Senator Menendez began by praising Petreaus, Crocker, the men and women of the armed services and the Foreign Service. He said the assignment is not easy, and that is why they deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice.
Certainly, I just don’t believe that our present policy is in accord with the sacrifice we are asking our people to make.
General Petraeus, on page 2 of your testimony you said something I think is very profound—you said it in September and you said it again in your testimony today. It says "I describe the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq as a competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition continues." And it just seems to me that, if I would ask a mother or a father in America is their son’s or daughter’s sacrifice, for a fight among Iraqi politicians and sects for power and resources, in the national interests of the United States? I think they would clearly say "No." I have a real problem when we see the sons and daughters of America dying so that a fight over power and resources is the central essence of the fundamental nature of the conflict, as you describe. That’s a real problem. And so, when we start there, I don’t know where we go that makes it better.
I especially appreciate the way this statement bypasses debatable points having to do with strategy, security, improvement, the surge, benchmarks, etc. He cuts to the core of the issue: If we start by acknowledging that the essence of the conflict in Iraq is an internal struggle over resources and power, how do we possibly find a way to justify our extreme sacrifice in blood and treasure.
The Senator then began an exchange with Crocker in which he questioned what we are doing to get rid of Iranian influence in Iraq. When Crocker began speaking of military operations, Menendez cut him off.
I’m not—I appreciate that answer—but I’m not talking about the military context or I would have asked General Petraeus. I’m talking about: what are we doing with an administration in Iraq that we have given six hundred million dollars in investments, lives of over four thousand Americans—and yet they seem to be very welcoming of the type of influence from Iran that we clearly don’t want to see.
Crocker responded by claiming the whole point of the Basra operation was for Maliki to "take on those groups that are supported by Iran." Senator Menendez interrupted the Ambassador with a reality check.
But all of these groups, Ambassador, have been supported by Iran, including the side that he lined up with. As a matter of fact, there are some reports that suggest that Maliki did this for political purposes, and then we get dragged in . . . backing up Maliki in a way in which we put our sons and daughters at risk. Those were American officials who . . . were quoted as saying this is what Maliki did. All sides . . . have been trained by the Iranians.
Again, Senator Menendez is stressing that we are sacrificing our young men and women in an internal Iraqi dispute over resources and power. And doing so in a context in which Iranian influence is seen on every side, clearly a situation not in the best interests of our country. How do we justify this to the American taxpayer, not to mention American mothers and fathers of soldiers?
Crocker begins to respond with the party line--As leader of a central government with broad support from all sectors of the populace, Maliki is seen by Iraqis as courageously taking on the terrorists who are being supported by Iran. Once again Menendez cuts him off to interject some reality.
Ambassador, let me read to you what I’m talking about. In an article in the Washington Post, it says, among other things "Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies. U.S. officials, who are not authorized to speak on the record, say they believe Iran has provided assistance in the past to all three groups—the Maqti army; the Basra organization of the Islamic Supreme Council, Iraq’s largest Shiite party; and forces loyal to the Fadila Party, which holds the Basra governor seat. But the officials see the current conflict as a purely internal Iraqi dispute, and some officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing "the first salvo" in upcoming elections."
Again—power and resources—where American troops are being used in a way that I don’t understand how that pursues our national interest. Let me ask you, General Petraeus, you said this morning in the Armed Services Committee that you describe our reconstruction efforts as "priming the pump" for the Iraqi government to be able to provide basic services. Is that correct?
As he did all day when challenged, General Petraeus began by implying the Senator had his facts wrong. "Not reconstruction efforts, sir" he began. He had employed the same condescending tactic with Senator Boxer ("They aren't 'militias'") and others.
Throughout the day we saw General Petraeus pretending to an overarching insider's knowledge. Whenever the conduct of the Occupation or the glowing reports of progress were questioned, the facts were thrown into doubt. We will see this tactic on full display in the discussion below. There are many reasons to be concerned about this attitude, of course, but one particular aspect it underlines is the fundamentally dangerous situation of having a general in uniform advocating for policy. In theory, Petraeus is testifying before Congress to educate them with facts so that they can draw their own conclusions. In practice, he is adamantly arguing for a single policy and discounting any discussion which would question that policy. Many Americans may have grown accustomed to this--I still find it chilling.
Not to be sidetracked, Menendez cuts off the mumbling pontifications of Petraeus with
Ambassador Crocker, what about the twenty-five billion dollars that we have spent in foreign assistance in Iraq? Have those achieved the goals that we want?
Ambassador Crocker begins to answer:
In many cases they have. In some cases security conditions made it difficult to bring projects to closure in a timely fashion. We have kept at these. We’ve recently handed over, for example, a major water treatment plant that we finished up in . . .
Menendez pounces again. Not only are we sacrificing our sons and daughters for the sake of an internal struggle in a foreign land, we are wasting our money without getting results. I love Menendez for his clarity here.
I’m glad you mention that. Let me read to you a series of facts—$25 billion dollars in Iraq later of American taxpayer moneys:
- 43% of Iraq’s population currently lives in absolute poverty,
- 19% of Iraqi children suffered from malnutrition prior to the war—today that figure is higher at 28%,
- last year 75% of Iraqi elementary age children attended school, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Education; now it’s only 30%,
- 50% of Iraqis lacked regular access to clean water prior to 2003, 50%; now it’s higher, 70%,
- only 50 of 142 US funded primary health care centers are open to the public.
And I could go on and on. To me, you know, I look at Iraq having $30 billion in reserves held in the Federal Reserve of New York, another $10 billion in development funds, significant budgetary surpluses from previous years, and a projected 7% economic growth rate, and I say . . . after $25 billion and those are the results—how is the American taxpayer expected to pay for more?
Crocker responded, as usual, by throwing the facts into question:
Senator, I don’t know where those figures came from or what their reliability is?
Menendez responded with some heat:
Do you dispute them? <pause> Do you dispute them?
And here, in Ambassador Crocker's response to this straightforward question concerning fundamental facts about the situation in Iraq, we see clearly the partisanship and incompetence of these Bush/Cheney lackeys. In a pathetic attempt at rebuttal, citing polling data from the media, Crocker proves himself unwilling to even discuss the fundamental realities of life in Iraq:
I do know there is other data out there. There was an ABC/BBC poll, and these organizations have been conducting polling in Iraq since 2004. Their March poll would tell a different story. You mention education. Sixty-three percent believed their local schools were good. 78% thought their children’s teachers were good.
Again Menendez cuts off the flow of liquid bs.
Maybe for those who have a school to go to.
And then Menendez closes
As the subcommittee chair on all our foreign assistance, I can’t imagine continuing to justify the kind of resources that we are spending for the kind of results we are having, politically and otherwise. . . . When we went into Iraq, we were told that they would be overwhelmed by shock and awe. And I think that it’s the American people who have a shock, of being misled into a war, of having a set of circumstances where, in fact, it has coursed well beyond . . . Paul Wolfowitz had a table similar to yours and told us that Iraqi oil would pay for everything. Iraqi oil would pay for everything. Six hundred billion dollars later, it has paid for virtually nothing. And awe? Yeah, I think the American people are in awe, of a government that will not come to the realization—we had a panel of experts here last week who said there is no question that it is over, in terms of transitioning out. It’s just how do we do that, and the time frame. . . . You will not give us, what is the endgame of success. It sounds like, when I see it, I’ll realize it, but until then, give us an open checkbook. And that’s a problem. . . What’s the troop strength that we can finally say, okay they can do this on their own, and ability, what is the political dynamic on which we say, okay that’s it, you know, we can move forward. I mean, at some point, you can’t expect the Congress of the United States on behalf of the American people to continue with an open checkbook, and just say trust us, trust us, when we see it, we’ll finally tell you when we hit success. And that’s what we hear up here, and the American people are not supportive of that.
I wished he had closed more eloquently, but he made his point clearly enough. Despite all the questioning, the administration will not define success. They are asking for an open checkbook on the basis that they will tell us what success looks like after we get there.
Senator Biden ended by asking Ambassador Crocker to submit any data which contradicted Senator Menendez facts concerning water, education, hunger, etc. in Iraq. In doing so, he stressed that the data be from embassy records.
The complete transcript is below:
Questioning of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker by Senator Menendez of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 8, 2008:
Menendez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank both of you for your service. When I was in Iraq in January and visited with both of you, I came to go beyond my admiration, not only for your service, but the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform, as well as in the Foreign Service. It’s certainly not an easy assignment. And that is why I particularly believe we need to give them a policy worthy of the sacrifice that we ask them to make. Certainly, I just don’t believe that our present policy is in accord with the sacrifice we are asking our people to make.
General Petraeus, on page 2 of your testimony you said something I think is very profound—you said it in September and you said it again in your testimony today. It says "I describe the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq as a competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition continues." And it just seems to me that, if I would ask a mother or a father in America"Is their son’s or daughter’s sacrifice, for a fight among Iraqi politicians and sects for power and resources, in the national interests of the United States?" I think they would clearly say "No." I have a real problem when we see the sons and daughters of America dying so that a fight over power and resources is the central essence of the fundamental nature of the conflict, as you describe. That’s a real problem. And so, when we start there, I don’t know where we go that makes it better.
Let me just ask you, Ambassador Crocker, what are the specifics of what we are doing to get rid of Iranian influence in Iraq?
Crocker: Well again, as General Petraeus has said, we are going after those that are trained and supplied from Iran. And we have certainly gone after Qods Force officers when they have come into the country . . .
Menendez: I’m not—I appreciate that answer—but I’m not talking about the military context or I would have asked General Petraeus. I’m talking about: what are we doing with an administration in Iraq that we have given six hundred million dollars in investments, lives of over four thousand Americans—and yet they seem to be very welcoming of the type of influence from Iran that we clearly don’t want to see, and it’s not in the national interest of the United States.
Crocker: Senator, that’s not actually what we are seeing. Again, the whole motivation for Prime Minister Maliki’s decision for the Basra operation was to take on these groups that are supported by Iran . . .
Menendez: But all of these groups, Ambassador, have been supported by Iran, including the side that he lined up with. As a matter of fact, there are some reports that suggest that Maliki did this for political purposes, and then we get dragged in, because the Iraqis cannot sustain their own fight, and we get dragged in in a major fight, once again, backing up Maliki in a way in which we put our sons and daughters at risk. Those were American officials who were quoted as unoffically saying—not on the record—but they were quoted as saying this is what Maliki did. All sides in that side (sic) have been trained by the Iranians.
Crocker: That is not how Iraqis are viewing the whole Basra operation. There has been very broadgauge support for Prime Minister Maliki and his government for what he did and, of course, is still doing down in Basra. This is, again, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish support. They see this as a courageous decision to go after Shia extremists, as well as Sunnis . . .
Menendez: Ambassador, let me read to you what I’m talking about. In an article in the Washington Post, it says, among other things "Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies. U.S. officials, who are not authorized to speak on the record, say they believe Iran has provided assistance in the past to all three groups—the Maqti army; the Basra organization of the Islamic Supreme Council, Iraq’s largest Shiite party; and forces loyal to the Fadila Party, which holds the Basra governor seat. But the officials see the current conflict as a purely internal Iraqi dispute, and some officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing "the first salvo in upcoming elections.’"
Again—power and resources—where American troops are being used in a way that I don’t understand how that pursues our national interest. Let me ask you, General Petraeus, you said this morning in the Armed Services Committee that you describe our reconstruction efforts as "priming the pump" for the Iraqi government to be able to provide basic services. Is that correct?
Petraeus: Not reconstruction efforts, sir. These are local, very small grants for projects. Once we have cleared an area of, typically, most typically, of al qaeda and other Sunni extremist influence, just very small businesses going again ...
Menendez: What about the, Ambassador Crocker, what about the twenty-five billion dollars that we have spent in foreign assistance in Iraq? Have those achieved the goals that we want?
Crocker: If you’re talking about the Iraqi reconstruction funds? The twenty billion that was? In many cases they have. In some cases security conditions made it difficult to bring projects to closure in a timely fashion. We have kept at these. We’ve recently handed over, for example, a major water treatment plant that we finished up in . . .
Menendez: I’m glad you mention that. Let me read to you a series of facts—$25 billion dollars in Iraq later of American taxpayer moneys: 43% of Iraq’s population currently lives in absolute poverty; 19% of Iraqi children suffered from malnutrition prior to the war—today that figure is higher at 28%; last year 75% of Iraqi elementary age children attended school, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Education—now it’s only 30%; 50% of Iraqis lacked regular access to clean water prior to 2003, 50%—now it’s higher, 70%; only 50 of 142 US funded primary health care centers are open to the public. And I could go on and on. To me, you know, I look at Iraq having $30 billion in reserves held in the Federal Reserve of New York, another $10 billion in development funds, significant budgetary surpluses from previous years, and a projected 7% economic growth rate, and I say how is that the American taxpayer is—after $25 billion, and those are the results—how is the American taxpayer expected to pay for more?
Crocker: Senator, I don’t know where those figures came from or what their reliability is?
Menendez: Do you dispute them? <pause> Do you dispute them?
Crocker: I don’t know what their basis is. You know, I do know there is other data out there. There was an ABC/BBC poll, and these organizations have been conducting polling in Iraq since 2004. Their March poll would tell a different story. You mention education. Sixty-three percent believed their local schools were good. 78% thought their children’s teachers were good.
Menendez: Maybe for those who have a school to go to. I’m not sure. I know that our statistics are from some recent reports that are pretty reliable. As the subcommittee chair on all our foreign assistance, I can’t imagine continuing to justify the kind of resources that we are spending for the kind of results we are having, politically and otherwise. And so I, let me close, in deference to my colleagues, by saying look, you know, when we went into Iraq we were told that they would be overwhelmed by shock and awe. And I think that it’s the American people who have a shock, of being misled into a war, of having a set of circumstances where, in fact, it has coursed well beyond—Paul Wolfowitz had a table similar to yours and told us that Iraqi oil would pay for everything. Iraqi oil would pay for everything. Six hundred billion dollars later, it has paid for virtually nothing. And awe? Yeah, I think the American people are in awe, of a government that will not come to the realization—we had a panel of experts here last week who said there is no question that it is over, in terms of transitioning out. It’s just how do we do that, and the time frame. You, despite how many questions that have been asked, you will not give us, you know, what is the endgame of success. It sounds like, when I see it, I’ll realize it, but until then, give us an open checkbook. And that’s a problem. How many Iraqis need to be, what’s the troop strength that we can finally say, okay they can do this on their own, and ability, what is the political dynamic on which we say, okay that’s it, you know, we can move forward. I mean, at some point, you can’t expect the Congress of the United States on behalf of the American people to continue with an open checkbook, and just say trust us, trust us, when we see it, we’ll finally tell you when we hit success. And that’s what we hear up here, and the American people are not supportive of that.
Biden: Senator, thank you very much. I would invite the Ambassador, I know your embassy has that data on number of people in schools et cetera. If you believe the data stated by the Senator is not accurate, according to your embassy records, I would appreciate it if you would submit it. If not, we’ll assume what was given here by the Senator as to school, water, etc. is correct.
Crocker: We’d appreciate that opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Menendez, if it would be possible to get the data you have. . .
Menendez: Nods, somewhat disgustedly.
