Printer Friendly Version

SEN JOHN W. WARNER: Thank you for this opportunity to visit with you this afternoon. I returned late last night from a trip which began in Jordan, meeting with the king. We had a very good discussion. I've had the privilege of knowing him and working with him and his father for many years.

And from there we went into Iraq for a day, a full day, visiting with the senior officials and then going out to where I really wanted to visit, Al Anbar Province. And I'll speak of that later.

Secondly, we then proceeded to go in and visit in Israel, meeting with the prime minister, the minister of state and the minister of defense.

And then we were set to go into Lebanon when our plane had a serious mechanical failure and we were unable to do that. So I came back by civilian aircraft last night.

So with that in mind, I would like to make the following observations: This is roughly my eighth trip to Iraq. And it was a markedly different trip than ones before, primarily in the fact that we just did not have the freedom and the ability to travel to places where I have been in years past.

I think today's press, yesterday's press, the day before, adequately describes a very serious situation. If I had to capsule it in just a few sentences, I would say the following: That there is progress being made in certain areas. Yes, the oil production has reached the levels of when Saddam Hussein was at his height in the business. The reconstruction is going forward.

But you just find that so many communities don't even have drinking water, don't even have proper sewage or sanitation.

WARNER: So I would say, in some areas, there are steps forward and in other areas, there are steps backwards.

And to summarize it, it seems to me that the situation is simply drifting side-wise and that, while I believe the government is trying, that is primarily Prime Minister Maliki -- and we had a long discussion with him -- the various departments and agencies of that government are simply not living up or not able to meet just the fundamental responsibilities of a government operating through agencies.

I mean, for example, out in Al Anbar -- naturally, that being Sunni territory, there's a feeling they're not getting their fair share of any part of the government distribution of benefits to the people today. And in fact, that is correct. They're not.

Other areas are seriously deficient in just the basic necessitates for the people to live a decent life and survive.

But I just brought with me a document. And I'm going to hand it to you in a moment, copies of it. When we talked to Prime Minister Maliki, he said he had just met with representatives of Sadr's group, Hakim's group.

Those are the two largest of the private armies, or the militias, as they're referred to.

He was optimistic that they'd made progress in that meeting and that they were going to meet again that night. And Ambassador Khalilzad, who's an extraordinary man, likewise said that he had hopes that that meeting would bring forth a document.

The next day, in the press, as we read while we were in Israel, it referred to a signed document. But in all my efforts thus far, and indeed efforts of the Departments of State and Defense, we cannot get a copy of what that signed document is.

But I did bring a transcript of his speech. But I have to tell you, folks, it's five pages long. And you're hard put to figure out how this represents a plan that was so carefully described to us.

WARNER: That, I think, symbolizes the difficulty we have in dealing with this situation. The Iraqi people operate so differently than we do here in the western world that it's difficult, extremely difficult, for our government.

And I think the president and the secretaries of state and defense and our ambassador over there and our troops are doing their very, very best, but it's hard to see this government beginning to seize the full reins of sovereignty, which we have given them -- the coalition forces and the United States given them that sovereignty -- but you do not see them taking the levers of sovereignty and pulling and pushing them, and doing what is necessary to bring about a situation in Iraq whereby the people are able to live, have sufficient food and fresh water, and have a sense of confidence in their government that they're going forward.

Now, what do we do about it?

Well, I still feel we should give the prime minister an opportunity to come back and explain what he represented to Senator Levin, myself, Senator Sessions and Senator Pryor that we are going to go about our business and try and dismantle these militias in such a way to avoid violence, confrontation with these militias.

But I cannot find in this translation the same gravitas and determination expressed in his voice translated into an agreement, one which we here in the western world can take a look at and understand.

We had opportunities to visit with the troops. And as I say, I've been there many times and have had a half century of work with our troops one way or another.

And I tell you, the professionalism and the determination and the commitment of these brave young men and women just grows in my estimation. Nobody griped, other than the usual gripes about chow and some other things.

WARNER: And they really shouldn't gripe the chow. These mess halls which we've dined in with these troops are far different than anything I experienced in World War II and Korea and Vietnam, where I visited as secretary of the Navy.

But anyway, they're absolutely superb and doing their job.

But when we were at the Marine base and advanced base in Al Anbar, the sirens would go off, and I asked: What's that? Oh, that's to get the helicopter crews to go out and pick up a wounded marine or a soldier, whatever the case may be, and bring him in. They had a wonderful new medical clinic there.

So that war grinds on. And we take distressing tolls of loss of life and limb every day. But I'm convinced that we have got to do everything we can to maintain the stability of this government and to put all pressure we possibly can, recognizing they're a sovereign nation, to get them to move forward more aggressively and do the job of a government.

Because, if that government were to fail, if Iraq would devolve into a civil war, the consequences are frightful, not just for the Iraqi people but for the whole region and indeed, I think, the world.

Because it would be viewed by the terrorists as a victory. And we are going to deny them that victory. Otherwise, worldwide terrorism will spread.

And the oil fields of Iraq belong to the people of Iraq. The proceeds belong to the people of Iraq. And one of the main responsibilities of this government is to make certain that those proceeds go to benefit the Iraqi people and not let those fields fall into the hands of the terrorists.

Because if those oil fields became the property of the worldwide terrorist movement, they would have a bank and a source of ready cash to provide terrorist attacks throughout the world, whenever and however they wish.

WARNER: The other points I'd like to make is that I've been following very closely the work being done by former Secretary of State Baker and others in the Iraqi Study Group.

I had a hand, together with Congressman Wolf and others to see that they had the funds and so forth, and they're really now getting down to solid work.

Former Secretary Baker was on the television this morning talking about the progress, and they hope after the election to deliver a report.

And I'm sending them a letter today hoping that report can be completed and that they could come before the Committee of the Armed Services to talk about their report while the Congress comes into its brief November session, because that report is being written in a bipartisan way for the benefit of the executive branch and the legislative branch in hopes that we can formulate new concepts and ideas as to how to bring to a conclusion the goal of establishing this government and giving it the security and the incentive to exercise the full reins of sovereignty.

So with that, I'll take your questions now. But this, for example -- let me just refer to this document and read one paragraph in here.

It states as follows: "We have pledged to God, his prophet and the proud Iraqi people to remedy the crisis which has caused a bloodbath. We also pledge to stop the bloodshed and to resort to the effective and constructive political dialogue instead of violence. To honor this pledge, we have agreed on the following mechanisms."

Well, agreed means to me that there's a document somewhere signed with the provisions in it.

And he states: "One, joint branch field communities will be formed in various parts of Baghdad; two, a central follow-up committee which will be called the Central Committee for Peace and Security."

This is all part of his very laudable objective of trying to reconcile the differences.

"Third, a joint media committee will be formed to monitor the media.

"Fourth, the plan will be reviewed on a monthly meeting which will evaluate performance and make the necessary amendments to the plan whenever necessary."

In answer to questions, he said, "We have said many times that we do not need militias and political and brotherly relationships between us are in the form that will lead to the establishment of the state.

"Naturally, the state is responsible for protecting its citizens and weapons. No one is allowed to use weapons outside the framework of the state."

That's what we're dealing with and it's a challenge. But I think our government is doing a commendable job to do what they can to put this situation on a track to avoid the loss of the sovereignty of the people and let those assets of the oil fall into the hands of the terrorists.

WARNER: Always remember the end game. Anybody wants to talk about pullout and set timetables, we better set the only timetable is to make certain that they're up and standing and a viable government and those oil fields will not become the treasury for the world terrorist movement.

Questions?

QUESTION: Senator Warner, you have given a rather frank evaluation of the situation there. If it is not a quagmire now, and you have not used that word...

WARNER: Nope.

QUESTION: ... although some others have, how does the United States prevent its becoming a quagmire?

WARNER: To do what we're doing now. And to give our field commanders -- we met with them -- the latitude, and I think they are receiving it, we visited with General Abizaid, General Casey, General Chiarelli, Marine generals and others.

They know what has to be done, and they are going about doing it now. And it'll take some time. We've just got to stand behind them and give those military operations the time need to succeed.

Do we need more troops? In my opinion, they've set the troop levels. They're going to maintain the present force for the foreseeable future. And I do not recommend that we try and send more troops from the United States to add to those that are over there right now.

You know, it gets down to the Iraqi people themselves making the decision themselves that they have the sovereignty and they've got to make it work. I do not think more and more coalition troops, namely United States troops, is the answer to that question at this point in time. There may have been other times when it would have been a good idea, but not now.

QUESTION: You described the situation as drifting sideways.

WARNER: That's my opinion. That's just my word.

QUESTION: OK. And you talk about the need to put pressure on the Iraqis and the government. If not set a timetable, then how do you put pressure on?

WARNER: Well, we talked with Ambassador Khalilzad -- and by the way, he's an extraordinary man -- many times about that.

And I think it's a combination of -- the military people deal with him on a regular basis and with the Iraqi government. And those military commanders, to the extent they can, recognizing it's a sovereign nation, are giving the direction and the concepts of the ideas militarily as to how to bring about stability.

One is the Baghdad campaign. That's a campaign in which we're losing, unfortunately, significant numbers of our men and women killed and injured. But that campaign is going forward.

But as the military point out until you come to grips with Sadr's army in one of the quadrants of Baghdad -- that's part of Baghdad, Sadr City, then you'll not have a success.

And Maliki seems to believe, the prime minister, we can possibly negotiate with Sadr in such a way as to diminish his military without the use of force. Well, time will tell and those answers will come here in a matter of weeks.

QUESTION: You said the Iraqi people are just different than those in the west, and that they need to come and realize that they have this opportunity to grab the reins of sovereignty, as you said, and run their own country.

How long is that going to take? And how long should we have patience for them to figure it out while our troops are there?

QUESTION: In particular...

WARNER: I don't think -- I'll come to your next question, but let me try and answer that question.

You know, if you were to ask me, "What are the high points of this whole thing that I have followed, you've followed for these three years?," it was the extraordinary elections in which they came forward, taking personal risk, each one of them, to vote.

So I feel it in their hearts is a determination to try and make that nation work.

Now, we've got to harness this same motivation and courage that was used successively in those elections and see whether or not -- maybe we ought to have another referendum, for example: How long do you want America to stay there?

Let every one of them come out and express it in a referendum, as positive proof and incentive to this government to make the system work.

QUESTION: More recent polls show that most Iraqis want the Americans out.

But you probe those polls and there are weak spots in the polls. I mean yes, out, but don't leave us here in a situation where we could fall into a civil war.

And then the leaders will tell you, we need the protection of this government. Mind you, this government is out -- they go back to their homes, but they come back in to function as a government within the protection of the zone where our military is. They don't get out among the people. They function behind the walls of that zone.

QUESTION: Senator, the message that you're sending today to that government is one I've heard you send before, that they've got to buckle down; they've got to get with this.

Why do you think they haven't done so up to now, that after all these warnings that have been delivered, that we're still drifting, as you put it?

WARNER: Go look at the front page of every paper in America today, about the losses, not only of our forces, but the killings of their people. Look at the exponential rise in the number of deaths each day, the body counts on the streets, primarily in the region of Baghdad.

Al Anbar, for example -- it was quite interesting.

WARNER: We met that colonel that wrote the intelligence report. And ,believe me, he gave it to us again, straightforward, about his concerns.

But the bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was in power, he simply sent enormous amounts of cash up to Al Anbar because it was a Sunni homeland, so to speak.

That cash is not flowing up there now. There's very little infrastructure of jobs and the like. So therefore, all of that concentrated fighting is taking place up there now.

QUESTION: If I could follow up, your colleague, Senator Biden, has been talking for some time about a plan to (OFF-MIKE).

WARNER: Yes, I'm familiar with that.

QUESTION: Is that something now that the Congress here needs to take a hard look at it and tell the Iraqi government that we're going to take a hard, if they don't take these other steps?

WARNER: For the moment, I'm putting some faith into what Maliki told us: We're going to work this thing out; give us time.

But I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's the responsibility of our government, internally, to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take?

And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time. I do believe that the Biden concept has some really very serious consequences. I do not know how you partition that country as evenly as he laid out.

And then you have the problem of Kurdistan, which is functioning quite well; their relationship with Turkey, which is very fragile and one that could erupt. And, suddenly, where would Turkey be if you found that the Kurds were going to get autonomy in that region?

What would happen between the Sunni and the Shia? Would not Iran begin to sort of come in and take over the southern part?

The partition has, at first glance, some interesting challenges to it, I'd say. And you'd better go through the whole situation.

The bordering countries are not going to sit around and allow the state of Iraq to be chopped up. I mean, you've got Jordan, you've got Saudi Arabia, you've got Iran, you've got Syria.

WARNER: They're just not going to sit there silently if that thing begins to partition.

QUESTION: Senator, notwithstanding what's going on over on the other side of the Hill, what kind of a message do you tell the American people who are maybe factoring in Iraq as they go to the polls in a little less than a month? What kind of message do you tell them about what you've seen and what you've heard?

WARNER: Well, I think the message was simply -- and I base it on many trips there -- we're not to give up hope yet. Let's give it more time to work.

We made an enormous investment in that country beginning with over 2,700 killed and 28,000 wounded back here and the enormous amount of money. We've got a big investment.

And we cannot let this country fall into the hands of international terrorism so that they get a ready bank for all their money.

I guess you come down to the words that if you ask me, my goal is somehow finish this situation so that government can function and that history will record that the men and women of the armed forces of our United States did not die or suffer from their wounds in vain, that it was a proper commitment in the cause of freedom to protect us back here at home.

QUESTION: Senator, two things. One, I wanted to be clear, do you see the next 60, 90 days as a critical period? Does there have to be some sign that something's changing?

And then, if, indeed, you reach the point where we have critical mass, where you talk about all things being on the table, would that be Congress taking some action...

WARNER: I think at that point, we as a co-equal branch with the executive branch, we'll have to assert our own leadership on this issue.

Thus far, I think we've been largely in concert with the administration as to their objectives. But I do believe, as you say, the next 60 to 90 days are critical.

And if these movements now being taken by the Iraqi leadership and their government do not bring about a reduction in the killings and all of the other disruption and do not point to a clear direction that Iraq is going to move out of this situation that's existing today, then I think we have to make some bold decisions here in our country, but make them in a way so that we don't allow this land of Iraq to be torn up and fall into the hands of terrorists who will absolutely loot it to the hilt for worldwide terrorism.

QUESTION: These 60 to 90 days are critical. Are you afraid that this would be sending a message to the terrorists to have them hold off until the 60 to 90 days are over, that the U.S. might pull out?

WARNER: I don't think that that is telling the terrorists to hole up for 90 days. Everybody knows pretty well the potential of what they can do when they want to do it.

They've got to go down -- you start with the private militias. Therein rests the core of a lot of this sectarian violence that you're seeing today.

And you've got to come to grips with that. Now, Maliki told us, looking him straight in the eye, straight in the eye with the delegation, I'm going to work this out; I will have an agreement.

There's some indication that agreement exists. Let's see what it says and give it a chance to work.

QUESTION: You must have asked yourself, over the many times that you've been, now, how did the U.S., how did Iraq get to this point?

I mean, what went wrong, assuming something went wrong?

WARNER: Frankly -- and I would have to blame myself as a part of Congress, because I worked with General Tommy Franks. I went up to S- 407 (ph) and conducted, on behalf of the leadership, the meetings every morning of briefings as to how we were preparing to go into Iraq.

Our leadership established a forum upstairs every morning, eight o'clock, Pentagon, State Department, over there, talking about the steps we were taking.

I guess we failed to ask, all right, supposing we achieve our military objectives, which essentially the basic objectives were achieved when Baghdad fell, now, are we prepared to then go into the next phase and let a government come into being, reestablish itself and proceed?

WARNER: Well, there was a concept of elections, and we've gone through those -- although the timetable was drawn out and delayed.

What we didn't understand is that -- fully appreciate that this nation had been under the rule of the thumb of Saddam Hussein, and indeed his predecessors, and the people themselves had never had the freedom that suddenly they were given as a consequence of the coalition forces freeing the land and once they got the government, to have their sovereignty.

We did not realize that they just somehow could not bring it together as quickly as we anticipated on a timetable to exercise the full reins of sovereignty. I suppose if we'd gone back and studied the culture -- I read in the paper this morning about the military have got a new doctrine as to how to fight insurgency. It's in the New York Times, and it's quite an interesting piece. They've been working on it now for months.

And they cited -- they went back and examined what Lawrence of Arabia said, how he dealt with his military problem. I guess we should have gone back and studied a lot of the experience of the British forces in trying to bring about the nation of Iraq and cutting that up and doing other things.

Maybe somebody did it. But somehow we never got it in this body, the briefings on here's what's going to happen if we achieve some measure of military stability -- military stability as it related to Saddam Hussein's army and forces. That was done.

But suddenly those forces were disbanded, suddenly those forces disappeared and in their place started the insurgency and then the civil war.

QUESTION: You mentioned Iraq Study Group. Have you had any contact with them in terms of whether or not they'll actually be able to deliver you a report by the end of November?

WARNER: Fine. In preparation to coming up here an hour ago I talked to the executive director. And he said you have an interesting point there, Senator.

And I said I will write a letter urging that they look at that as a possible timetable. Because for that group -- and I think it's going to be a productive analysis of this situation. I've testified before the group; I know the individual members; and they're really working very hard. They made their independent trip over there. They were briefed by the Departments of State and the Pentagon.

So this is a substantial group of persons who have proven, incredible careers in public service. But to drop a report when Congress is out of town and not coming back until literally February, if they want any reaction out of the Congress, they're going to have to put it down in that small brief period of November.

Now, it may not be the full report, but certainly they could give us a partial report.

They wisely made the decision not to release the report until after the elections. Well, pragmatically that's a good decision. But let's target that date.

QUESTION: Senator, will you clarify a remark you just made in passing?

QUESTION: I didn't get it fully. Are you saying that there is a civil war there (OFF-MIKE)?

WARNER: It's a question that's asked wherever we go. I was asked in Iraq at a full press conference over there.

In the first place, there's no clear, definitive definition of civil war. And I think it's dangerous for myself or others in positions of responsibility to suddenly, based on a trip of just 24 hours, pronounce the judgment that it's a civil war.

Is there civil insurrection? Is there sectarian violence? Is there killings of a really unacceptable level? Yes. Are our forces suffering heavy casualties? Yes.

Acknowledge what the facts are, but to suddenly say there's a civil war, that connotes the whole place is imploding.

There are many areas of Iraq that are functioning and the people are able to live and pursue their goals of raising their families and doing their jobs -- many areas.

But there are just some -- like, principally, Baghdad -- and that's the heart of it. Al Anbar, that's a problem. Basra, that region has not gone so well here in the last couple of months. So I just think -- I avoid the use of that term.

QUESTION: Am I oversimplifying what you're saying that basically makes the case that the American government has given -- the military has done what it can do in Iraq...

WARNER: And that's a lot.

QUESTION: ... and continues to do so...

WARNER: Yes.

QUESTION: ... but at this stage, the Iraqi government has yet to step up and, as you say, grab the reins?

Now one of the points the Democrats tend to make is that the Iraqi government needs some type of understanding -- for lack of a better word, a timeline, to say that: If you can't at some point come to terms with this, our support is not unconditional.

Do you think that's a fair assessment? Do you think the administration has made that point?

WARNER: It's all in the choice of words. I think it's important that the other perspective -- for example, I think Senator Levin came up here today. He and I were together, we work as partners, we're constantly talking about the difference of views that we have on our trips, as well as those views that we share.

I respect his views. But I just do not believe -- I've told him, repeatedly -- in getting into what I call the timetable. Because I think it does trigger what this gentleman said: a signal to the opposition forces who will recede into the background for a while, knowing that at a certain date our forces will be moving out.

And that could well then result in a reversal of the gains, the sacrifices of our military, our civilians -- the investment the American taxpayer now over $500 billion.

That's a lot of money for roads and schools and other things here in this country that we have plowed into that country.

WARNER: I do not want to see that investment lost.

QUESTION: What is your concern or is there concern, that at some point the American public will just become frustrated when the only evidence that they see -- because we can't, you know, as you well know, the media can't go to where some of these things are, where progress is being made because it is dangerous to go out there. But they do hear the death toll.

At what point does the American public become frustrated where the Congress has to step in? How do you keep the American public behind you? (inaudible)

WARNER: When I have the opportunity, such as I have now, to communicate with the public through each of you, or when I'm traveling in my state or elsewhere, I speak very pragmatic, very factually, I do not try and polish any of it. I tell it as I see it based on a lot of experience that I've had.

But I also tell the American public that it's not in their interest to see the Iraqi nation fall into the hands of international terrorists and they have the second largest oil reserves in the world which can provide a cash bank for that terrorism and that terrorism will most certainly spread worldwide and could be brought back here at home.

Now, that's a sobering assessment. And it's a factual one. It's not just mine, it's the view of many people. That's a real danger.

So I say to the public, bear with us. We're doing the best we can working with other nations. For example, the king of Jordan has some interesting ideas how the Al Anbar Province, which is Sunni, and his nation is Sunni, can work to stabilize some of the instability -- and there's a lot of instability in that area today.

The other nations -- it's not in Saudi Arabia's interest to see this country dismembered.

And as much as people think that Syria and Iran are just linked together, they've got their own separate interests as they look at Iraq and visualize Iraq which has fallen into the hands of terrorists.

QUESTION: You spoke of the outstanding morale of the troops. General Pace said yesterday that a problem for that morale, a growing problem, is the different tour lengths...

WARNER: You bet.

QUESTION: ... a year for the Army, seven months for the Marines, and so forth. Do you hear that from the troops as well?

Is there something that can be done about it?

WARNER: Yes. I do hear that from the troops. And I've often asked the chairman and others -- this different length -- you know, a soldier's a soldier; a Marine's a Marine.

And when they go over there, they accept, depending on the region in which they're stationed, I think, all the risks of that country. And it seems to me that that difference of time is a point of friction.

And somehow, they've decided, as late as of today -- I haven't heard any program to reverse it yet, unless Pace said that -- something they should address.

You know, it's interesting. If I can just tell you, we visited the Marines and we went out, and of course, all of us are focusing on these IED, the road bombs.

And to see these Marines, and indeed some naval people who have special training in electronics, analyzing all of the various types of IEDs they're finding -- and they show you how, with the most rudimentary pieces of material, they are creating these things and the fuses.

I mean, they are genius, that country, in putting together, with just the most rudimentary technology, the most lethal types of weapons. And yet the Marines are constantly figuring out, with the Naval people, how to defeat them.

I mean, they're drawing on what they learned in high school physics. They're drawing on what they learned in the Marine Corps, in the communications -- these are communications people -- and using their own minds.

Of course, we've got going, in the Department of Defense, we put in our bill, extra millions of dollars to support our efforts to the technology to defeats these types of weapons.

But frankly, each time we do come up with a system, they figure out something that's smarter.

We looked at vehicles, enormous vehicles that we're now using to drive down the roads to defeat these simple devices, but very lethal devices, which were put together with scraps of armaments and telephones and, probably, the devices themselves -- what, $10, $15 worth of raw material?

And the vehicles going down the road costs millions of dollars to try and overcome that, with all the electronics and other things we're doing.

But we have to do that. I'm not faulting that. But that just shows you what we're up against.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you said earlier, just to be clear, "Right now, we're losing in Baghdad."

WARNER: I didn't say that. I've said very carefully...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

WARNER: Well, I don't believe I said that. I don't believe I used the word "losing." I said some things are going...

QUESTION: "The Baghdad campaign," you said.

WARNER: Well, unless we take Sadr City -- I did say that. I said, unless we somehow resolve Sadr City, we would be viewed as not having succeeded in that campaign.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Because a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

WARNER: Baghdad, if you look at it, is a series of provinces, all co-located but somewhat different. But Sadr City is where the largest of the private armies or the militias is located. And unless that is -- hopefully as Maliki says we can do it peacefully. But unless that is eliminated and brought down to the same degree of security as the other ones then it will not have been a successful campaign.

QUESTION: But right now, sir, in your estimation...

WARNER: Thus far, no, I would say the progress thus far in Baghdad has not been losing. It has been a successful one. But unless they subdue all the parts of Baghdad, and most particularly Sadr City, then in my judgment it will not be successful campaign.

QUESTION: You said that you weren't able to travel around the country as you freely had in the past.

WARNER: That's right.

QUESTION: The level of violence in Iraq seems to be going up every month and the troop levels for the U.S. and coalition has been fairly stable. And yet things are trending worse every month. Why shouldn't we raise the troops there? If it's so important...

WARNER: Because I just don't think more U.S. soldiers is going to make that much difference. Because it's -- the real answer to this question rests with the Iraqi people: When are you, individually and collectively, as the cities and villages, when are the sheiks with whom you have this great bondage -- and they do, it's cultural bondage to their sheik leaders in these communities -- when are you going to have the confidence in your government? When are you going to make that happen? More troops is not going to make that happen.

QUESTION: Senator, the assessment you've given us today I think is a bit more stark than we're accustomed to hearing from civilian officials of this administration. I dare to say it's more stark than you're accustomed to hearing from those officials.

WARNER: Well, I don't know. You know me. You've covered me for a long time. You covered my campaigns thinking I wasn't going to win those campaigns. You remember that?

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Have the civilian officials in this administration been candid -- as candid with the Congress as they should have been -- in telling you what's going on or have you had to go to the uniforms to get a clearer picture?

WARNER: Well, I found the uniforms more cautious this time in how they described the situation. But I think they've learned from the past that when they've indicated, "Of course, we have studies to do this and we're looking at reductions and things," that has all come back to haunt them now that the situation has become more intense.

WARNER: But I don't think, at this point and time, I want to go back in history and try and recount whether some could have been more forthcoming and others were not.

I take each day and I look at it and I figure out what's the future and how do we get from here to there, and then we'll go back and study history.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... critical period. I don't understand. We keep hearing that and we've been hearing these critical periods (inaudible) for about three years. What's going to be so critical about the next 60 to 90 days that that is...

WARNER: That is a very fair question and I've taken this podium and given that 60 to 90. I can remember that. What's behind that? I for the first time saw in Maliki a determination to try and make his government work.

And I was hopeful when he said we must -- he says in here, although it's hard to read it -- we got to get rid of the militias.

There's some print here (inaudible) want to see the agreement. And what these various representatives -- Sadr and Hakim -- are their signatures on a document that said they're going to get rid of the militias? Because it would be a giant step forward if they were able to eliminate the militias in the sense that the militias can no longer be a party to the sectarian violence. I'm putting my hopes on that.

QUESTION: On that document.

WARNER: Not this document, but what he told us in about 40- minute session with him. I sat as close as I am to this gentleman and watched him and studied his -- not only his words but his body language -- and I had met with him on previous occasions when he was here in Washington. And I personally read almost everything he says once I can find it and get it translated.

QUESTION: Never had such verbal assurances or promises...

WARNER: I've not seen that degree. He seems to me to be growing into this very challenging and tough job and developing an inner strength. But you got to remember: He's got to come to grips with the ruthlessness of the politics.

Some of Sadr's people -- Sadr himself is a source of the support by which he got at the position of prime minister.

WARNER: Is he now willing to tell his supporters, "Look, we've got to do thus and so and I'm going to do it whether you agree with me or not"?

That's when the thing gets tough.

QUESTION: And you're giving him 90 days?

WARNER: I'm not setting a timetable. I said within the next 60 or 90 days we can have some kind of an assessment of the measure of his success. You're not going to get a timetable on me.

QUESTION: Mr. Chairman, you said earlier at one point talking about troop levels and timelines, you said there may have been other times when it might have been a good idea to have more troops...

WARNER: We'll have to put that in history and go back and study it.

QUESTION: Well, let me ask you this.

WARNER: Some of my colleagues whom I respect greatly have felt that a higher level of troops -- remember, I was chairman of the hearing in our committee when Shinseki gave his troop levels. So there've been good, solid, conscientious people that have had views on this troop level situation.

What I say is, having studied it, having talked with our military commanders, more troops is not going to suddenly change this situation.

This situation's only going to be changed when the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government come to the stark realization that they are where they are today as a consequence of the sacrifices of the coalition nations; namely the United States and Great Britain. And they'd better pull their act together.

Thank you very much.

END

Printer Friendly Version