Hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs - Iraqi Benchmarks: An Objective Assessment

Statement

HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SUBJECT: IRAQI BENCHMARKS: AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT
CHAIRED BY: REP. TOM LANTOS (D-CA)
WITNESS: DAVID WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JIM COSTA (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member for what is, again, I think an excellent hearing. I look upon this hearing and the subsequent hearings that we're going to hold as very key and critical, I think, for the majority of members of Congress, certainly for myself, as we try to determine over the course of the next month what should be the best strategy for our involvement in Iraq and where we go from here because I think again that is the most appropriate question. So I look at this GAO report in terms of the totality of the other briefings that we will have before this committee and others as we debate and discuss, appropriately so, before the American public with the American public as to what is in America's best interests in the short and long term in the Middle East.

I have several questions I would like to ask you, Mr. Walker, and we appreciate the good work that you've done on this. It's already been said.

First of all, I think it's important, and I -- on your last point, I think we should direct you in a bipartisan fashion as to, one, what are realistic goals in the next 18 months? What would your priorities be if not these 18 benchmarks? These were agreed upon as a part -- as had been mentioned before a political discussion that had taken place on the supplemental funding. They were supported by the administration. If you believe other priorities should be included or different benchmarks, I would like to hear what they should be.

And I'm glad to hear that you defined -- that you got to the bottom line on how do we define success and not victory because the victory I think, as had been mentioned again before, was achieved in 2003. There's no army to defeat here; there's no navy to sink. We are now in the middle of a sectarian civil war and we're asked to be the policemen on the street.

So my eyes just roll when we have these discussions, which I think are political, on whether or not we maintain the surge indefinitely, which we know we can't because it's already been stipulated. Both those in the Department of Defense and the Pentagon as well as other experts indicate that our limitations are fast approaching with our ability to maintain our military commitment. Or the second false choice is surrender. We're not going to do that. We have a whole reason to be in the Middle East, from Iran to the situations with Syria, with Israel and Palestine. We're going to be in that neighborhood for a long time as far as I can determine.

So let's separate the political rhetoric in terms of these two false choices. We're not going to maintain the surge indefinitely, and we're not going to surrender because we're going to be in the neighborhood for a long time. Let's begin to talk about, in a bipartisan fashion, where do we go from here.

In that case, when I visited Iraq last year -- and I'd like to get your take on this, Mr. Walker -- Prime Minister Maliki said then what he is saying now, and that is that his unity government's going to, you know, eliminate the militias to significantly reduce the violence, to get the economy going. And, of course, he's still saying that today, and I've come to the conclusion he's either incapable or unwilling to do what needs to be done.

So my question to you is about the role of this government, and part of the benchmarks speak to those roles. It's my sense, in a part of the world where, I hate to say this, but corruption -- and we haven't talked about that yet here this afternoon -- corruption in this country, in this part of the world, is if not a way in life seems to be endemic. Having said that, it seems to me democracy as we look upon it, democracy as the Iraqis look on it is a totally different concept. I mean, I think for the Shi'a community, Iraq -- democracy is a vehicle to regain power and wealth. And if I'm a Sunni and I'm looking at democracy and we're wondering how this government functions, it's a vehicle for paybacks when I was in charge. So I'm wondering, do you think this democracy can work with this corruption that continues to be pervasive?

MR. WALKER: Corruption is a major problem in Iraq. Corruption is a problem in other countries in the region. Corruption is a problem in other countries in the world. It's something that I've talked to my counterpart about both in Iraq on more than one occasion as well as here in the United States on more than one occasion. And while clearly I think it's something that hurts, you know, inhibits the ability to make progress, I don't think it's the major issue.

Part of the issue is the Sunnis dominated through a dictator for a number of years. The Sunnis only represent 20 percent of the population of this country. One person, one vote, figure it out, okay. And so therefore, the issue is as each of the key players, the Sunnis, the Shi'as, the Kurds and the subdivisions there are, because there are different power points within each of those, has to decide what do they believe is in their collective and in some cases individual interest over time.

And I think one of the reasons that you may not have seen more progress there is not because people aren't trying very hard, not because the prime minister may not want to make progress, but have enough of the players committed that they want to do what's right for the collective best interests of all rather than their narrow interests, and I can't put myself in their head. I mean, I --

REP. COSTA: Until we get past that, it seems to me it's going to be tough sledding.

MR. WALKER: Well, you know, there's either got to be -- there's got to be, you know, incentives and/or consequences for their doing certain things and failure to do others. And I think the other thing we have to keep in mind is this is a tough neighborhood. It's been a tough neighborhood for centuries. This is a neighborhood that has strategic interest for the United States. We're going to have a presence in this neighborhood for a while, but the question is what size presence, where, doing what and for what contingencies.

REP. COSTA: Thank you. My time has expired, but I'll have --

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source