Press Conference with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Senator Carl Levin (D-MI); and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Subject: Iraq
Statement
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID (D-NV); SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D-MI); AND SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI)
SUBJECT: IRAQ AND THE TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR CROCKER AND GENERAL PETRAEUS
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.
SEN. REID: We've had the report on the commander in chief's plan, given to the Congress the last couple days. The president's giving a speech tomorrow. Pelosi and I had a meeting at the White House yesterday.
We think it's important to talk about the fact that also next week we're going to take up Iraq again with the defense authorization bill. We're not going to get in today into the specificity of the various amendments that will be offered next week, but there will be amendments offered tp change the course of the war in Iraq.
And we're reaching out to the Republicans to allow them to fulfill their word. A number of them are quoted significantly, saying that come September, that there would have to be a change of the course of the war in Iraq.
And certainly we know a couple of things very, very clearly. Al Qaeda is resurgent. We saw that with the new Osama bin Laden with his black beard. We know the Middle East is destabilized and Iraq remains in a state of civil war.
It appears the president's dug in, unwilling to recognize that his strategy is placing all the burden on our military and it's simply not working. For months, going into years, the American people have waited for the president to change course.
The president promised the American people that this surge would be to reestablish civil government in Iraq, would take 30-60 days. The report the president gave us is that it's going to take 18 months for the surge level to be brought back to what it was pre-surge.
I repeat, now that September has come, the surge has had ample time to run its course. This is what we know. Every objective assessment has shown the surge has failed to bring the Iraqi government closer to political reconciliation. The General Accounting Office, the watchdog of Congress and the American people: Virtually all the benchmarks have simply not been met. The Jones report: In addition to showing that the police force is basically incapable of operating, he also has stated there needs to be a transition of the mission. The National Intelligence Estimate shows al Qaeda is rebuilding its attack capabilities.
Despite these facts, the president has told us to be patient, allow the spilling of more American blood, more of our treasury. His plan is neither a drawdown nor a change in mission that we need. His plan is simply more of the same, to keep at least 130,000 troops, American troops, in the midst of an intractable civil war. This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people.
I hope the Senate Republicans also recognize its time for them to come over and work with us. It's long past time to change the mission in Iraq. It's time to reduce our large combat footprint and to fight in other areas to make this country safer. So I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lock-step as they have with the president for years in this war. It's time to change. It's the president's war. At this stage, it appears clearly it's also the Republican senators' war. And I hope that they will drop that legacy next week.
Senator Levin?
SEN. LEVIN: Well, the president apparently is just going to stay the course, essentially, just announce that the surge will end by the middle of next year, go back to the place where we were before the surge. That is the status quo, which he is unwilling to change.
If he's going to change course, a number of things have got to happen. We've got to go significantly below the pre-surge level, to have a number of troops that are there only for the limited missions of protecting our diplomats, of training the Iraqi army, of going after al Qaeda in a limited counterterrorism way.
Those limited missions are what need to be transitioned to, and the amendments that will be offered will have that transition of mission and the transition to a lower number of troops to a number significantly below the pre-surge level.
Just simply saying, as the president is apparently going to say, that he wants to go to the pre-surge level by next July and then decide whether to go deeper is the definition of an open-ended commitment. That is the open-ended commitment that he refuses, apparently, to change. Instead of real change, to simply go to the pre-surge level is an effort to prevent a real change. It creates and provides an illusion of change in an effort to take the wind out of the sails of those of us who want to truly change course in Iraq.
General Petraeus was actually helpful in a number of ways yesterday. One, he agreed readily that there's no military solution in Iraq, only a political solution. Secondly, he agreed that the purpose of the surge, which was to give the Iraqi politicians the breathing room to reach a political settlement, had not been achieved, that the very purposeness (sic) -- stated purpose of the surge to give the Iraqi politicians that room had not been achieved. He also was helpful in another way in saying that the national leaders in Iraq had not carried out the commitments that they had made to reach certain benchmarks. He was also helpful in acknowledging what General Jones and his panel had told us last week, and that is that there are significant number of Iraqi units who are capable of taking the lead in combat that have not yet been given the lead. There is no reason for that to continue. One of the key indicators of shifting responsibility for the future of their country to the Iraqi leaders is for the Iraqi military that is capable of taking the lead in combat to be given that assignment.
And finally, General Petraeus said something else yesterday which, I think, was lost because it came at the very end of the hearing when just about everybody had left the room. And I asked General Petraeus the following question: Are you now recommending that we reduce the number of troops below the pre-surge level, and reserving only the question of the pace of that reduction till next March?
You may remember his testimony is that he wanted to hold off till next March a decision on what to recommend relative to the pace of future reductions.
And then I said directly, "That implies to me that you're committed now to continue reductions beyond the pre-surge level, below the pre-surge level, and to continue those reductions when we reach that level." And his answer was very direct: yes.
And I repeated the question, because it is an important difference, I believe, between what General Petraeus is saying and what President Bush is apparently going to say tomorrow night. If President Bush simply says again that we're going to return to the pre-surge level of 130,000, 15 combat brigades, and then decide whether to go deeper, that the definition of the open-ended commitment.
But General Petraeus yesterday at least said something that I thought had a significant difference from that: a commitment now, which is what we are determined to put into law, to significantly reduce the number of American troops below the pre-surge level. And I don't know if that issue came up at the press conference between General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker this morning, but it is part of the record, and my press secretary has copies of the transcript of that question and answer between myself and General Petraeus where he made that important point.
SEN. REID: Before I have Jack make his presentation, I wanted to announce that following the president's speech tomorrow night, Jack will represent Senate Democrats in the response.
SEN. REED: Well, thank you, Harry.
The first point that I want to make -- and I'm sure my colleagues join me -- is that our forces in Iraq are doing an extraordinary job. Their service and their sacrifice has literally bought time, but unfortunately that time has not been used well by the government of Iraq. The whole premise of the surge was that the additional forces and additional tactical changes on the battlefield would allow the political leaders in Iraq to make difficult decisions in order to reconcile their country and develop the institutions that are necessary for any country to function. That has not happened. So on its face, the surge, as confirmed by the NIE, has not succeeded.
Now we're at a juncture where we have to look ahead and to come up with an approach that will be supportive of stabilization efforts in Iraq but also of the long-term interests of the United States.
The recommendation that we heard was that approximately 30,000 forces would be removed by next spring, next summer. That is not, I think, a reaction to what's happened on the ground; that's just a function of the size of our Army. That was almost a given. What we have to look beyond is that reduction and try to look ahead next year and the years ahead as to what is the best approach to support stability in Iraq and to support our forces as they carry out that difficult task.
Both Senator Levin and I have worked together with our colleagues to suggest that we have to change the mission, that we have to reduce our forces, we have to begin that reduction. It's interesting to note that the proposal we made starting in June of '06 to begin a redeployment of forces has been accepted by General Petraeus and apparently accepted also by the president.
But we have to go further. We have to live in our missions in Iraq, and we have to go ahead and recognize the strain on the military forces and give them the tasks that they can do so well but within the capability of their resources and the best interests of the United States. And these missions, we feel -- we have felt for a long time are continuing an aggressive, unrelenting counterterrorism operation, training Iraqi security forces and protecting our forces. I believe if we follow that approach, we can do what General Petraeus seemed to suggest to Senator Levin yesterday -- significantly reduce our forces below the pre-surge level, and that should be our objective.
We have spent a huge amount of money, but more importantly, we have spent the lives of young Americans. Because of their sacrifice and service, they need a change in direction, a change in policy, and we hope next week, with the cooperation and the collaboration and the help of our colleagues across the aisle, we can change that policy.
Q Mr. Leader, do you believe the testimony did in fact take the wind out of the sails of change and make it more difficult for you to recruit Republicans? And how will it affect your legislative strategy?
SEN. REID: The testimony was very clear that the situation on the ground in Iraq has not changed at all. We have 100,000 Iraqis being displaced every month. We have American troops being killed every month -- every month. We're now approaching 30,000 who have been wounded. The cost of the war is approaching three-quarters of a trillion dollars. So that's what the testimony clearly indicated.
If people are looking for an excuse to follow the president -- Bush's War -- and as I've indicated, they want to make this now unquestionably the Republican senators' also war -- then they have a right to do that.
But the situation on the ground is crying out for change.
Q Senator, what guarantee do you have that if you do change the mission that that will necessarily mean that the troops will be redeployed more quickly than General Petraeus has outlined?
SEN. REID: Well, as I've indicated, we're not going to get into specificity of the legislation that we're going to introduce next week. But some of that will require that to be the case. So you know, with all legislation, we have to see first of all if we can get it passed. But once it's passed, we have to see how it's implemented. We recognize the president is the commander in chief, and he's ignored a lot of things in the past, including -- that's why he gives the signing statements. But we would hope that he would follow the law, whatever it is that we pass.
Q Have you decided what that legislation's going to be?
SEN. REID: Yes, we had a meeting just a little while ago. And we have now senators working on finalizing the drafting of their legislation. But we do have an idea of what we're going to do.
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. REID: No, I don't think it's appropriate to do it now, but we are --
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. REID: Yes.
Q Mr. Leader, you said just a second ago that the situation on the ground in Iraq has not changed at all.
SEN. REID: Yes.
Q The general said that it had.
SEN. REID: Well, it's changed in one province, one area of Iraq. Of course it's changed there. But it's like the big balloon that you push on one side, and it comes out someplace else.
We -- I think I know, I think we all know, that we don't have the ability to change militarily. General Petraeus has said that. Sure, there's -- the Sunnis have decided that this is a way that they can react in Anbar province. The Shi'as don't like what's going on in Anbar province. It gives the Sunnis more power, more weaponry. They don't like the money that's been promised to the Sunnis.
The situation on the ground has not changed in Iraq. I say that without equivocation. It's changed in Anbar province, but that's all.
Q (Cross talk.)
SEN. REID: And now the statements are coming out of Northern Iraq that now they have a cholera epidemic that they're afraid is going to spill into Baghdad. This country's in real trouble.
Q Senator Reid, how many proposals do you expect will be on the floor next week? And are you going to do it as part of the Defense authorization --
SEN. REID: Decision hasn't been made on that. It will be during the debate that we're doing on the Defense authorization bill.
Whether there will be free-standing amendments that will be -- stand or fall on their own, or whether it will be part of the Defense authorization bill, I have to get unanimous consent to that. I prefer having them separate.
Q How many are there going to be?
SEN. REID: Well, we don't know. We have a number of Democrats, four to six Democratic amendments.
Q Senator Reid, I'd like to ask you if you want to in any way contest the portrait that's emerged in the last couple of days that whatever you come up with next week will be less aggressive, as far as the mandatory deadline, than you had in the summer; that Petraeus's testimony -- (off mike) -- changed that --
SEN. REID: I don't accept that. I don't accept that.
Q Explain to us why. Will -- so are you telling us -- (off mike) --
SEN. REID: Wait till you see the legislation.
Q (Off mike) -- more aggressive --
SEN. REID: I think we're going to continue to be just as aggressive as we have been.
Q One of the things that General Petraeus argued was that security was the key to political reconciliation, and just now the surge's success is starting to lay the groundwork for political reconciliation. So if we're almost to that point, why should we start pulling out troops when we're almost there?
SEN. REID: Well, I think that your statement that we're almost there is just a little bit short of being ridiculous. Okay?
(Cross talk.) Yeah?
Q Could you just talk a little bit about the DC vote? I understand you're filing for cloture for that.
SEN. REID: I'm going to move forward on a motion to proceed. We're going to have that vote Tuesday, after the caucus. The votes are very close. I think this is something the District of Columbia and Utah deserve. And I'm going to work with Senator Lieberman to see we can get 60 votes. (Cross talk.)
Last question.
Q Do you think that security is the key to political reconciliation?
SEN. REID: Yes?
Q You don't want to answer her question?
SEN. REID: I didn't hear her question. If you want me to answer her question rather than yours, I'll be happy to do that.
Yeah?
Q Do you agree that -- (off mike) -- that getting security is the key to political reconciliation?
SEN. LEVIN: (To colleagues.) Can I give the answer to that?
I'd just give a quick answer to that. The purpose of the surge, stated by the president, was to give the politicians breathing room to reach a political settlement. That was the stated, avowed purpose of the surge. General Petraeus acknowledged yesterday that the purpose of the surge was not accomplished, because the politicians nationally have gone nowhere in terms of reconciling their differences and working out the differences in legislation that have to be worked out for there to be national reconciliation.
Q Senator --
STAFF: One more.
Q Senator, Tony Snow just rejected this idea that the U.S. would simply be returning to a pre-surge posture. He said that there have been changes in this country, and that's why we can move forward.
SEN. REID: In what country?
Q Iraq.
SEN. REID: Huh. Well, you've heard Senator Levin.
Jack?
SEN. REID: Well, I would suggest that unless you change the mission, then you're going to have essentially the same level of manpower, men and women, that you've had prior to the surge. In fact, I think there's a real question, if you maintain the mission, as they insist upon, of protecting the population, how do you do it with less forces?
But if you have those (range of ?) missions, you will have approximately the same amount of forces, I think, in-country that you had before the surge.
So I think the president could be very clear, rather than just making a -- sort of a statement that apparently he's -- (inaudible) -- have, with saying that we are coming down beyond pre-surge levels next year, but the question of pace is the one, timing is the one that's still outstanding; or second, we are changing our missions and therefore allowing us to reduce forces. Saying none of the above implies to me very clearly that it's the status quo before the surge. Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Happy New Year.
STAFF: Thank you, everybody.
Source