Media Stakeout with Senate Republicans - Reaction to the Testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker Before the Senate Armed Services Committee
Interview
Copyright ©2008 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 Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Good afternoon, everyone.
Obviously, the biggest thing going on in the Senate this week is not on the floor of the Senate, but rather, the hearings that are going on today featuring General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I have two Senators who are -- with us today who've been in those hearings, and I think calling on them for their observations about the comments that have been made and what their view is of where we are and where we're going would be appropriate.
Just one scheduling item. As you know we're going to vote on cloture on the housing bill at 2:15. I think we'll complete this bill either later today or more likely tomorrow. So we're moving toward completion of a bipartisan proposal that we hope will make a positive difference for our economy.
With that, let me turn to -- who's next? Senator Cornyn.
SEN. CORNYN: General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified this morning in front of the Armed Services Committee, as you know, and testified that not only is the military surge showing tremendous success in terms of reducing the amount of violence in Iraq, we've also seen a surge of Iraqi political success with two-thirds of the benchmarks that we passed in 2007 having been met -- very difficult, challenging benchmarks.
But the -- and that's the one word that I think most people want to hear is progress -- that we're making substantial progress in of both of those areas and, even more importantly, that the Iraqis are making progress toward governing and defending themselves.
The last thing is the consequences of failure. Both Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus testified that were we to leave Iraq before the Iraqis are able to govern and defend themselves, it would increase the likelihood that it would become a failed state like Afghanistan was following the exit of the Soviet Union in 1989, which, of course, as we all know, gave rise to the Taliban and al Qaeda. And we know obviously that on September 11th that -- the consequences of that.
They both confirmed that the same danger is inherent in Iraq if Iraq is left and it becomes a failed state. And so I do think that they drew a path for us of success and one that eventually will allow us to bring our troops home, but one that would bring them home on success making America a safer place in the process.
Lindsey?
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, obviously you know how I feel about the surge so the fact that I support Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus is not going to make news. But I think it is fair for everybody in the Senate to comment on their work product -- if you had to grade these two men in terms of what they've accomplished over the last year, what kind of grade would you give them?
What I would say about General Petraeus is that he will go down in American history as being one of the most successful military commanders in our history because what he inherited in Iraq in January 2007 was a chaotic situation militarily. Ambassador Crocker inherited a country that was paralyzed, economically and politically.
So when you look from January 2007 to July 2008, you're going to have one thing to compare to. In January 2007, there was 140,000 troops in Iraq; in July 2008, there will most likely be 140,000 troops in Iraq. What happened in the middle?
What happened in the middle I think is astonishing. The political reconciliation that's been brought about in the last three or four months was directly related to better security. The breathing space that's been provided by the surge at the Baghdad central government level has been seized upon in a way to bring about progress that did not exist before.
In January 2007, every trendline in Iraq was going in the wrong direction. Political, economic and military progress was nonexistent. The trendlines have changed.
Now here's the message that I think we all need to focus upon. General Petraeus said that the biggest impediment to successful outcome in Iraq today is special groups being trained by Iran, not al Qaeda. So as a nation, we're going to have to deal with that.
I could not be more pleased with the performance of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. And where we go and how we go from here is going to be a very important decision for the American people.
Finally, the thing I was most encouraged about was the dividends of winning in Iraq are enormous. As Senator Cornyn explained, that consequences of failure have been well documented by both witnesses. But today we talked about the consequences of success -- a country in the Muslim-Arab world that said no to al Qaeda.
Of all the accomplishments that have been achieved since the surge began I would argue as General Petraeus did, the most consequential was that Muslims in Iraq took up arms against bin Laden sympathizers and agents. And any time Muslims will fight bin Laden and his sympathizers, America is safer.
Now we're in a struggle with Iran. And the good news coming out of Basra -- poorly planned, poorly executed military operation is probably one of the storylines. The other storyline is that every group in Iraq except Sadr rallied around Maliki when he took on Iranian-influenced militia. We're not there yet -- to having a successful outcome but we're closer than we were in January 2007. And the only way we'll go backward now is for the Congress to undercut the plan in place.
SEN. HUTCHINSON: I would just add to what Lindsey said because Lindsey was in Iraq about the same time I was just six weeks ago meeting with our troops, meeting with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And I would just reinforce that when you're finally seeing the progress and you're seeing the sons of Iraq, now 91,000 strong, where Iraqis are beginning to grasp that they can be the security for their nation, why would we pull the plug and walk away from it and give al Qaeda the free reign to spread their terrorism throughout the world, including in the United States of America?
And secondly, yes, the political progress is slower than we would like -- that is true -- but it is progress in the right direction. Not only do we have the sons of Iraq that are now helping in the fight, but we are going to see local elections this autumn in which the Sunnis have said they will participate. The law that was passed, the de-Ba'athification law, also gives promised pensions to Sunnis that were promised those in the previous administrations.
So it is a very important sign of progress, even though maybe it doesn't meet the American standards, but I think what the General and the Ambassador said today just reinforced what I saw six weeks ago, what Lindsey has seen so many times, and that is that to walk away from this would send two signals. One would be to our allies that we're not a reliable ally and one would be to our enemies that we're not a formidable enemy.
That is not a message I want to send to either one.
SEN. MCCONNELL: We'll take a couple of questions, if there are any.
Q Senator McConnell, on the housing bill, the White House today said that they've concluded that the Senate bill would actually do more harm than good. How do you expect you can reach a deal with a bipartisan bill that Speaker Pelosi and Republicans here and in the White House can agree on?
SEN. MCCONNELL: You're telling me something I was unaware of. I was unclear that the White House had a stated position yet on this bill.
Q They wouldn't support -- (inaudible).
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah.
Well, we'll see how the Senate feels about it at 2:15.
Anybody else?
Q There were reports today in Roll Call, actually, that several senior Democrats were getting together and talking about the possibility of acting -- (inaudible).
I'm wondering if you think that would be a wise decision or -- (inaudible).
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, I don't have any advice to give the Democratic conference on that matter.
Q Senator McConnell, do you think the -- (inaudible).
SEN. MCCONNELL: I'm sure the president will do what he thinks is appropriate in that circumstance, and I don't have any advice to offer him publicly.
Q Senator McConnell, -- (inaudible) -- a long-term agreement with Iraq in regards to -- (inaudible).
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I think the issue today is getting the report from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, and we haven't -- they haven't completed their hearings yet and then we'll deal with the future.
But the one thing we don't want to do as all of our members -- excuse me -- one of the things we don't want to do as all of our members have pointed out is to walk away and leave behind a situation that benefits al Qaeda, benefits Iran and everybody else in the world who wishes the United States ill. I don't think that's the way forward, and I'm confident that's in the end not something we're going to do.
SEN. GRAHAM: Can I --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, come on.
SEN. GRAHAM: The legal authority that we're operating under in Iraq is the United Nations Resolutions, which expires in December. Well, there will be a legal no man's land unless we have a bilateral agreement.
It is progress to me that the Iraqi people want a bilateral agreement with us and other coalition forces, and not be seen by the United Nations as a chaotic state. So this is progress. This is what we were hoping would happen -- that the Iraqi government would take on sovereign power. And what we will have in place sometime in the summer is an agreement between the United States and the sovereign government Iraq that will govern how our forces can be deployed and used.
What would happen if an American soldier is accused of a crime in Iraqi court? Well, we have a Status of Forces Agreement with almost every country where military personnel are stationed. That's what we're talking about doing, not creating a treaty between us and Iraq, but an agreement that will allow us to stay there. And even Clinton and Obama get to be president, troops are going to be there for quite awhile.
So we need an agreement to replace the U.N. resolution that expires. And I think Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have outlined this agreement consistent with agreements we have in Germany and Japan and other places. And that's all we're trying to do. And quite frankly, I think Americans would feel better knowing that their men and women serving overseas are protected by law. So that's it.
Source