Press Conference With Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
Interview
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI)
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. REED: Good afternoon. I would like to make a few brief comments, and then I'll try as best I can to take your questions.
Last evening, the president did not set out a new course for Iraq. What he did was accept the reality of our limited military force structure, the number of soldiers and Marines we have on duty. Under that force structure, unless the president declared he wanted to extend tours to 18 months or accelerate the call-up of Reserve and National Guard forces or even more draconian personnel policies, then these troops are scheduled to come out beginning next April and culminating next July. And essentially, that's the essence of General Petraeus' recommendations. He too also recognizes that the force structure is determinative.
And as a result, very little, I think, that's happening on the ground contributed to that decision. And what I think we must do as a nation is to try to look forward and determine what missions we should be performing, our forces should be performing beginning now and certainly stretching past next spring and summer when we know troop levels are coming down.
The other aspect of the success or the evidence on the ground of progress is the question of how durable it is, and there's a great many that feel that once our forces come out of these areas without Iraqi security forces and without the institutions of Iraqi government -- what we all take for granted; you know, a functioning public health system, functioning educational system, budget process that is routinized at least -- then that success will quickly evaporate.
And so all of this in my mind drives us to the point where we have to think now, not six months from now, and I think that's what many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are considering. What do we do? What's our mission going forward in Iraq, our mission? And Senator Levin and I and others have talked about limiting those missions, I think, appropriately to counterterrorism, to training the Iraqi security forces and protecting our security forces.
I think those are missions consistent with our national interests and also consistent with the forces we have available over the long run, not just the next six months but for the next year or two.
Today the administration released the report showing that the Iraqi government is not making progress -- or dramatic progress -- with respect to these benchmarks. Given the record of the Iraqi government to date, again, I think it's highly unlikely that in the next three, four, six months they will make that progress.
So all this argues for me is that we should be talking about real change, and last evening, the president did not talk about real change. He accepted the reality of our force structure, he tried to suggest that was the result of success on the ground, but it's more the fact that we have too few soldiers and Marines to keep going time and time again into Iraq and then coming home and going back quickly. So I think again, we have to start the process of change and I hope we can do that.
And let me stop right there and take your questions. Yes sir?
Q (Off mike) -- forward when you're talking about limiting the roles, you need votes than you have. So how, specifically, can you sort of reach across party lines and bring some of those votes over demanding change?
SEN. REED: We already have one more vote. Senator Johnson has returned. So we're at 54 with his vote. But what I sensed, and I think what you sensed also, is that a few months ago people said, "Wait until September." Well, September has come. I think now my colleagues have to evaluate General Petraeus's report and, more importantly, the president's speech last evening, and they have to ask the same questions that I suggested today.
What will we know six months from now? We don't really know. We understand and we know right now our forces are coming down. And we have to, I think, consider how best to employ those forces in Iraq. We're working, Senator Levin and I, we're talking to our colleagues across the aisle. We recognize that we do need bipartisan support. We do need Republicans to come join us. We're going to endeavor to do that. And so far, every time we've brought our measure up -- there's been some modifications, I'll admit that -- we've gained votes.
I hope -- and besides the obvious point of Senator Johnson, I hope we gain additional votes this time, and we're working hard to do that.
Yes, ma'am.
Q But what form will you bring it to the floor, then, next week?
SEN. REED: We are still -- Senator Levin and I are still talking about that. As you know, he's in Michigan for Rosh Hashanah, but we are still talking about whether there'll be, I think, something that has at least some aspects of a goal to achieve or whether it's going to be directive on all measures.
The one aspect that we proposed a year ago and renewed this year was the fact of initiating deployment. We thought that was very important. That was essentially encompassed in General Petraeus' recommendation. He has indicated already that he is proposing to withdraw forces beginning before the end of this year.
So the point that I thought -- think is very critical to begin the withdrawal is something that at least is recognized now not with a lot of fanfare, but recognized by General Petraeus and the president as something that will be done.
Q You've been working on this for a long time. Can you give us anymore insight into -- I mean, is this basically vote counting, working out -- okay, if we gain these Republican votes, how many then are we losing on this side?
SEN. REED: Figure that's part of it, frankly. I mean, there is -- there are -- issues here are policy direction, and I think those issues that we're going to put within the legislation -- and that talks about initiating a redeployment, transitioning to missions. That policy is still viable, still going to be part of the legislation. The question is really of timing, and part of the debate, part of the discussion is to what extent we can attract more support, hopefully 60 or more votes, by changing timing and changing some of the emphasis. But the core policy considerations, I think, are the same. They're the ones that we've always felt are not just good politics, but good policy for the United States.
Q Senator, have you definitely decided to drop -- state certain --
SEN. REED: We have not -- no, we have not.
Q That could still be an option --
SEN. REED: It's still -- you know, again, part of this is the fact that necessarily I speak for myself. I've been working closely with Senator Levin. He is celebrating the Jewish holidays in Michigan. I'll talk to him, see him probably Monday -- Sunday, Monday, and we'll start honing on specific language.
Yes, ma'am.
Q You say you're looking for Republican support, but the kind of measure that will appeal to those moderate Republicans may not please members of the Democratic base. How challenging is it to strike that balance?
SEN. REED: It is a serious challenge, because I think the -- you're right, to the extent that you're able to attract individuals from the Republican side, there might be Democrats who will say, well, now that's going to far for their position. That's the reality we have to work with. We will do that.
I hope, though, that there is a sense that if we can get 60 votes on a very positive, strong message, it might not be the message every one of our supporters would individually embrace, but that would be a powerful signal to the administration; a powerful, I think, signal to the American public that not only we get it, but we're also beginning to move in a direction that's much more in accord with their views and, in fact, the reality, I think, on the ground in Iraq.
Q But you also have to deal with the House, and I'm wondering if you've been talking to the House Democratic leaders. They have a significant progressive, liberal caucus that would not support something that the Republicans -- (off mike) -- support. And both sides have been very unified. So I'm wondering, you know, what conversations you've been having with --
SEN. REED: I must say -- I'm not having conversations with the speaker, but I recognize, as you do, just as I recognize Senator Harry Reid has a real challenge, because I don't think either caucus, either House, Senate, Republican or Democrat, has a single consent about or view about what should happen and what will not happen. I think it's a process of trying to pull together people.
What I would say, though, is that we've faced these divisions before and we've managed to be able to pull people together in our caucus and also attract, you know, in ones and twos, Republicans to the general thrust our legislation. We hope we can do that again.
Yes, sir?
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. REED: Excuse me. Could you repeat that?
Q Senator Webb is proposing -- (off mike).
SEN. REED: I think Senator Webb's proposal has an excellent chance. I think it represents direct and obvious relief to forces that are stretched very thin, our Marine Corps and our Army, particularly. And I think it's something that is going to get support, I think, on both sides.
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. REED: Well, I think what -- it would, I think, first reinforce the reality I mentioned initially, that after this spring, the ability to increase tours as a way to fill the gap of personnel will probably be very difficult because, you know, if you have to give troops the same amount of months back in the United Sates as they had overseas, that gets very hard in terms of managing personnel.
So I think it would provide reinforcement to what is already, I think, the policy of the Department of Defense. And I think it would have an effect beyond that -- the specifics, the -- to what limits it puts on deployments, I'm not specifically aware of, but I do think it would have an impact.
Ken.
Q Senator Reed, during the last Iraq debate, there were a lot of things -- it was cut short, and there were a lot of bipartisan proposals that were left on the table and never got done. In addition to Levin-Reed, could you support other things -- are there other things out there that you'd like to see brought back up that might be able to -- basically, there was Warner-Lugar and Nelson-Collins. Are any of those things that -- are you going to incorporate any of those?
SEN. REED: I think, again, you know, both Senator Levin and myself -- and I would say that, you know, speaking on my own behalf but having a good working relationship with Senator Levin, I think we're really interested into listening to people's proposals. There are elements -- with respect to Senator Warner and Senator Lugar, it read very much like our legislation in terms of the findings and the general diagnosis of the problem, but the conclusion was essentially advise the president of these findings. We, I believe, have to have something more directive. I think that's an essential part of our legislative approach. And -- but I'd be happy, and I think Carl would also, to talk to people, listen to them, incorporate proposals.
Q So it's not a one-or-nothing, all-or-nothing; you'd be willing to -- you know, because right now it seems like leadership is -- that -- (off mike) -- position to have as many as four to six different amendments.
SEN. REED: Right.
Q What do you think for yourself?
SEN. REED: I think there'll be several proposals coming up. I haven't -- I've been so involved in trying to work through our proposal that I haven't, you know, thought in detail about how I would respond to other proposals. I'd like to be able to work to the point that ours gets 60 votes, because that will be the threshold. And that's what I'm doing full-time.
Yes, sir.
Q Senator Biden said earlier today you were concerned whether or not just to be silent on the question of a troop deadline, that initially a deadline may be a goal --
SEN. REED: Right.
Q -- and now he says you may be just silent on that. Is that something that you would support, and do you think that would help get this -- (off mike)?
SEN. REED: Well, I think -- we began with the structure of the legislation we've presented throughout, which is initiate a deployment, begin a transition to missions and to complete the transition to missions. And along the lines we've been discussing is, you know, some dates to anchor those critical points, but the question becomes, are those dates fixed in law or they become more, you know, a goal rather than a fixed deadline? That's the debate that I'm familiar with. I don't think it -- to be silent about it -- it might be a possibility, but it's not the first option I'd choose.
Q Even if you only get the transition of missions -- (off mike) -- do you have any idea how much that would impact troop levels naturally if you changed -- (off mike) --
SEN. REED: Well, I think that the first response it would be -- seem to me to be lower than 130,000 troops, the president had said last evening, will likely be there and perhaps stay there, and that, I think, is real progress. How low -- how low is --
Q (Off mike) --
SEN. REED: You know, I would like -- and I think this is one where you'd really have to get the opinion of Admiral Fallon and General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen about, given these missions and given other contingencies, what would be their preferred troop levels at least as a baseline to begin to talk about it.
And the other -- the sense I have, though, is that, you know, there's a growing sense within the Department of Defense that for other contingencies, for other areas of conflict around the world, that they've got to begin to come down, and I think that -- you know, I think they could give us a plan and a number that would be, hopefully, adequate and one that would be certainly much less than what we see now from the president.
Let me take two more questions, then depart.
Yes?
Q (Off mike) -- reduction in troop levels in Iraq is beyond what President Bush has already announced?
SEN. REED: Well, I -- it would cause them to abandon in some respects their current policies, which are 15-month deployments -- I'm talking about Army forces now -- 15-month deployment and a year back. It would require them to -- if they were going 15 months in the field, they'd have to come back for 15 months. That's the essence of the amendment. I think that would decrease their flexibility that they have now, but what I heard from General Petraeus and what I've heard informally from others is that these 15-month rotations are taking their toll on the men and women and their families and the military forces; and that that -- I think many would like to see -- in uniform would like to see those tours lessened.
As far as the overall impact on the system, it would probably require calling up Reserve and National Guard forces, I think, if they want to maintain the current tempo. So the Department of Defense would have, I think, great flexibility to manage this, and I think they can. And I think Senator Webb's amendment is not only principle, but sensible because it addresses one of the most critical problems that faces the military, active and Reserve: these tours that are getting longer and the dwell periods back in the United States that are getting shorter.
And I think he's gone right to the heart of the matter, and I think -- I commend him for the legislation.
The overall effects, I think, would be manageable with the Department of Defense.
Yes, David? That's it.
Q You said that -- (off mike) -- remains to be seen whether they can retain security that they've achieved -- (off mike) -- brigades come out. If as the brigades come out next year and they don't -- (off mike) -- does that argument -- (off mike)?
SEN. REED: Well, I think what it does is put in stark highlight the fact that what is happening on the ground is really being driven by force structure rather than events there in Iraq, because I --
Q I understand your point about the force structure, that they have to come out -- (off mike). But isn't that -- (off mike) -- start to pull out -- (off mike) -- and by May or June, we see an erosion in the security that they achieved while they were -- (off mike) -- does that argue, in your mind, for a faster withdrawal?
SEN. REED: I think it argues, first, for a faster transition to the missions that -- of force protection, counterterrorism and training --
Q So --
SEN. REED: -- and moving away quickly from the population protection, since the essence of your question -- you're saying population protection is not working. So --
Q I wasn't saying; you were saying --
SEN. REED: Yeah, well, then, that your proposal that -- but I think what it does is argues for a faster transition, which I think might -- will obviously guide or -- the force levels.
But I've always taken the approach -- and I think it makes sense -- is that rather than talking about arbitrary numbers of troops on the ground, you talk in terms of what they should be doing and then let military commanders determine what's the appropriate force level. That's the way I think the military should operate -- you know, give them -- give a commander a mission and then get his or her suggestion or recommendations about the forces he or she needs. I think that's why we've always tried to stress missions rather than arbitrary numbers and should they come down faster or slower.
Thank you very much.
Q Thank you.
Source