on Jan Schakowsky, one of the co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus and one of the members of Congress that went to Iraq during this break. Not only did she go, she led the delegation. So here we have a member of Congress, a woman from Illinois who was one of the co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus who went and she talked with General Petraeus. And I hope she will share with us something that may be shocking to you that was told to her by General Petraeus.
REP. JANICE SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL): I want to thank you so much, Congresswoman Waters, for your leadership not just to day but from the very beginning to end this tragic war. And I want to thank General Odom and Dr. Korb and Sergeant John Bruhn for his and their eloquent and important statements.
We're in the midst of a major PR offensive that is really reminiscent to me of the lead-up to the war in Iraq originally, and I'm hoping that the media this time will listen for those talking points and understand that the reality in Iraq is very different from the way it's being portrayed. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I spent a very long day -- August 6th -- in Iraq and met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker at Ambassador Crocker's quite elegant home in the Green Zone of Iraq, lunching on lobster tortellini while it was 120 degrees outside and our soldiers were in harm's way. One of the things that General Petraeus told us that day in response to a question was that we would be -- the United States military would be in Iraq for nine to 10 years. In response to my shock at his answer, I told him that in my district, nine to 10 months makes my constituents kind of cranky. They want to be out -- they want to see our soldiers out of Iraq by tomorrow. He said as a military man that he takes orders from the civilian leadership of our country, and I took that as a challenge to us in the United States Congress that we can make the decision that our troops come home.
At this point, four-and-a-half years later, we don't even know what the mission is, who the enemy is, who our allies are, what is victory -- and I talked to a young soldier after I returned who said that he is going down roads delivering supplies to the security checkpoints. And as he passes these villages, one had spray-painted on a wall, "Down with America." And he said, "Why am I going back" -- he was on leave -- "to Iraq if they are saying, 'Down with America'?" While I was visiting with General Petraeus, I asked him about the 190,000 missing weapons and he got very testy. And he said, "They're not lost. They are not lost. Those weapons got where they were supposed to go. We just don't have the records to verify exactly where they went because we were -- we're at war and we had to get them out, and we just didn't keep the books. But we know that they got where they were supposed to get."
I think it is interesting that when he talked about as one of the success stories that the Sunnis were now going after al Qaeda in Anbar Province that he didn't mention that we didn't have to provide any weapons to those Sunnis because the place is awash in weapons. There are guns in the hands of everyone -- friends and foes, sometimes friends who turn into opponents on other days. We do not have control over this situation. And therefore as Dr. Korb said, it is not a matter of training. It's motivation. We don't know whether or not. And as John Bruhn so dramatically described, whether or not those Iraqi soldiers that are going out on missions are in fact informing those that we are going after that we're coming and are helping to provide an ambush. In fact, we know of situations where that has occurred. And so my trip to Iraq reinforced my belief that this -- the surge has not been a success, that it's been a failure because the government of Iraq is as far as it has ever been from being a government of reconciliation -- of really representing all the factions in Iraq, and that we have to bring our troops home as soon as possible. That is the goal of this legislation, not to provide more arms to fuel Iraq's bloody civil war and to hurry the day when we bring our troops home.
Thank you.
REP. WATERS: Thank you. I thank everybody. Thank you very, very much.
Now we will take questions and have our experts come up here with us. And we're prepared to take as many questions as you would like to raise with us.
Q Congresswoman?
REP. WATERS: Yes?
Q (Off mike) -- I was wondering when you were in Iraq, were you able to get out of the Green Zone at all? Were you able to walk around? Did you ask to do that?
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: The only time -- the only way we were able to get out of the Green Zone was to put on our body armor, a Kevlar helmet, get into a Black Hawk helicopter with a machine gunned-soldier holding it outside of the window. So the roads on which our troops have to drive and encounter IEDs -- we were not allowed to go on, of course. I was grateful for that. But nonetheless, we had -- we were able to move around slightly, only in a Black Hawk helicopter and fully covered with armor.
REP. MORAN: My experience was similar, but there was another -- we -- I did go by some forward operating bases. But I also had asked to go to the Ministry of Interior because they run the police, and the police are even larger than the military. And they said, "No, you better not do that. That's a very dangerous area." And in fact, if Sunnis get off on the wrong floor at the Ministry of Interior, they'll be killed. The Ministry of Interior running the police, which we have armed and trained and paid, are basically an instrument of the militia and brutally corrupt and vicious. And so you can't go to the Ministry of Interior, which has the largest force that we have equipped and trained and -- again, another reason for why this kind of legislation is so important.
Q One follow-up.
REP. MORAN: Yeah.
Q I'm wondering what your reaction is then to, say, Congressman Baird and other Democrats who -- (off mike) -- that there is some sort of progress being made -- (off mike.)
REP. MORAN: Well, the president stated time and time again -- as did National Security Adviser Hadley -- this purpose of the surge is for political reconciliation. If we can make progress militarily, our troops are doing a magnificent job. But to what end? We are not achieving any political progress. Military progress, fine. But let's be clear that this is not something that's not going to yield itself to a military victory, and we're not making the political progress that's essential.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: One of our first meetings when we got there was with the deputy prime minister, Dr. Barham Saleh, who told us that the night before -- that would have been August 5th -- that the Alawi members had pulled -- Alawi had pulled his members out of the government. And the week before, the Sunnis had pulled out and what was left of the Parliament was on vacation. And he said that there is not going to be a political settlement this September, there's not going to be a political settlement next September, and his voice kind of drifted off. He didn't tell us which September he might expect that there would be any political reconciliation.
Q Do you feel that Congressman Baird's comments will lessen the Caucus' -- Democratic Caucus' unity on this issue? He says he won't vote for withdrawal again.
REP. WOOLSEY: Well, I have not heard anyone else say what Brian Baird said. And I'll tell you, I really did not see or hear anything that would convince me that there is progress. And, in fact, General Petraeus, with his charts and pointer, was saying for -- essentially that for one month, in one place, there was a dramatic decrease in the violence. That's what he was trying to say.
But the truth is, this is the bloodiest summer of the war, that overall violence has actually doubled over last year. And so the fact is that everywhere else around the country that the violence and the danger and the killing and the death has actually increased; and so how one could say that that represents any kind of progress.
Beyond that, if you look at the charts, throughout the war, one month there's been an increase, one month there's been a decrease, but overall the trajectory has been up, and it continues to be up. So the indicators of progress were not documented.
The GAO, the NIE, the Government Accountability Office, the National Intelligence Estimate, the Associated Press, The New York Times, anybody who's tried to put objective numbers together, has come to a very different conclusion. And so I don't think that there's any justification for saying significant progress is being made.
REP. WATERS: And let me just say this. While we're here today talking about the weapons and trying to stop the funding of this military equipment in the hands of Sunnis, Shi'as, Kurds, anybody else, we're focused on the report that is going to come out that's been put together by the White House. And our challenge is to show the contradictions and to show why that report does not make good sense.
We have a challenge with some of our members and with the press -- and with the press. In my estimation, when the president invaded Iraq, he sold all of us -- most of us, many of us, and the press more than anything else -- on the fact that we had to invade Iraq for the safety of our nation. And so we're going to be talking with you as much as we possibly can to pay attention, to know the difference between fact and nuance, and to ask the questions.
So we do think that there will be some members who will be sold a bill of goods. But for the experts who write, we want you to not only have access to all of the information, not just the report, but to be able to raise the questions. And we will be engaging you as much as we possibly can.
Q (Off mike) -- trying to set a withdrawal date, do you see that progressing at all? There doesn't seem to have been any movement beyond -- (off mike).
REP. WATERS: Who wants to take that?
Q (Inaudible.)
REP. MORAN: We're going to have an Iraq supplemental request this month. It's 145 plus 50. They're reducing the 50 a little bit, but it'll be close to $200 billion. Mr. Murtha and several of us on his subcommittee want to attach a withdrawal plan onto that bill; in other words, not to make the money available to continue with this war, but to enable us to withdraw.
Now, whether that is the ultimate result after it gets through full committee and gets to the floor, it depends upon getting 218 votes. And it has been difficult not only to get sufficient votes in the House, but to get through the Senate, where you need 60 votes. And the president is going to veto it anyway. And many of us are torn about creating a situation where there is insufficient funds for the troops, who are doing a great job under difficult circumstances in pursuing of an illusory objective. But the fact is, the military's doing a great job.
So that's what we're faced with. And we've been trying this for two years, and I suspect we will try again. But again, the reality is, as long as you have a president and a White House that's determined to veto anything that does not give him carte-blanche ability to use the funds as he wishes, it's going to be an uphill climb.
REP. LEE: Let me say, we're going to continue to do what we have been doing for the last six months with regard to the funding, because we all -- the entire country understands that it's the power of the purse that's going to have to weigh in to bring this occupation to an end.
Fully funding withdrawal is very important. Seventy of us have written to the president. We let him know that -- and this number is building -- that the only way that we will provide the funding that he is requesting, if he uses the funding to protect our young men and women and our military contractors and to begin to bring them home. And so that is going to be another debate that will take place in the upcoming months, and we're building support for that position.
Q (Off mike.)
REP. WOOLSEY: Therefore, it's up to us, as Democrats, and ask our leadership to work with us or have us work with them to put out some bold, bold steps that this country needs to follow. So the president is going to veto it. The public wants to know what we would do if we were in the leadership.
We are in the leadership of this Congress and of the Senate, and we need to lay that out, because that's what the people of the United States of America are waiting for. For us to hang back and say, "Well, we can't do it; the president won't let us" -- well, guess what; this is a democracy. They need to hear what we would do. And that might turn things around, because then the grassroots could come along and push in the right direction. And the right direction is to get our troops safely, and in an orderly way, out of Iraq.
Q Congresswoman, have you gotten any commitment from the leadership -- (inaudible)?
REP. WOOLSEY: Well, we're pushing on it. You know that.
Q Congressman Abercrombie -- (inaudible) -- bipartisan vote he said would move things further along in getting Republican votes. He's trying to revive the bill that you guys -- (inaudible).
REP. WATERS: Let me just say this, because I can see that the questions are basically centered on whether or not you have the votes. Of course we don't have the votes. Then the questions go to, "Why are you continuing to apply pressure and to talk about getting out when you know you don't have the votes, and if you had them, the president would veto them?"
You have to understand, in a democracy, where you have opposing views, that those views are very important to be put forward. The struggle for justice or freedom or for your vision does not stop with the threat of a veto, does not stop with the threat that maybe you don't have enough people with you now.
Some of us have been warriors in different ways for a long time, and many of us, when we started to end, for example, apartheid in South Africa, didn't have votes. We didn't have the president. We didn't have much of anything. But we worked and we worked and we worked; and the same thing with Vietnam. People worked and they worked and they organized.
So our challenge is to do the work, to apply the pressure, to not give in, to not give up, and to defy those who would continue down this failed road, because the policy is putting us all at risk.
And I want to just say, because I'm so pleased that General Odom is here today, it is unusual to have generals who have served to take this position, to be so firmly opposed to the way this war has been run. And so I think that the press needs to take that into account and to understand that as we have been working, we have been growing in those who have been speaking out, to have a -- (inaudible) -- here who could tell you the facts about what happens on the ground and to take you inside, take you inside Iraq in the way that he described what his responsibilities were, is something that you must recognize as extremely powerful.
And it's that kind of power that we're going to use to eventually win.
REP. WOOLSEY: The sergeant would like to respond.
MR. BRUHNS: I'd just like to say one thing. Every single member of Congress has to realize that George Bush is not running for re- election in 2008; they are. So let me quote Senator Chuck Hagel with his testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He said, "If you want an easy job, sell shoes." He said, "I want every Senator, on record, to look into that camera, and you make a decision on whether or not to send more American kids into that grinder." He called it a grinder.
Another Republican senator, Gordon Smith, got on the floor of the Senate and said he could no longer, no longer support this war because it may even be criminal. Rep. Barrett, he made his decision, we see what's happening with him in his district. His constituents are not happy with his representation currently and he's feeling the heat. And his political career may be non-existent in 2008.
So what I ask you for -- as an American, what I'm asking Congress for is binding, bipartisan legislation that gets our troops out of Iraq. No more blind -- no more -- we can no longer afford to blindly follow George W. Bush. His presidency is a failure, probably the worst thing that's ever happened to the Republican Party, and this country can't afford it anymore.
Thank you.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: I want to say one thing too.
MR. BRUHNS: Sure.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Well, actually we do have the votes in the House to set - to set a date. We have -- we have done it before but there is a hard date in all of this, and that's November, 2008, the election. And I see fear in the eyes of a number of the Republicans who are very concerned and weighing very carefully whether or not this is going to doom them to lose that election in November, 2008. And that's the goal right now, really, is to convince enough Republicans to break with the president's failed policy and join the Democrats in voting to end this war.
And I think that a lot of the activities over the summer, the vast majority of Americans being ready to get out, is sooner rather than later going to convince them, as the campaigns heat up, to join with us to end the war.
REP. WATERS: Let me just say that Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and I have started to move out from the halls of Congress. We've been to Iowa. Last week we were in Las Vegas, Nevada where we rallied with the culinary workers, and while we were supportive of their contract negotiations, the biggest issue for them was the war and getting out of Iraq.
And so we're going to continue to move out. We're going to be going to New Hampshire, we're going to be in California, we're going to be in many of the early primary states and other places, because we've decided that not only are we legislators, we're organizers too. And so we're going to use our organizing skills to turn up the heat. And we're not bound by any policies, by the leadership, or anybody else that would keep us in Iraq.
Yes.
Q (Off mike.)
REP. WATERS: Well, as you know, the war in Iraq is the 1 million-pound elephant in the room, and so we are very, very focused with a lot of our time and attention, not only on trying to come up with legislation that helps to define, you know, what is wrong with this war, but we spend a lot of time talking with our colleagues, meeting with the leadership, and trying to convince some of our colleagues to have more courage, and we're traveling around now. So the impeachment of Dick Cheney is another thing that's secondary to what we're doing, and so while we are sending a message with the impeachment resolution support, we're focused more on this war.
REP. LEE: Let me just say one -- we are also working hard on reframing the debate with regard to funding because we have, as you heard earlier, another supplemental coming forward. We're working with our colleagues to gain support for our strategy for, once again, fencing in the funding, using the funding to protect our troops and contractors, and to begin to redeploy and bring them home. And we're building support for that, that is a priority. We have to use the power of the purse to begin to end this occupation. And so that is another one of our efforts that we're working with our colleagues on and we are building support for that.
Q (Off mike.)
REP. WATERS: I can't hear it. I can't hear you.
REP. WOOLSEY: (Off mike.)
REP. WATERS: How much have we spent on training the military? $19 billion.
MR. BRUHN: Just one more thing. Poll after poll after poll have indicated that American troops on the ground are no longer in favor of this war. They favor some form of withdrawal. The American people spoke loud and clear last November. They sent a message straight to the president that they want a dramatic change in course for this war, and the president doesn't like to listen to the American people. So the only that we can do now is that Congress has to get that message. And I'm standing here with members of Congress who did get that message. So now it's time for Congress to step up and do the right thing as a co-equal branch of government and bring our troops home.
Thank you.
REP. WATERS: I'd like General Odom to wrap up our press conference.
GEN. ODOM: Well, I would just like, once again, to commend this effort because it seems to me, since last spring, the Congress has sort of dropped out of this fight, and this is evidence to me that it may rejoin this fight, and only the Congress, who we have, to check that other branch of government.
The last thing I would say, I would encourage the Press to remember some of these points I tried to identify for you about the inherent contradictions, the outright absurdity of the arguments that are being presented to you pursuing what I have many years called -- or several years ago called the greatest strategic disaster in American history. And I was very delighted to hear Congressman Waters' and others' opening comments saying that the precondition for reestablishing -- comes out of stability in the Persian Gulf area -- is withdrawal.
And that is the lynch point. When you finally convince people that is the precondition to go forward, it's not a retreat to get out of - (inaudible). It's a precondition for an offensive. And I don't see how you let the administration get away with continuing to perpetuate this myth.
Thank you.
REP. WATERS: Thank you all very, very much. We hope to continue to engage you. Thank you.
Source