Opening Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
On Iraq: The Crocker-Petraeus Report
September 11, 2007
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for testifying
here today.
Ambassador, I want to thank you for all the time you've given me over
the years, especially when we were in Pakistan, and your briefings on
that critical country. And, General, on both occasions that I was in
Iraq, the time you spent helping me understand these variety of issues.
I, too, thank you for your service.
But, Mr. Chairman, it is simply tragic that six years to the day after
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our attention is so focused
on what has been the greatest mistake in the fight against Al Qaida,
and that's the Iraq war. Both yesterday at the House hearings and today
there has been virtually no reference by either the members of Congress
or the witnesses to the broader context outside of Iraq.
I strongly supported the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, which
served as a sanctuary for Al Qaida. The war in Iraq has been a terrible
diversion from Afghanistan and from what should be a global fight against
a global enemy. As this summer's declassified NIE confirmed, Al Qaida
remains the most serious threat to the United States, and key elements
of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. While our attention
and resources have been focused on Iraq, Al Qaida has protected its
safe haven in Pakistan and increased cooperation with regional terrorist
groups.
So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing
in Iraq, but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat
Al Qaida. That is the lesson of 9/11, and it's a lesson we must remember
today, and I would say every single day. And in that vein, this past
July President Bush referred to Al Qaida more than 90 times in a single
speech about Iraq and has repeatedly called Iraq the central front or
the key theater in the war on terror, but this is misleading at best,
as is the effort to suggest that Al Qaida is the primary driver of violence
in Iraq.
While AQI may give Al Qaida an extended reach, our extreme focus on
Iraq I think prevents us from adequately addressing the global nature
of Al Qaida and from targeting sufficient resources, whether they're
military, diplomatic, intelligence or financial, to other parts of the
world where Al Qaida is operating.
Now, Senator Hagel mentioned some of the other places. He mentioned
Iran, he mentioned Syria, he mentioned the Middle East. But what about
Africa? Last week, for example, two bombs exploded in Algeria, killing
more than 50 people and wounding scores more.
Both explosions were virtually unnoticed here in the United States,
as were the ones that exploded in the same region this last April and
that were claimed by, as you both know, another Al Qaida affiliate,
known as Al Qaida in the Islamic Magreb. So I'd like to ask first, General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, do you believe that the United States
is providing sufficient resources to address the threat posed by Al
Qaida in the Islamic Magreb?
Ambassador?
CROCKER: Senator, frankly, that takes me a little bit beyond my area
of expertise. I don't focus on the Magreb. I could say a few things
based on my two and half years in Pakistan, and of course I went directly
from Pakistan to Iraq in March, that is, the presence of Al Qaida in
the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area is a major challenge to us.
FEINGOLD: How concerned are you about Al Qaida's safe haven in Pakistan?
CROCKER: We're all -- we're all quite concerned.
FEINGOLD: Which is more important to defeating Al Qaida, the situation
in Afghanistan or that situation in Iraq, Ambassador?
CROCKER: I'd say just one...
FEINGOLD: That's surely within your expertise.
CROCKER: Yes, sir.
FEINGOLD: I mean, you were ambassador to one and ambassador to the
other.
CROCKER: Yes, sir, which is why I'm addressing this. The challenges
in confronting Al Qaida in the Pak-Afghan border area are immense, and
they're complicated. I did not feel, from my perspective as ambassador
to Pakistan, that the focus, the resources, the people needed to deal
with that situation, weren't available or weren't there because of Iraq.
FEINGOLD: What's more important, though, to fighting Al Qaida, the
situation in Pakistan or the situation in Iraq?
CROCKER: Senator, in my view, fighting Al Qaida is what's important;
whatever front they're on. Fighting Al Qaida in Pakistan is critically
important to us, fighting Al Qaida in Iraq is critically important to
us.
FEINGOLD: But Ambassador, surely -- surely in a war, you have to have
priorities. Some are more important than others. I would like to ask
the general his response. What about the situation that we find in North
Africa and the other regions? You obviously must take this into account
in thinking about your role in Iraq.
PETRAEUS: I am not in a position to comment on the resources we have
committed to the Maghrib or to other areas. General McCrystal does brief
us about once a week on the overall situation, but it is clearly with
a focus to how that is affecting Al Qaida in Iraq. For what it's worth,
he, the commander of the joint special operations command, and the CIA
director, when I talked to them a couple of months ago, agreed that
their belief is that Al Qaida central seize Al Qaida in Iraq as their
central front in their global war on terror.
That seems confirmed by the communications that we periodically see
between Al Qaida central and Al Qaida-Iraq, although that could be changing
as a result of the loss of momentum, to some degree, by Al Qaida-Iraq
and it's something that we need to keep an eye on, clearly.
FEINGOLD: With all due respect, these two critical leaders here in
our government, who I have great respect for, are not willing to seriously
comment about how this relates to the larger global fight against terrorism
-- the allocation of resources. This is a classic example of myopia.
This is the myopia of Iraq that is affecting our ability to look at
this as the global challenge it is. And by the way, General, I'd like
to know, when will the level of American troops's deaths start to seriously
decline in Iraq?
PETRAEUS: First of all, if I could just come back to your earlier comment,
with respect, Senator, what this is is an example of a commander focused
on his area of responsibility area. And that is my mission. It is to
accomplish the military tasks that are associated with this policy,
not to fight the overall global war.
FEINGOLD: I respect that and I understand, but I guess, in the broader
context, here, of our discussions, this is the most critical hearing
we've had and yet it's only about Iraq. But go ahead and please answer
the question: When can we expect the troop deaths to decline in Iraq?
PETRAEUS: It might be, again, that Admiral Fallon or others would be
the ones that, or the chairman, to comment on that. There has been a
gradual reduction in deaths in Iraq, since about June, I believe it
was. That, unfortunately -- in August, we suffered a number of non-combat
related deaths due to two helicopter crashes, although the number of
combat deaths was lower.
FEINGOLD: General, just let me follow...
PETRAEUS: We need to see what happens in ensuing months.
FEINGOLD: I want the American people to know that in every single month
this year, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, and August,
a significantly greater number of troops died than in the previous month
in 2006 -- in every single month. And according to my information, there's
already 32 this month. So, to suggest that there was some decline in
the number in June and July, versus other months, does not address the
fact that the number of troops' deaths has greatly increased. And I'm
not getting an answer that even begins to suggest when we can tell the
American people that the number of troop deaths will decline.
PETRAEUS: Senator, we are on the offensive, and when you go on the
offensive, you have tough fighting. That was particularly true, again,
during the period immediately after the start of the surge of offenses
in mid-June and continued for a while. It appeared to have crested then
and was coming down. And, again, we will have to see. We had a tragic
loss yesterday, in fact, in some vehicle accidents, that again, you
know, are just very, very sad.
Thank you, sir.
FEINGOLD: Thank you, Chairman.
|
