(Washington, DC) - U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Queens/L.I.), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, today participated in this afternoon’s hearing when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker delivered their report to Congress on the state of progress in Iraq. Below is the transcript of Ackerman’s questioning of General Petraeus.

REP. IKE SKELTON: Gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman?
ACKERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACKERMAN: I find it absolutely astonishing that, after 3 1/2 hours of testimony from our top military and diplomatic leadership in Iraq, that I can't recall anybody saying "international war on terrorism."
If this is really part of the international war on terrorism, nobody has made the nexus here.
And if this is part of the international war on terrorism, how could one even suggest that we have a draw-down, that we cut back on the surge until every single terrorist that's supposed to be there -- because that's why we're supposed to be fighting there, so that they're not fighting here -- how can we draw down until we kill each and every one of them?
And that should be the argument you're making, but you're not. Because this is not part of the international war on terror.
The mission, as the general stated, was to end the sectarian violence.
There are two parts of this. There's the sizzle and the steak (ph), our military doing a great job providing the sizzle, buying us all the time that it might have to take in order for the diplomats, Ambassador Crocker and his group, to try to bring some reason to the Iraqis to be able to take charge and run their own country.
And then we leave, forgetting about the international war on terrorism, trusting to the Iraqis and their expertise to keep these people off of our doorstep.
It seems to me that we're trying to be in the middle of a dysfunctional, violent family. And the question that I first think about is, can we afford to put a cop in every bad marriage, especially when the parties aren't even showing up for counseling?
Our troops are doing a great job. They're maintaining order where they are, when they are. But as any cop who responds to a call for family violence knows, it's going to start again as soon as he leaves.
ACKERMAN: I don't know how long we stay until these people really have a better relationship, throw flowers at each other, hug each other, and sing "Kumbaya."
I don't know when that will happen.
My question is: While we wait for this to happen, how much more blood should we invest?
If it takes another four years, I'd like to know from each of you your best, realistically optimistic view of where Iraq will be in those four years. And if it is that we spend during that time another 4,000 American lives, create another 20,000-plus people maimed for life, spend another $600 billion, see our military further decimated, more than it has been already, will this be worth it, where you see them four years from today?
PETRAEUS: Congressman, first, if I could start out and note that there is no question that Al Qaida Iraq is part of the greater Al Qaida movement. We have intercepted numerous communications between Al Qaida senior leadership, AQSL, as they're called, and the...
ACKERMAN: Isn't it true, though, General, that Al Qaida in Iraq formed in 2005, two years after...
PETRAEUS: Congressman, I'm not saying when it started. I'm saying that merely Al Qaida Iraq clearly is part of the overall greater Al Qaida network.
ACKERMAN: But they didn't exist until we...
PETRAEUS: We have intercepted numerous communications. And there is no question, also, but that Al Qaida Iraq is a key element in igniting the ethno-sectarian violence. They have been, in effect, an element that has poured gas on burning embers, with the bombing of the golden dome mosque, for example, and with efforts that they have tried recently, for example, bombing the poor Yazidi villages in northwestern Iraq and so forth.
ACKERMAN: Are they a threat to us?
PETRAEUS: Al Qaida central is a threat to us. I don't know what the result would be if we left Iraq and left Al Qaida Iraq in place. That is very, very hard to say. I don't know where they would go from here.
Again, I'm not trying to...
ACKERMAN: Then how could you -- how could you suggest that we leave after the sectarian violence stops?
SKELTON: Go ahead and answer the question.
PETRAEUS: I'm not sure I understand that question, Congressman.
ACKERMAN: The question is -- your testimony appears to indicate that our mission is to end the sectarian violence. If we end the sectarian violence, how can we leave without killing everybody who we have identified as part of a terrorist organization, such as Al Qaida in Iraq?
PETRAEUS: Well, Al Qaida, again, as I mentioned, Congressman, is part of the sectarian violence. They really are the fuel, the most important fuel on the Sunni Arab side of this ethno-sectarian conflict...
ACKERMAN: Question again is: How do we leave?
PETRAEUS: ... that has played out.
The way to leave is to stabilize the situations in each area. And each area will require a slightly different solution. The solution in Anbar province, as an example, has been one that is quite different from one that that might be used in a mixed sectarian area.
But stabilizing the area, trying to get the violence down, in some cases using literally using cement, T-walls, to secure neighborhoods -- and then to establish a sustainable security arrangement that is increasingly one that Iraqis can take over by themselves.
SKELTON: I thank the gentleman.

###

Return to Gary's Homepage