Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Iraq After the Surge: What Next?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And gentlemen, thank you for your service. Certainly thank you for your endurance here this afternoon. Certainly a marathon day for you. But truly thank you for all that you do to serve so many in this country.

When you were here before the committee last, in September, we were talking, at that point in time, the focus was on the military surge and a great deal of discussion as to how that was going to play out and what we could anticipate and what we could expect. I asked the question of both of you at that time more along the lines of, let's talk about the civilian surge. What are we doing on the other side that can help facilitate the military mission, the military surge?

And at that time, General, you responded that you would like to see more from the civilian side.

You indicated at that time that there were some elements of the government that truly were at war. The Department of Defense clearly was engaged. The Department of State was engaged, AID, but not all the others. And there were some departments that you specifically mentioned at that time.

From your standpoint at this point in time, now, are you satisfied that we have that level of participation from those other departments, from those other areas of government where we can and should be making a difference?

Now, Ambassador Crocker, in your testimony, you go into some length about what we are seeing with the PRTs and the efforts that have been made there. But I'll just repeat the question from September to both of you, again, as to whether or not you're satisfied that all areas that need to be engaged are fully engaged.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, Senator, there has been a surge on the civilian side that has been very helpful, frankly. The Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the so-called EPRTs, the Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which are actually sub-provincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented at brigade headquarters, division headquarters the assets of our civilian affairs -- civil affairs personnel and brought real -- really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts. And that has been of enormous value and enormous help.

There's also been an increase in certain areas in the capacity building arena. And again, that has helped, as has been the organization of what we call fusion cells, where the -- as you may know, I've reported before that the Multinational Force Iraq and the embassy actually have a joint campaign plan. This truly is one team. And we head it together in that regard. Yes, we report to different chains of command, but we try to achieve unity of effort in what we do. And so we've actually combined our assets in areas such as the energy fusion cell, which looks at oil and electricity.

There is a voter security -- there -- it just goes on and on -- a number of these different fusion cells.

Having said all that, there still is a need for capacity building help in certain areas. And I think -- I'm sure the ambassador would agree that there are certain ministries in Iraq that still could use help in the capacity-building arena and still probably don't have all that they should have.

Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually, just to report out that that is taking place, to determine, for example, do you need more agriculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk, than you need in -- right now, at least, in Anbar, although there's oil out there, too.

So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there's been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity- building areas, but there is still more needed in others.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Ambassador, when you address this, in your comments to the committee, you've indicated that the era of U.S.- funded major infrastructure projects is over. So that when we're talking about the assistance that is being provided from here on out in Iraq, it is more of the -- when you say the capacity-building, those experts that can come in to help facilitate.

Because I think that the concern that you have certainly heard around this dais today is the American patience is not unlimited. The president has said that. You have indicated that. Our support, our financial support equally cannot be unlimited. And when Iraq is at that point, as they are now, where they clearly have reserves that are available to them, I think the American public looks at this and says, okay, well, we can understand the need to continue funding that equipment for our troops. We appreciate that. But when it comes to the building of the school or the building of the hospital, I've got schools and hospitals in my community that need to be addressed. So can you speak to that aspect of the U.S. investment into Iraq at this point?

AMB. CROCKER: That's an important point, Senator, and that is exactly right. I mean, our emphasis has shifted away from infrastructure. We're not doing schools and clinics anymore and into capacity-building, as we've discussed, but also developing local capacity. That's, again, where the PRTs come in with their quick response funds, to be able to do things that local governments cannot do for themselves, and are, as of yet, unable to resource through higher echelons of government. And also to pay attention categories of people that -- or circumstances that, again, may not get the assistance they need from other sources at this point -- NGOs, women's groups, we do a lot there and so forth.

I, broadly speaking, would say that what is motivating our thinking now is kind of this traditional construct of foreign aid, of using it where it makes a difference in ways that are important to us and where it wouldn't happen if we weren't able to step forward.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Can I just ask very, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, and this is to you, General -- as we approach July and this 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation -- you know, we've also been talking with the Pentagon about achieving that goal of reducing the deployment rotations from the currently 15 months to the desired level of 12 months -- what will this do, if anything, to the length of deployments?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, obviously, I'm not the one that determines the level of deployments, but I do -- have certainly heard newspaper articles, at least, say that there is discussion about this and there may be some mention of this in the days or weeks to come.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: But you don't think that your proposal --

GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm fine with 12-month tours. I am fine with 12- month tours. I would -- we would welcome 12-month tours.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: And you think you can do it, given the numbers that you have currently, keeping them at 12-month deployments?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, again, we're not the force providers. We're obviously the force employers. And the ones who have to answer that, rightly, are the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy in the case of the Marine Corps. But again, my understanding is there has been discussion of that. We've been asked, are we okay with 12- month tours? We have replied that that is fine. And again --

SEN. MURKOWSKI: I think that's where we all would like to get.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I -- again, that's obviously for other people to determine.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source