Report on Iraq-Senate Hearing
Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Federal News Service
September 10, 2009 Thursday
Chaired by: Senator John Kerry (D-MA);
Witness: Christopher Hill, United States Ambassador to Iraq;
Location: 216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Time: 2:40 P.M. EDT Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009
Section: Capitol Hill Hearing
Length: 11192 words
Sen. Kerry: (Gavels.) This hearing will come to order.
Today we are honored to be joined by America's top diplomat in Baghdad, a long-time friend of this committee. And welcome back, Chris. We're delighted to have you back here and look forward to your testimony today.
I also want to recognize the efforts of all of our very capable and, I would say, courageous diplomats who are serving in harm's way. They often, almost always, don't get the credit that obviously the soldiers on the front lines get, but in many ways they are equally at risk, and they do an extraordinary job. And they deserve our gratitude, and we extend it to them today and always.
Six-and-a-half years after going to war, we are finally entering our Iraq endgame. By next August, consistent with the president's February speech at Camp Lejeune, American troop levels will be down to 50,000 or lower, barely a third of where we are today. A residual force will leave by December of 2011, in keeping with the bilateral security agreement that provides the legal framework for our ongoing presence in Iraq.
These redeployments are going to take place in a complex, evolving political and security landscape. When Iraqis go to the polls next January, they will elect a new parliament and government, and they're also scheduled to participate in a referendum to ratify the security agreement.
If the Iraqi public rejects the agreement, then I believe we have no choice but to withdraw all of our forces as quickly as we can. This would complicate our redeployment and severely curtail our ability to assist the Iraqi security forces and government. But at this point, I'm not sure how we would justify asking our soldiers to stay one day longer than necessary if they are formally disinvited by the Iraqi people.
In a sense, the security agreement that the Bush administration negotiated with Prime Minister Maliki made moot the old "should we stay or should we go" argument. Even so, Iraq, frankly, a sort of Rorschach test for pundits and for policymakers. On the one hand, a person can look at the security gains since 2006, when sectarian violence threatened to tear Iraqi society apart, and conclude that Iraqis have stepped back from the brink. And it's true that, since the worst days of 2006 and 2007, violence has dropped by 85 percent, even with the recent mass-casualty attacks. American fatalities are at their lowest rate of the war. Al Qaeda in Iraq, while still deadly, is only a shadow of its former self.
There has been political progress as well. In the January elections, unlike in 2005, sectarian and ethnic identification is unlikely to be the sole organizing principle of Iraqi politics. And I know that Ambassador Hill will share some thoughts with us today on that.
The leader of the Anbar Awakening, a group that evolved out of the Sunni Arab insurgency, has been talking openly about a political alliance with Shi'ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Such an announcement would have been unthinkable just 18 months ago. Other Sunni factions are exploring a coalition with the Kurds. Electricity production, which had long been stalled, quietly increased by 40 percent in the last year.
That's the optimistic side of the legister (sic). But one can also look at the same set of facts on the ground and come to a more complicated, perhaps even pessimistic, conclusion, namely that removing an American presence that has been the linchpin of the security improvements of the last few years would lead Iraq back into a downward spiral of communal violence.
It is frankly too soon to know whether the rise in violence since American forces withdrew from Iraqi cities in June is an uptick or an upswing.
Whether it is a blip or a trend, recent violence has been troubling. August was the deadliest month for Iraqis in more than a year. And the devastating "Black Wednesday" bombings against the Iraqi Foreign and Finance Ministries last month were a stark reminder that forces opposed to reconciliation remain capable of devastating attacks that could alter the country's direction.
The attacks were also a blow to the Iraqi people's confidence in their own security forces. And of course, Iraq's problems don't end there. Arab-Kurdish tensions remain unresolved. Corruption is rampant. Millions of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons remain far from home, waiting to be resettled. Iraq's relations with its neighbors are volatile. There are a few -- these are really just a few of the many challenges that Iraq is going to face in the coming years.
So what's it going to be? Which is it, in a sense? Which view is the -- really represents the outcome? Is Iraq beginning to unravel again, or are these just the inevitable bumps on the road toward returning responsibility for Iraq to Iraqis? What will happen after we leave?
We don't have definitive answers to these questions. But as one who has long advocated the responsible redeployment of American troops from Iraq, I believe the president has made the most of the difficult situation he inherited there.
At this point in our mission, America must approach Iraq with a dose of humility; there are limits to what we can accomplish there, and we may be approaching those limits. As Iraqi politics enter an election season and our troops leave the cities, we no longer have the ability to dictate outcomes in places where we did, or if we ever did. While the American people stand ready to help Iraqis, it is time to take the training wheels off and let the Iraqis define their own future. The task ahead as we draw down our forces is to provide a nudge here and there to ensure that Iraq doesn't crash when the wheels do come off.
In the last year or so, the Maliki government has been increasingly keen to signal that it is in control and capable of maintaining security. We should encourage this. Iraqis' ability to keep their own house in order is the key to leaving behind a stable Iraq. In the meantime, perhaps the tragic "Black Wednesday" bombings will persuade Iraq's leaders to take a more honest look at their capabilities and needs.
Today Iraqi politics have room to breathe in ways they simply didn't in 2006 or 2007. But the real test remains, not just for Prime Minister Maliki, but for all of Iraq's senior leaders: Are they willing to make the political compromises necessary to forge a sustainable political compact that provides the foundation for a stable Iraq? The answer will go a long way towards determining Iraq's future.
Mr. Ambassador, Iraq today -- I think as evidenced here in this room, to some degree -- has become the now forgotten war, whereas Afghanistan was previously, largely pushed off the headlines and out of the evening news.
But that doesn't make your task any easier -- and I don't need to be the one to tell you that. The families of the 130,000 troops and 1,000 diplomats in Iraq need no reminder that their loved ones remain in harm's way. Just two days ago, four American soldiers were tragically killed.
Afghanistan will receive a lot of attention in the coming weeks, including by this Committee -- as it should. But I hope this hearing will help serve as a reminder that, while it is coming to our close, our mission in Iraq is not yet over.
I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I thank you for making the trip back to Washington to be with us today.
Senator Lugar.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back to the committee, Ambassador Hill. Two months ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Prime Minister Maliki in Ankara, Turkey, as he led the Iraqi delegation at the signing of the Nabucco pipeline treaty. He predicted that exports from his country would fill half that pipeline.
Two weeks later, the prime minister met with this committee here in the Capitol, presenting a confident face to members as we questioned him on everything from Iran and Arab-Kurdish relations to refugee returns and the readiness of his security forces and his government to deliver for the Iraqi people.
In the international arena, Mr. Maliki is traveling extensively, making the case that his country is ready to rejoin the community of nations, to emerge from Chapter 7 status and carry on responsibly as a mature state. Domestically, as he prepares for the January 16th elections, he was projecting calm, confidence and full control of all quarters, asserting Iraqi sovereignty and advancing an Iraqi-first agenda.
However, the devastating car-bomb attacks inside the Baghdad Security Zone three weeks ago, which killed scores and injured hundreds more, stripped off that confident veneer. The coordinated explosions, which targeted the Finance and Foreign Ministry buildings, rattled the government and the prime minister, who came out pointing fingers and second-guessing decisions to bring down security barriers in parts of Baghdad. Senior members of the government even questioned the reliance on U.S. forces for security.
The incident showed that a smooth glide path for Iraq is very unlikely. There are positive signs in Iraq, but the political accommodation sought by the United States has not come about, despite the political space that was created by the surge and other factors. The central government remains weak, and ethnic and sectarian divisions remain. It appears that
influence and control are achieved by the traditional means, even while the government muddles through day-to-day operations.
For our own part, serious questions remain about our policies going forward and our strategy.
The president and the vice president continue to speak about troops coming home at the end of 2011. But we do not have a clear understanding of how that withdrawal will occur under optimal conditions, much less worst-case scenarios. Metrics coming out of MNFI and Embassy Baghdad point to positive directions. If these are reliable, that would be a welcome change from the fragile and reversible situation of earlier years.
Today, Ambassador Hill, from you we need realism, not the naive opportunism of the Coalition Provisional Authority days, to assess whether our strategic foundation is firm. Key questions for you today should include, first -- in the last few years, many critics charged that we were taking our eyes off the ball with respect to Afghanistan. Are we at risk of taking our eyes off the other ball as the attention and resources shift from Iraq? Has planning for withdrawal and normalization diverted attention from tasks and priorities that lay ahead in Iraq, particularly beyond the January election?
And second, are we developing lasting relationships and institutions? Having moved from the construction phase, its not as easy to see progress when buildings and power generators are not the product. What programs are key to ensuring Iraq does not backslide?
And third, what and who will fill the power void as U.S. forces withdraw, first from cities, but progressively from the entire country? The how of withdrawal is even more important than the when.
And fourth, although the Kurdish region has been relatively calm, the International Crisis Group recently warned that a, quote, "destructive political conflict," end of quote, could arise over Kirkuk as Iraq army and Kurdish forces are arrayed in opposing formations. Can this confrontation be resolved? And what are the consequences if it is not?
And fifth, are Iraq's neighbors playing constructive roles? What about
Iran?
And sixth, as Prime Minister Maliki seeks reelection and to put together a coalition, is there a chance that the platform will develop in a way that further breaks down sectarianism?
And finally, do we and the Iraqis see eye-to-eye on the priorities going ahead? Are the policy foundations firm? Are you receiving the clarity of directions you need from Washington?
As we (work to ?) complete appropriation bills for 2010, the answer to these basic questions are essential to the work of the Congress and to this committee. As much as we'd like you to be the one with the crystal ball to tell us what things will look like at the end of 2011, it's more important you give us your best sense of how things are progressing toward that date and how things stand today.
We thank you so much for coming.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Ambassador, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you for being here
with us today.
Amb.Hill: Thank you very much, Chairman Kerry.
I would like to -- I have a statement, which I'd like to --
Sen. Kerry: We'll put the full statement in the record as if read in full, and if you'd summarize, that would give us more time to have a good dialogue. Thanks.
Amb. Hill: Very good.
Chairman Kerry, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, thank you very
much for the opportunity to speak today about our opportunity in Iraq as we transition from a military- to civilian-led mission, and about our efforts to develop a strong, long-term relationship with Iraq.
This is the start of a 12-month period at the end of which all combat forces will be withdrawn.
Is that my phone, or someone else's -- (off mike)? It's not mine.
This is the start of a 12-month period at which all -- during which -- or at the end of which all combat forces will be withdrawn. We have huge interests in capitalizing on the opportunity in Iraq. Iraq is at the center of the Middle East, bordering key countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and our NATO ally Turkey.
It is the -- it is the border between Kurdish lands and Arab lands. It is really where Sunni meet Shi'a. It is really a very central part of the Middle East and something -- and a country in which we should have enduring interests.
For the first time in decades, in fact, Iraq has a chance to become an engine for regional stability and regional economic growth rather than a source of regional tension and dispute. A convergence of events present(s) the will help foster security through active diplomacy to contain and begin to resolve internal disputes and to foster longer- term stability by showing the Iraqis how to build a market-oriented economy and a genuinely representative and accountable government. Over time, as our -- as we make progress on the economic and political goals, we will see a significant reduction in our civilian presence, both in the province(s) and at the embassy in Baghdad.
But for now, during this transition, we intend to actually strengthen our civilian presence as our military begins to ramp down. We need to show that we are taking over the -- some of the tasks that our military is -- has been engaged in. And that will mean -- and even strengthen civilian operation, after which we look to see the civilian effort begin also to ramp down.
Mr. Chairman, as -- Iraq has indeed suffered a series of attacks over the last weeks, including, actually, several on minority communities. Particularly horrifying were, indeed, the attacks on the Iraqi Foreign and Finance Ministries on August 19th. But, in fact, the reality is that Iraqi people have stood firm and rejected retribution, and that -- and so far, they have prevented the beginning of a new cycle of violence.
Doesn't mean that these attacks don't need to be taken seriously. They need to be taken with great seriousness. But we have found that the Iraqi people are reacting well to this. We have found that the Iraqi security forces are reacting well to this. And we believe that this is really quite a change from in the past.
There -- also, there's been some good news in Iraq as well. They've staged two rounds of successful elections: the provincial council elections in January, and elections in the Kurdistan Regional Government just a couple of months ago in July.
In both cases, the voting was free, fair and peaceful. Today, there are new provincial councils operating. And they know that the voters will have an opportunity to judge their performance.
Preparations have begun for national elections scheduled in January 2010. The council of representatives is working on an election law to govern the conduct of elections.
Iraq's high electoral commission has begun to register voters. And political parties are negotiating coalitions. We'll continue to work with the Iraqi leadership to ensure that this process is completed.
In the economic area, Iraq's economy remains very much a work in progress. It's beset by drought, inadequate reforms, falling oil prices earlier this year, which indeed hurt the budget. But as production and export levels have begun to increase and oil prices have recovered, in recent months, Iraq's budget has improved somewhat.
Nevertheless we have many near-term concerns about the fiscal stability. Iraq is going to have to work very closely on a standby agreement with the International Monetary Fund. And we're pleased that it is doing so. It also needs to undertake economic reforms, which will lay the groundwork for greater help from the World Trade Organization.
We can be helpful. But in the economy, the time has come really for Iraq to step up to the plate. There is no question that Iraq has the resources to be stable and successful. But it needs to better mobilize these resources, starting with oil.
The Iraqi people are blessed with enormous oil reserves; estimated to be the number-three country in the world. And on June 30th, the Iraqi ministry of oil held the first bid round in Iraq's history, with 32 international oil companies competing for six oilfields.
One field was awarded. It is a major field. And if it lives up to its expectations, it's possible that Iraq's oil exports could actually double from this one field alone.
Iraq needs to do more in this area. We need to work closely with the Iraqis, because we need to see increasingly Iraq paying for its own bills, as we ramp down our bilateral assistance.
Iraq needs to work on a more diversified economy. And we are very pleased that Prime Minister Maliki -- we have worked together on a U.S.-Iraq business and investment conference, to be held on October 20th here in Washington.
Two hundred representatives from Iraq will attend the conference. There will be a delegation of senior government officials. And we hope that this conference, together with the discussions with high- level Iraqi officials, at the dialogue of economic cooperation, will really act to spur investment in Iraq.
But beyond some of these economic issues, I want to stress that Iraq issues do not exist in a vacuum. A look at the map shows that Iraq is located in the center of a complex neighborhood.
Iran's influence is very much a reality in Iraq. We recognize that elements of Iran's influence, such as trade and religious tourism, can have a positive impact. But too often Iran has played a negative role, meddling in Iraq's internal interests and training violent militias.
With Syria, tensions persist between Baghdad and Damascus. Turkey has special interests in the north. Iraq's history with Kuwait is difficult. And the problems reach back beyond 1990.
Against this backdrop, there is a fundamental question. Is the Sunni Arab world prepared to make room for an Arab state that will be led, in all probability -- though not dominated but led -- by the Shi'a?
How Iraq deals with its neighbors will define what kind of region emerges in the coming year -- coming years. We need to help Iraq find solutions to some of these long-standing regional -- regional issues.
I think our diplomacy in Iraq, both internally in bilateral terms, but also multilaterally, will have a vital role to play. We've expanded our efforts to facilitate first containing, and then beginning to resolve, disputes in northern Iraq between Kurds and Arabs. I was just in Iraqi Kurdistan over the weekend, discussing how we can move forward on issues like developing vital oil sector in a way that benefits all Iraqis, and how to address -- how to begin to address the thorny dispute in Kirkuk.
We need to begin the process of getting various ethnic and sectarian communities engaged in settling their disputes. The U.N. has an important role here, and we want to work very closely with the -- with the U.N. Our diplomatic track is designed to fully complement our military efforts to foster cooperation between Kurdistan regional security forces -- that is, the peshmerga -- and those of the central government in Baghdad. And General Odierno has been very much engaged in this area.
I think helping -- we need to -- we need to understand that the decision, or the first milestone of the security agreement, that is, the removing U.S. cities from the -- or U.S. forces from the cities and villages in Iraq on June 30th -- turned out to be a very important day -- more important than many people thought, I think. Because for many Iraqi people, they looked to the question, would the U.S. fulfill its obligations under the security agreement? And I think the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens do believe we have done just that.
This decision -- or this date has turned out to be a very important date, because Iraqis now see that the U.S. can be trusted in the agreements we sign. And I think the Iraqis are now very interested in moving on to see if we can implement the Strategic Framework Agreement. The Strategic Framework Agreement, a sort of companion piece to the security agreement, lays out all the elements of a long-term relationship with Iraq. And this is the agreement that we very much want to -- want to follow, and to guide us in the years ahead.
To be sure, the transition to a civilian-led mission presents many challenges for us. We need first of all to make sure we have the funding to take up tasks that our military has been providing in the past. And the State Department has been working very hard to make sure that we have that funding.
There are elements of assistance that -- for example, police training that the military's been engaged in. These will be transferred to the State Department. And we are very much -- we are very much on these issues.
I think this Strategic Framework Agreement that we are pursuing was very much the focus of Prime Minister Maliki's visit to Washington in July. He and Secretary Clinton convened the second meeting of the Higher Coordinating Committee. We've established joint coordination committees in a number of areas, and we'll continue to be very much -- very much engaged on these issues.
Mr. Chairman, with those comments of our overall trends in Iraq, I stand ready to hear your questions.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you very much, Ambassador.
We're going to do a seven-minute round, since we have a number of senators here, and try to expedite.
You mentioned in your testimony a strengthened civilian effort. What do you mean by that? We have the largest embassy anywhere in the world. Are you envisioning a larger civilian --
Amb Hill: First of all, the embassy is indeed very large. And frankly, it is unsustainable in its current configuration and will need to get smaller. Just on the issue of housing for our employees, we are set up for about 600 employees. We have some over 1,000 people there. We've taken one-bedroom apartments, put sheet-rock divider through a small living room and made them into two-bedroom apartments for two unrelated employees. So just in terms of the physical infrastructure, we are not set up for the size we are and we need to get smaller.
That said, there are certain tasks in the very near term that we need to take up and take up with great seriousness to make sure that, first of all, the Iraqis understand that the U.S. is not leaving. U.S. forces may be leaving, but the U.S. is not leaving. Chief among these, of course, is the issue of the police training, a function that was taken by -- that was performed by the military, which will soon be performed by people from the State Department.
So in doing that, we need to look at the overall, you know, what the -- you know, how we protect these people. Do we -- are we going to have to have additional security for these people now that we no longer have U.S. forces to do that? So there will be some near-term issues like that.
The overall footprint of the U.S., indeed the overall funding for the U.S. will go precipitously down. The issue is how in some areas we have to take over for what the military has done. But I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, I want to see that embassy smaller.
Sen. Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, you also talked about the issue of reform in
Iraq. And, you know, we've been sitting on this committee listening to this (talk ?) -- I mean, I can remember Secretary Rice, down in the lower building -- lower room of the Dirksen testifying to us in January three or four years ago, saying the oil law is almost done, we're ready, we're moving forward on this and that, et cetera, et cetera. We are at least three or four years later now, and still those contentious issues remain contentious.
Share with us -- I mean, it seems to me that those may be the explosion point also in the absence of an American presence. Would you lend your view on that and on the prospect of actually resolving these?
Amb Hill: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that I think getting the economy there operating -- namely, getting oil started to be pumped out of the ground -- is essential to the future of that country. And frankly, we cannot be funding things that should be funded by the Iraqis and would be funded if they were able to move on the oil sector.
With regard to the hydrocarbons law, I went out there with the expectation that we would move on that. But I know -- you know, it was held up -- it's been held up for three or four years. I have really worked that issue. We have tried to break it down, find out where the real differences are between the Kurdish government and the Iraqi government.
It's a complex piece of legislation, actually involving four separate pieces of legislation having to do with revenue sharing, having to do with institution building, having to do with, you know, how the ministry would operate. And I think, realistically speaking, it will probably not get done before the January elections.
So our concern has been we cannot have Iraq's future held up or simply held hostage to this one piece of legislation. Therefore, we were pleased that the Iraqis did move ahead with the beginning of something they hadn't done for decades and decades, and that is begin the process of bidding oil fields to foreign concerns. They had -- they didn't do it during Saddam. They didn't even do it pre-Saddam. So they have begun that. They began it in June. One of the --
Sen. Kerry: That's all well and good --
Amb. Hill: Yeah.
Sen. Kerry: -- but if all those revenues are piling up in even greater amounts and without some distribution mechanism, you have --
Amb. Hill: Yeah. Well, there is a distribution mechanism. The 17 percent is basically -- is agreed by all sides. So even when they -- when the -- on the Kurdish Regional Government, when they were able to export some oil with an agreement with Baghdad, they did it under the provision of 17 percent.
So I think these things can be properly distributed. The issue is in the -- I won't say long run, but certainly in the medium run they're going to need this law, because the main issues go to things like infrastructure. Iraq's oil sector is very much in trouble, with very aging infrastructure. They have to have agreements on how they're going to pay for that. Is that the responsibility of local authority?
There are other issues having to do with the southern part of Iraq and their own regional concerns.
So I think they can deal with some of the key elements, but it would be much better if they dealt with the hydrocarbon law. But I'm giving you my sense of the situation, and I don't think we're going to get there before January, and therefore we really want to focus on getting them to bid out these deals, because getting British Petroleum in there is a good development.
Sen. Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, Syria and Iraq had indicated a willingness to try to cooperate on the borders and deal with the foreign fighter issue, which is very much in our interest, and we've been pushing that on both sides. But the bombings on August 19th have now seen, you know, sort of an explosion between the two countries. They've pulled their ambassadors and traded recriminations. So where do we stand on that? What, if anything, can be done to end that? Will Turkish mediation make a difference? Is there something that we should be advocating at this point? And what do you think is the prospect for getting back to the place that we'd hoped to be?
Amb. Hill: Well, I think we would like to see Iraq and Syria have a good relationship, and it was rather ironic that on August 18th -- that is, one day before the bombing -- Prime Minister Maliki was in Damascus and they signed a number of economic agreements.
Obviously things are in a difficult state and things are frankly on hold right now through this downturn in the relationship. The Iraqis are very concerned about the fact that some senior Ba'athist leaders went and found refuge in Syria and remain in Syria and the Iraqis have understandably called for their return to Iraq. That issue needs to be-- frankly needs to be worked through.
In terms of foreign fighters, there has been a diminished flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq, but I don't think anyone should say that's gone to zero.
And the issue of foreign fighters in Syria is also an issue that we need to be -- I think everybody needs to be focused on.
The Iraqis, in their investigation of August 19th, have come to the conclusion that this was more than an al Qaeda strike; they believe there is considerable external influence in this. Their fingers tend to point toward Syria.
We would like to work with the Iraqis on what evidence they have. We would like to share with the Iraqis what evidence we have to try to come to the -- to try to understand precisely what happened and then get on with dealing with that and improving the relationship.
Syria is a -- obviously, has been a troubled neighbor for Iraq, but I think, in the long run, Iraq needs to develop this relationship. Prime Minister Maliki spent 18 years of his life in Syria, so when one talks to Prime Minister Maliki about Syria, you have to do it with -- in a way that's respectful of the fact that he knows a thing or two about Syria.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Senator Lugar.
Sen. Lugar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, as Americans read the newspapers about attacks now in Iraq, the question is raised in a common-sense way: After withdraw of our forces from the cities on June the 30th, what is the outlook of the ordinary Iraqi citizens in cities, about his or her security, or about their homes, their neighborhoods? In essence, there was rejoicing that we have fulfilled our commitment -- and we did so. And yet, even the people that we have tried to train and left to provide the security seem to be inadequate for that task.
Now, granted, the numbers of casualties are all down, the number of attacks by any statistical measurement. But nonetheless, life has to go on in an ordinary way for people, with or without the United States. And what is your prognosis of the security arrangements Iraqis are providing for themselves, and the perceptions of their citizens about that?
Amb. Hill: Yeah. I think, with regard to perceptions, obviously, there are concerns among Iraqi citizenry about the capability of their forces and their ability to handle a great security challenge which their own government believes is not just developed within Iraq but also has some foreign roots.
Sen. Lugar: Mm-hmm.
Amb. Hill: So this is a major issue there. That said, I think the locus of opinion is that it is time for the Iraqi forces to protect Iraqis. And so the U.S. forces, which I do believe are the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen, has also become the greatest training force. There's been tremendous effort put into making sure the Iraqis are able to manage this issue. We have a great deal of cooperation as we try to have transparency in what we know about the situation and what they know.
Now, the Iraqis will do things a little differently and -- than the U.S. forces. And some of the things they do, in our opinion, ought to be changed. The question is, can you get them to change things by just telling them, or are they going to have to learn to change things by the experience?
You know, one issue is checkpoints. Do you have -- are checkpoints alone enough to solve these problems, or do you have to be -- have much more aggressive patrolling? That sort of thing.
I think these are things the Iraqi forces are entirely capable of learning. You know, right after August 19th, there was a lot of finger-pointing about, did the police do enough, was the army doing enough, et cetera. I counseled that, really, this is not a time for finger-pointing. There will be plenty of time for that in the future. What they really need to do is come together and figure out how they can do things better.
The -- there's been a lot of talk about whether these issues were related to bringing down T-walls. I think, you know, as anyone who's visited the Foreign Ministry -- and, indeed, I took some of your colleagues to see it -- they realized that it wasn't just -- it's not an issue of T-walls.
It was an issue of a very well funded terrorist group with a very large truck platform carrying tons and -- thousands of tons of explosive doing damage to this in a way that -- I think for most Americans to understand it, you'd think back to Oklahoma City. It was that type of agricultural chemical, you know, based weapon.
So my own judgment is that the Iraqi forces and, indeed, the Iraqi government is going to be challenged very much in the coming months. I also am of the judgment that they will learn from these terrible events and will make the adjustments they need to make. I don't think this is a -- this is a function of the fact that somehow if we turned it over to them a year from now, or two years from now, the issue would be much different. I think they have to simply learn, and I think they are doing that. There are some very capable people in the Iraqi security forces.
Sen. Lugar: Let me ask a follow-up to that about the security of American personnel. You've indicated a thousand people are in Iraq in a diplomatic situation. But these news accounts would indicate many more persons, Americans, are in Iraq still completing various projects. What security do your personnel have, or the people doing the projects? And how much security is going to be required in this period of time we now have to get all of the equipment and infrastructure, whatever we have in Iraq, out of Iraq? It must be a huge deployment/withdrawal situation you're looking at -- not just the people, but of all of these goods and armaments. How is that proceeding?
Amb. Hill: Well, Senator, I think the military is working the logistics very well of how they will get their personnel and equipment out of Iraq, what routes they will use, how will -- how they will protect the ports.
As a humble American ambassador, I really don't think I can give any advice to General Odierno on this matter, except to say that, as a general statement, let me say, the environment in Iraq continues to be very dangerous. And if you just measure progress in Iraq by the degree of danger, I think it's very much in the interest of terrorists and insurgents to create the impression that it's extremely dangerous and therefore there's been very little progress.
We believe that we have adequate security to protect our civilians.
When I go out, I go out in very much reinforced convoys.
I must say, as a personal observation, when you arrive there and then you look at the number of people that have to be moved, when I need to go from point A to point B, you think to yourself, do I really need to go from point A to point B? Can I do this on the phone or something?
But soon you realize that if you allow yourself to be dismotivated by, you know, worrying about how many people are moving, when you're moving, you won't be able to get your job done.
So a lot of security people are moved whenever diplomats move around the country. We find it absolutely essential to get into the so-called Red Zone. I say so-called, because outside the Green Zone is the rest of the country, known as the Red Zone.
But we need to be out there. It is not without risk. We have lost people in the embassy. We may lose people in the future. We believe it's the right approach. We take all precautions. No one is interested in doing anything against the precautions of our security people.
So it's a very tough environment. I must say, arriving there, realizing the difficulty of just getting from the airport to the embassy, we are all very struck by it. But we're not going to give in to it.
We're going to get our job done. We're going to get the Iraqis to stand this place up. And when our people leave, they will leave with the sense of a job accomplished. That's what we're going to do.
Sen. Lugar: Thank you, sir.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you, Senator Lugar.
Senator Feingold.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI): Thank you.
Ambassador Hill, thank you for being here today. I'd like to thank the chairman for holding this important hearing. I'm extremely pleased that we finally have a timetable for ending our involvement in the war in Iraq.
While I'm concerned that the redeployment is not being done as promptly as it should be, this step will allow us to refocus on the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I remain convinced that foreign occupations are usually not a good strategy for combatting a global terrorist network.
We need to find ways to relentlessly pursue al Qaeda, while simultaneously developing long-term partnerships with legitimate local actors and doing so through civilian diplomatic and development efforts that do not involve a massive military footprint.
And now as we transition out of Iraq, it is extremely important that we focus on making this an orderly withdrawal and doing everything we can, through diplomatic means, to help promote the political reconciliation needed to bring lasting peace to Iraq.
As to some questions, Ambassador, how do the Iraqi people feel about the redeployment of all U.S. troops, by the end of 2011, as currently required by the bilateral agreement?
Is there any -- is there a danger that any indication that we're backing away, from that commitment, would be greeted with strong opposition?
Amb. Hill: I think the dates -- of December 2011, August 2010 -- these were agreed with the Iraqi government at the end of 2008. I think any indication that we were not prepared, to live with these dates, would be very poorly received by the Iraqi people.
And indeed we saw this in the movement out of the cities on June 30th, 2009. Whenever we tried to discuss that, in terms of nuances, immediately the Iraqi media, Iraqi public got concerned that somehow we were looking for ways not to accomplish that.
In the end, we did exactly what we said we would do, which was we pulled our people out of the cities. And I think it really has established a reservoir of trust that when you reach an agreement with the Americans, you can take it to the bank.
So I think it's very important to live up to these agreements, and I think the Iraqi people, even though they do have, you know, great concerns about security, I think they want to be responsible for their -- see their country responsible for their own security.
As I said earlier, I think this will be -- these will be difficult moments ahead, but these are -- these will be nonetheless Iraqi moments to handle, and I think they will -- they will deal with this. We are -- we're dealing with a very -- you know, some very competent people there, very intelligent people, and they will know what to do.
Sen. Feingold: Thank you for that answer.
The Iraqi government intends to hold a nationwide referendum on the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement, and while there's been a lot of speculation about how this could impact a redeployment timetable. I'd like to also point out that both the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people have had a chance to vote on the agreement, even though the U.S. Senate has not.
Can you assure us that any potential modifications to the security agreement will be submitted to the Senate for ratification?
Amb. Hill: The issue of the Senate ratification goes beyond my writ, but I will certainly take that question to the -- to the State Department and get you an official answer on that. I can give you my personal opinion --
Sen. Feingold: Would you, please.
Amb. Hill: -- that we would not want to be changing this -- we would not engage in changing the security agreement without considerable consultation. But as for the actual relationship between the Senate and the executive on this, I'd like to defer to our lawyers at the State Department.
Sen. Feingold: Well, thank you for that answer, and I look forward to further comments on that after you've done that.
The recent revelations about gaps in security at the Kabul embassy continue to highlight our current inability to maintain discipline over our security contractors. In order to ensure adequate security for our missions, do you think it would be preferable to have the military provide security for U.S. embassies in war zones, which would ensure that we'd have a legally binding command-and-control over such personnel?
Amb. Hill: You know, I believe our military has been tasked with a lot. And this is one where, when we talk about security personnel at an embassy, this is one where chief of mission ought to take this.
And I believe that these contractors who report to mission elements, who in turn report to me, that we have adequate control. And what I can assure you is that I will do my best to make sure we don't have incidents. Incidents do happen. They happen everywhere. They happen at every institution. But I can assure you that we do a lot to try to ensure that they don't happen. And I would rather not task the military with still another -- still another mission.
Sen. Feingold: Thank you.
According to Department of State's inspector general, there's no plan in place for transition to a diplomatic presence in Iraq, and we're therefore not adequately prepared for our military's redeployment. In response the State Department indicated it has produced a unified transition plan which was under review.
When can we expect to see a final, approved transition plan to ensure our diplomatic operations remain uninterrupted? And is the embassy jointly producing the plan with the Department of Defense in order to ensure that the transition is well coordinated?
Amb. Hill: We are working very closely with our colleagues at MNF-I, and really on a daily basis, and we have stood up an entire planning cell at the American embassy in our political-military section under Ambassador Cameron Munter, who deals on a daily basis with the military on this.
We also have a joint campaign plan and we work through it, really, on a daily basis. We know the absolute responsibility we have in the State Department to ensure that the gains that have been achieved by our men and women in uniform are not lost; I mean, that we pick up -- we take the ball when they give it to us, and we're ready to move with it. So we will -- we have an overall joint campaign plan. We have a number of -- many other documents, in terms of the planning for how we take over functions, whether it's police training -- and I'm sure we can share many of those with the committee.
Sen. Feingold: But is there a unified transition plan that -- apparently, that's under review, that we're going to be able to see? When will we be able to see that?
Amb. Hill: You will be able to see, I think, our joint campaign plan that we've worked out with the military, but I'm not sure about this other document. Maybe I can take the question and get back to you.
Sen. Feingold: All right. That sounds good. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you, Senator Feingold.
Senator Corker.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have you back.
Yes, sir.
And Mr. Ambassador, for your service, thank you very much. I know that typically we would have witnesses from the State Department, and Armed Services would have witnesses from military, but just to follow on a little bit with Senator Feingold's comments, or questions, the taking down from 130,000 troops to 50,000 troops is a pretty big logistical feat. And I know we're going to stay pretty manned-up until after the elections, and then very shortly thereafter be down to 50,000 troops. Are you comfortable that logistically, in doing that, that plans are being set in place to make that happen in an appropriate way?
Amb. Hill: I'm very comfortable. I've talked to General Odierno on a number of occasions. He has really some of the finest planners I've ever seen working on this.
And you're quite right, the overall numbers stay pretty much constant -- although they're coming down a little already -- but they stay pretty much constant through the January election, and then start ramping down in the spring. And his planners worked this very carefully.
Sen. Corker: So, to the hardware, anybody that -- all of us have been there. And the amount of hardware on the ground I think would shock most people who haven't seen the billions and billions of dollars of equipment that is there. You know, what is -- what is going to be the outcome of that? To me, that's an even greater logistical issue --
Amb. Hill: I think it's the --
Sen. Corker: -- as to how we move all of the hardware out of the country. Where is it planning to go at this moment? Could you give us some insights there?
Amb. Hill: Well, again, I have to defer to my colleagues in the military, but I can tell you there's some 2 million pieces of hardware in that country. It is simply extraordinary. There are vehicles, generators, things like that.
What you're discussing -- or what you're asking, though, is the subject of ongoing planning by our military, to see which things are worth carrying all the way back to the States, which might be left for civilian use as we take over military roles, such as -- I keep mentioning police training, but that's one of the most obvious, because it's one of the biggest.
So the question is whether there's some hardware on that -- on the military side that could be transferred to the civilians. We -- we're looking at that issue. There's, of course, the issue of the Iraqi army and what equipment would be appropriate to be transferred to them, and then whether there's any other regional contingency for that equipment.
I am not, though, the one to talk about how the hardware belonging to the military should be divided. But I can assure you that there is a very active discussion, especially within MNF-I and other military planners, on how to do that.
Sen. Corker: One can't help but, when you sit and talk to our leaders there, realize that there's really no way that Iraq as a country, even with the amount of oil that they have and the revenues that will be generated there, there's no way in the short term they can sustain themselves budgetarily -- I mean, with the troops, the police, all the things -- the reconstruction that is necessary. Wondering if you might talk to us a little bit about how long you think it's going to be into the future that we as a country are supporting Iraq financially.
Amb. Hill: Yeah. Senator, I think that's a very fair question. Iraq needs to stand up a lot more revenue. And, in particular, they are -- they have only in August of this year reached 2 million barrels a day of oil exports. This is a country that is at least the third- largest holder -- the third-largest oil reserves in the world, some 115 trillion barrels of oil in the ground.
I think they have to do a lot better job of getting the oil sector to start pumping this out, which is why earlier we were discussing this issue of the bids and the fact that they gave to British Petroleum for negotiation a field called Ramadi (sic), which is down in the south. If that goes well, Ramadi (sic) will get something over the next five years, and I think that's kind of the time frame, to answer your question. Within this five-year period, we should be looking at -- just from that field, they should be able to get up to maybe on the order of 1.7 million barrels a day. Put that together with 2 (million barrels), that's almost doubling their exports.
So in the time frame, I would say in the next three to five years, they should be able to substantially increase their exports and therefore their funding.
Sen. Corker: But not to support themselves as a country?
Amb. Hill: No, I think they can. I think if they are -- you know, they have an enormous supply of oil, and I think if they start getting that
out of the ground and if -- assuming oil prices are what they are, Iraq should be able to pay their own bills. There is no question they should be able to pay their own bills.
What they have to do is get over the notion -- and it's a notion that goes beyond or before Saddam Hussein; it goes into the 1950s, it goes maybe even to the British occupation in the '20s and '30s -- this notion that they don't want to see assets be turned over to foreigners for -- to develop. So they've got to get over that.
There was a good sign of that in June, when British Petroleum was invited in to negotiate on this field. They're going to do additional bids later this year. And we're hopeful that this will result in substantially increased oil.
I mean, remember, this is the third -- has third-largest reserves in the world. There's no reason they cannot pay their bills.
Sen. Corker: Yeah. I noticed last night when the president spoke that he continues to compare himself very favorably to the previous administration, especially as it relates to budget issues, which, by the way, on budget issues, I very much am glad that that's the case. Is it your feeling, then, that they will continue the pattern of not asking for any monies for Iraq in supplementals, but it'll be done per normal budget request and through normal appropriations?
Amb. Hill: Again, how monies are requested, either through supplementals or through the normal budget process, is a set of decisions that goes beyond my writ in Baghdad. I have enough problems in Baghdad.
But what I can tell you is that we need certain funding for our operations in Baghdad. We need funding for the various programs we're doing. And it's the usual push and pull, but I believe we're getting what we need in order to get the job done.
And another thing I can assure you is, we're really going to be vigilant on what -- how that money is spent. I've taken a -- we have an ambassador who came out there named Patricia Haslach, and I've put her in charge of all of these assistance matters, so that everything comes to her. And we are looking to see whether these things are working, whether the Iraqis really are using them, and if not, we're going to cut them.
Sen. Corker: My time is up, and I know my colleague from Maryland is next. I do hope in writing after this you'll potentially give us an update on where the U.N. sanctions issues are as it relates to Iraq. I mean, obviously the sanctions were put in place in 1991. The great work you're doing has caused Iraq to be a very, very different country, as have many others. I mean, there's been huge sacrifice by many folks.
That's inhibiting Iraq's progress, and I'd just love to have a written update as to what's happening to change that, because my time is up. And again, thank you for your service.
Amb. Hill: Senator, that is one of my favorite subjects, and I would be
happy to be in touch with you on that.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you, Senator Corker.
Senator Cardin.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing.
Sen. Kerry: Let me just say to everybody we have a vote, I think, in 10 minutes or so. And there may be another round, if people want to have -- so we'll see where we are.
Sen. Cardin: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Hill, it's always a pleasure to be with you, and thank you again for your service in Iraq.
I've talked to you before about the issues of Iraqi refugees and displaced persons, a significant number still living in Jordan and Syria, and certainly a ot are no longer living where they used to in Iraq.
Can you just bring us up to date, as to what the Iraqi government has been doing, in regards to the refugee issues, what's happening in the neighboring countries, and whether we are actively involved in trying to encourage more activities, in regards to the refugees?
Amb Hill: Senator, we are very much actively involved.
First of all, in terms of internally displaced people, there has been
progress in getting people back to their homes. It's often not an easy process, because you have to often evict people from homes before you can bring the original homeowners back.
I will tell you though very frankly that the progress on refugees, some 1 million or 1.5 million refugees who are mainly in Jordan and Syria, that the progress in those areas is inadequate.
We have named a special coordinator to deal with this on the Washington end. I have a extremely capable refugee coordinator, in the embassy in Baghdad, who has a lot of experience in this. (Inaudible.) And we have -- we need from the Iraqis a similar commitment to bringing these refugees home.
The Iraqis often tell us that there are no barriers. They can simply come home. We believe more needs to be done, to make sure that they feel welcomed and feel safe.
So I can assure you, this is a real priority, because these refugees who are in places like Syria and Jordan are not having an easy time of it. It is costing everyone money. And we would like to get them home. I have raised this with the Iraqi government. And I will continue to raise this.
There's one very specific thing which is, they have agreed to name an interagency coordinator, because this can't just be dealt with in their ministry of immigration. They need to have a more interagency process. They've agreed to do this. And I think we're going to really hold them to it.
Sen. Cardin: Well, I thank you for that.
I've had a chance to visit with some of the refugees in both Syria and in Jordan. And you're absolutely right. There is concern on safety issues on return. There are more complications than just being able to return to Iraq itself. And it does require the attention of the Iraqi government.
And it's one of the areas that I've had great concern, as to whether they're giving a high enough priority to this issue. I know they're concerned about it. But I would just urge you to continue to press for progress. This is a humanitarian issue and one that needs to be dealt with, by Iraq, if it's going to be able to move forward in governing its people.
Amb. Hill: Senator, I completely agree with you. Another element of this is, a lot of these refugees are precisely the kinds of skilled people that Iraq needs back in the country. So it's not just that the refugees need to get back. Iraq needs these people back.
So with your permission, I'd like to take your comments right back to the Iraqi government and stress the fact that this is a major issue back here in Washington, that we look at this issue very closely. The U.S. is very much engaged in helping refugees throughout the world. And we expect our partners to be similarly engaged in this.
Sen. Cardin: Could you give us a little bit more details, as to what is happening between Syria and Iraq, since the August bombings, whether there is diplomatic communications and progress being made, between the two countries, whether the United States has a role to play in this or not?
And just fill us in a little bit more as to how you see the August bombings affecting the ongoing relationship between Iraq and Syria.
Amb. Hill: Well, there's no question that it affected the ongoing relationship. On August 18th, the day before the bombing, Prime Minister Maliki was in Damascus for the first time in many months. And they signed some economic agreements, and they actually agreed to make some progress. So that was actually probably the high point. A day later, there was a bombing in -- two bombings in Baghdad, of course, and within days, the Iraqi government expressed very public concern about Syria's role.
I think -- and as that has happened, the ambassadors have been recalled.
There is dialogue; that is, there are diplomatic communications -- and as you know, Turkey has attempted to try to do some mediation -- but I think there needs to be -- there needs to be further work in terms of Syria needs to understand the depth with which the Iraqis consider the fact that the Syrians have given refugee to senior members of the Ba'ath Party, who are very much dedicated to a violent change in Iraq. This is very much something the Iraqis worry about.
We have been concerned in the past about the flow of foreign fighters from -- through Syria. This has diminished in recent years, but it has not stopped. So it is important for us to see this situation calm down.
But I'd like to make a broader point, which is that the -- what the Iraqis were saying is that the -- some of the problems of terrorism that they are encountering, including these mammoth bombs that were really sort of Oklahoma City-like, were bombs that could not be done just by people within the country. There is foreign influence.
And for this reason, the Iraqis have gone to the United Nations and asked for additional help, and I think there's -- their prime minister sent a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. I know the U.N. is considering what to do about this. So the point the Iraqis are making is that the issue goes beyond Iraq and they need neighbors to step up on this, including Syria.
I would like to say, as I said in my opening testimony, that I think one of the real tests -- one of the real questions, let me put it that way -- is -- for the region is, can a region which is far and away dominated by Sunni governments -- can that region make room for an Arab state that will probably have a Shi'a-led government. Are they prepared to do that? This is a change in the equation here. Saddam was very much a Sunni.
And so when we look at some of the influences in Iraq, we have to be, number one, concerned about Iran, because they have been very much present in Iraq in a very malevolent way, but we also have to be concerned about some of the Sunni countries where evidence has -- there has been some evidence to suggest that they have been funding some of the terrorism in Iraq.
Sen Cardin: I think we just -- Mr. Chairman, I think we'd be interested in finding out as much information as we can as to Syria's role in regards to Iraq. It's not unique to Iraq, our concerns about Syria and transport for --
Amb. Hill: Right.
Sen. Cardin: -- and support for terrorism. And I think it would be important for us to be kept informed as to what we determine Syria (sic) role was in regards to the August bombing.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you, Senator Cardin.
The vote has started, but I want to try to ask a few more questions before we have to break out of here. Senator Lugar, do you have more?
Sen. Lugar: (Off mike.)
Sen. Kerry: First of all, with respect to the relationship that Senator Cardin just referred to, the Sunni neighborhood, which is the most -- you know, the majority of the neighborhood, I'm concerned about what you've said. And can you be more specific a little bit about where these pockets of tension with respect to the relationship in the Sunni world are coming from? And how serious is that as we go forward with less and
less American presence there?
Amb. Hill: Well, I think what we want to be concerned about or what we want to avoid is the situation where countries think that -- or equate the withdrawal of U.S. troops with a withdrawal of U.S. interest in the region and -- I'm sorry, withdrawal of U.S. interest in Iraq. We would like to stand up a long-term relationship with Iraq. We want to be very active with Iraq. We've invested heavily in Iraq in every way. And so we want to be very -- very much there.
And what we -- and if there is a perception in the neighborhood that somehow the U.S. has lost its strategic interest in Iraq, we could have a sort of new great game going on, where neighbors, including and especially Iran, but also Sunni states as well, see somehow that Iraq is sort of up for grabs.
And so that's what we are mainly concerned about. Now, Iran --
Sen. Kerry: You're saying, though, that that is the current Sunni perception?
Amb. Hill: I think it is a perception among some Sunni countries. I don't want to name names here, but I do believe that some Sunni countries believe that somehow it's an aberration that there's a Shi'a-led government there, and that somehow in January it will flip back, and they just need to be a little patient or need to be -- show a little more effort to try to get the Sunni parties to be better funded and somehow they could emerge victorious with a split Shi'a community.
So my point is, there's a perception in Iraq that they could be subject to this kind of process of neighbors trying to influence the outcome of elections. I think that would be very dangerous, and I think it's very much a perception that we need to tamp down, especially with other countries in the region.
We need to convince countries in the region that the answer to Iranian mischief is not Sunni mischief; the answer to Iranian malevolence is to have -- to do really what Turkey is doing; that is, to be openly engaged in Iraq and try to help Iraq through what is a very difficult time.
In our view, a strong Iraq is essential to the region.
Sen. Kerry: What do you worry about the most in the context of the drawdown? Next April to August, we will draw down ostensibly some 70(,000) to 80,000 troops. The election takes place in January. It may well be that they don't even have a government set up by the time that drawdown takes place.
Amb. Hill: Well, I worry about precisely that issue.
That is, I feel the real threats are not necessarily security, because I think in the long run the Iranian -- the Iraqis figure out -- will be able to figure out security. I worry about developing the political rules of the game. And what I don't want to see is an election that results in six months of government formation during which there is really a loss of some of the progress that has been made. So I worry that it will take a long time to form a government after January.
Sen. Kerry: Do you pick up any whisperings and/or discussions in back rooms or privately to you of an expression of fear about the potential of a greater flow of power to Prime Minister Maliki and even a greater grab of power and the potential for de-democratization in some effect?
Amb. Hill: Well, Senator, in the privacy of this hearing room, I will say that indeed when you talk to Iraqis, we are in an election period, and there are very strong opinions about Prime Minister Maliki across the board. And if you listen to all those opinions -- and that's really our job in the embassy, to understand what people are thinking -- yes, you will hear the opinion that you've just expressed.
Now, you'll also hear the opinion that because Prime Minister Maliki's government was put together with great care after a great deal of political horsetrading, that he has a situation that some of his ministries, in his view, are not loyal to him or are not functioning, and so he ends up appointing people around him in the Prime Minister's Office to do essentially what are ministerial functions because he needs to get the job done. And often, you know, this is a country where ministries often deal with just providing basic services, that sort of thing. So you hear other people say that he needs to get these things, he needs to bring these people around him in order to get the job done.
Sen. Kerry: And what has been the impact -- unfortunately, we're going to have to cut off because I've got to go over to vote -- but what has been the impact of Abdul Aziz Hakim's passing, in terms of the power center?
Amb. Hill: Well, I think it is too early to tell at this point. I went down to the ISCI compound that day, or a few days later, for part of the memorial in the mourning period, and it was really quiet extraordinary. Every senior Iraqi politician was there. Thousands of people gathered around this mosque area.
I think it's early to tell, but I think ISCI is looking to be a major player in the elections. They were the first to try to form a coalition. It looks like his son is going to be taking over for the time being. And we have to see how they do in the elections.
Sen. Kerry: Well, Mr. Ambassador, we do have some additional questions. The last thing I want to do is burden you with a lot of written record, but if you'll permit us, there are a few things we'd like to just make sure are a part of the record.
Amb. Hill: Sure.
Sen. Kerry So we will submit those to you. And I'll leave the record open for -- till next week for purposes of any other senators who have questions they need to submit.
We are very grateful to you. I know it's a long way to travel. And I thank you for switching your schedule with the House in order to comply with our needs here.
And the same thing we said to you as we sent you off in confirming your nomination for this. We think you're the right person for the job. We are grateful that you're there. It's tough. And I think a lot of the questions that have been asked today, you know, may still be open-ended. And I think you know that, too.
But we look forward to working with you, and, again, look forward to being out there some time in the near future to get a better look at things. So thank you very, very much for the job you're doing.
Please thank all of our embassy personnel there and, of course, our military personnel. It is not forgotten here. We know they're there, and we care enormously about the outcome, and I appreciate what you said today about the need to secure the gains and make sure the sacrifices, to the greatest degree that we can, were made for a purpose that we're still fighting for. So we thank you for that.
Amb. Hill: Thank you.
Sen. Kerry: Thank you. We stand adjourned. Thank you. (Gavels.)