Hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations - The President's FY 2008 Supplemental Request for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Statement
Hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations - The President's FY 2008 Supplemental Request for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Gates, in your written statement with respect to the second adjustment, you indicate that $6 billion is requested to support Army and Marine Corps formations currently in Iraq through FY 2008, taking into account the president's announced intention to redeploy five Army brigade combat teams by next summer. My quick calculations suggest that's roughly 15,000 troops, about 3,000 persons per brigade. That leaves an additional 15,000 troops that were sent during the surge, and my understanding is unless you want to extend deployments beyond 15 months, those 15,000 additional troops are going to have to come out sometime in '08. So just for the record, are you assuming that that additional 15,000 troops are in or out?
SEC. GATES: Senator, we are calculating that the five combat -- brigade combat teams that would be coming out would total about 21,500 troops. You then have about 8,000 enablers who were sent in with the surge brigades; because those surge brigades and where they are having the combat is not where we're going to be drawing down -- I think General Petraeus testified up here that some number of those 8,000 enablers, the rotary-wing support and so on, would be remaining in the fight.
So I think he was purposely vague in terms of how many of the combat support troops would come out, but we are anticipating 21,500 of the combat brigades would come out.
SEN. REED: So two points. Roughly speaking, if you count combat support and service support, you're close to 30,000 troops, which was the surge element.
SEC. GATES: Yes, sir.
SEN. REED: And second, you've continued to respect the limit of 15-month maximum tour.
SEC. GATES: Yes, sir.
SEN. REED: And that's not going to change?
SEC. GATES: No, sir.
SEN. REED: And none of your budget calculations suggest that will change at all?
SEC. GATES: No, sir.
SEN. REED: Okay.
Moving to another part of your testimony where you talked about Section 1206 and 1207 funding -- and I think Senator Inouye covered this also -- you authorized $300 million in 1206 and you've received, I believe, $300 million; 1207 is the $200 million authorization, and that also was appropriated, $200 million, and you're asking now for an additional $200 million in 1206.
As I understand these funds, they're not entirely fungible but they represent similar efforts. 1206 is DOD stability train and equip; 1207 is money that you give the State Department to do very similar things. Can't you use both these accounts rather than getting an additional $200 million?
SEC. GATES: I don't know the answer to that. Ms. Jonas, can you --
MS. JONAS: Sir, we can certainly take a look at that option. We can talk with the policy folks to do that. But the request of the combatant commanders, particularly for the 1206, was a little bit broader. So it really is coming from them.
SEN. REED: And Secretary Negroponte, is this the case that there is money that DOD has that's not getting to State that you spend? I mean, are we talking about some money that is held up someplace that they did -- you don't get the money, so you don't spend it, so the Army, the military commanders coming back can give us that $200 million in another account?
MR. NEGROPONTE: I'm afraid I don't know the answer. I'll have to supply that, Senator.
SEN. REED: I would appreciate a follow-up on this.
Mr. Secretary -- Secretary Gates, I've listened to your testimony, and frankly, you inspire, I think, great confidence in your judgment, in your dedication, amongst all of us. But as I listen to you, you're talking about an emerging policy which begins a drawdown, the five brigades we've just talked about, that transitions missions to counterterrorism, border protection and training, that will result, one hopes -- at least your hopes expressed today -- in a further reduction of forces, a continuous reduction. It sounds very much like the policy that Senator Levin and I and others have been trying to advance in the Congress.
Why won't the president accept that policy if it seems to be -- conforms to what you believe?
SEC. GATES: I think part of the issue has been principally the binding nature of the timeline, as I understand it.
SEN. REED: Well, then if we were to propose an approach that had no -- not a binding end point, as I understand -- I think I understand our proposal -- that the first proposal was to begin a reduction this year, which is now a fait accompli, based on General Petraeus's report. And the second element is to begin a transition, which you've talked about. It's probably in the works already.
The third point is completing that transition. Is that the point of dispute that you sense between the president?
SEC. GATES: I think so. I have not had a specific conversation with the president about this, but I think that the principal concern has been the binding nature of the end date and the timetable.
SEN. REED: Well, I would -- I think it would behoove all of us to have that conversation.
That is a policy that, in my view, has a much, I think, larger probability of not only success, is supported by the American public.
As you all -- as you pointed out -- and it resonates in all the comments -- the long-term sustainability of this -- of this whatever proposal, unless we change it, by the American public is doubtful. I mean, the numbers are there. They haven't changed. General Petraeus's report hasn't changed any minds of the public. And I think it's about time we start talking about a policy that will -- that we're talking about, but the president should talk about it rather than this return on success sloganeering, but I'll stop right there.
I just -- General Pace, there's an article on Newsweek on September 10th that says there's a report prepared by a Pentagon working group that differs substantially from General Petraeus's recommendations. The article also states, quote, "an early version of the report," which is currently being and drafted and expected to be completed by the beginning of the next year, will, quote "recommend a very rapid reduction of American forces, as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly while keeping the remainder there." Is this report accurate? Is there another report that's been prepared and circulating, and could be publicized and adopted in the near term?
GEN. PACE: I'm not aware of it, sir. I can tell you what I do know, and that is that we started about, oh, two months ago, purposely independently, with General Petraeus doing his work, Admiral Fallon doing his and the chiefs doing ours. And about three weeks before the president spoke publicly, we eight senior officers shared our thoughts with each other about where we were, where we were going and how we're going to get there. We were very much in the same grid square, so to speak, with regard to what we had thought was appropriate to make recommendations to the president.
Not surprisingly, General Petraeus being responsible for Iraq, Admiral Fallon being responsible for the region and the chiefs being responsible for global responsibilities, had a little bit different flavor as we looked at the raw data. At the end of the day, we were unanimous, individually and collectively, to go forward to the president with what has been dubbed the "Petraeus report," but could just as easily be said the Pace report or the Cartwright report or whatever other chief's name you want to put on it.
So we have gone through it. And in the process of getting there, we did look at -- we looked at nine separate courses of action, going to the borders, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So it's possible that one of those nine courses of action that we tossed out is the basis for this rumor, but there is no report inside the Pentagon that has any gravity at all to it that was not presented to the president when he asked for it.
SEN. REED: Is it fair to say this option was seriously considered?
GEN. PACE: Could you repeat the option again, sir?
SEN. REED: The option of a rapid drawdown of the forces in the near term, as --
GEN. PACE: It was, yes, sir, both plussing up on one end and rapid drawdown on the other and six or seven in between.
SEN. REED: Let me conclude by saying I understand, General Pace, that on your last trip to Iraq, you had the opportunity to visit Gulf Company -- 2nd Battalion, Fifth Marines?
GEN. PACE: I did, sir.
SEN. REED: And I also understand that, as a lieutenant, you commanded a platoon in Vietnam with that unit?
GEN. PACE: I did, sir.
SEN. REED: I think that is a full circle on an honorable career with great fidelity to the nation and to the Marine Corps, and I thank you, sir.
GEN. PACE: Thank you very much, Senator.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source