Joint Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee- The Proposed U.S. Security Commitment to Iraq

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JIM COSTA (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In listening to the comments by my colleagues here, I guess I want to further explore the nature of this proposed agreement, not so much as what's in it or what should be in the treaty, but the timeline that was discussed at some length by my colleagues and their questions. If in fact the administration reaches some sort of an agreement, what is the -- what would be the binding nature, in your view, into the next administration and the next Congress? I mean, we have agreements with many countries and as was noted here in earlier questions, they change. They change as circumstances change in that part of the world where those agreements are and they change from administrations to Congresses, and the flexibility in an agreement as to what is in fact -- which commitments are kept and which are not kept.

I mean, just as an example. We -- I believe there was some discussion as to whether or not bases are permanent or not permanent. I mean, frankly, I think that's almost a discussion that really doesn't bear real merit because, frankly, you can call a base temporary and -- you know, it could be temporary for 30 years, so under the -- you know, determining how you define it. So I guess I would like you to respond as to your nature or your sense is to an agreement that is reached, and if it doesn't have the impremata of the Congress, what changes the next administration or the next Congress could pursue.

MR. KATZMAN: Sir, if it's okay, I'm going to again defer that to the next panel, which will deal with the legal issues. But to talk about the timeline, the intention is to have it inked -- have a pact agreed to by July 31 and then, presumably, there would be time for the Iraqi parliament to ratify -- to review it, ratify it in time for the expiration of the current United Nations mandate, which would be December 31st of this year.

REP. COSTA: And you believe the Iraqi Parliament could meet such a deadline based upon their track record?

MR. KATZMAN: Well, if, as I suspect, it's going to be -- there's going to be political consultations in Iraq as it's being negotiated and if what's agreed to has already been sort of in many ways vetted by the major blocs -- the major political blocs -- it's conceivable they could act fairly quickly on it.

REP. COSTA: Dr. Katzman, how would you rate this priority within the Iraqi Parliament compared to reconstruction compared to de- Ba'athification compared to the implementation of getting revenues out to the provinces? I mean, where does this fit?

MR. KATZMAN: My analysis would be that this would be a very high priority because many of the political blocs see in a potential agreement like this. They will be interpreting whether they are going to be the subject or the object of U.S. combat operations and they will take it very, very seriously, sir.

REP. COSTA: On that basis, how do you think this plays into the current agreements that are being reached between the U.S. military and the various Sunni parties in Anbar with the sheiks, and this other process that -- I'm trying to think of the term of what we call it now --

MR. KATZMAN: The Awakening Council.

REP. COSTA: Right, the Awakening Council.

MR. KATZMAN: It's all local citizens, yes.

Well, that could very well play into it. You know, as we said at the last hearing, Sunni opinion is increasingly divided. If one had asked a year or two ago how would the Sunnis view it, one would say they would be united against something like this. Now it's much less clear because they are. Some of them -- these groups that you mention have come into some understanding with the United States --

REP. COSTA: And reaching sidebar agreements of some kind.

MR. KATZMAN: Yes, but the issue is those Awakening Councils and those movements -- tribal movements -- they are not much represented in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. This -- these are Sunnis who have come forward after the elections. They did not compete in the elections. They did not have party slates. So they would not -- the people -- nobody really representing that group is in the Council of Representatives at this time.

REP. COSTA: But a group that does have representation in the council -- and there was reference made earlier to it by -- I think, by Mr. Ackerman -- the Kurds. They obviously have their own agenda and -- as it relates to -- I mean, I think they are a group that probably, my sense is, has a Plan A, has a Plan B, and -- who knows, they may have a Plan C. How does this play into their agenda?

MR. KATZMAN: The Kurds would almost certainly be as supportive of this as possible because they know they will not be the subject of U.S. combat operations.

REP. COSTA: And they won't try to leverage it.

MR. KATZMAN: I -- well, they might -- yeah, they might try to leverage it against Turkey or somebody else. That -- that's different. But they -- yes, they would -- they might try to leverage it. But they would be highly supportive of an agreement along these lines.

REP. COSTA: All right. Thank you very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source