| < Go Back |
| |
For Immediate Release
September 1, 2006 |
| |
Shays Continues Three-Part
Hearing on Iraq: Democracy or Civil War?
Washington, D.C. –Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT),
Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats and International Relations, today held the second
in a three-part
hearing entitled Iraq: Democracy or Civil War?
Today’s hearing focused on Iraqi national reconciliation.
Shays recently returned from his 14th oversight trip to Iraq.
After speaking with Iraqis firsthand and conducting on-the-ground
oversight, Shays returns with observations and recommendations
for his colleagues in Congress and the Administration. Click
here
for a catalogue of his letters from previous oversight trips.
Today Shays heard testimony from Ambassador David Satterfield,
formerly Deputy to U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in Baghdad
and currently Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's Senior
Advisor on Iraq; Jim Bever, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Near East and Asia, US Agency for International Development;
Dr. Hajim Hasani, former Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament and
a Sunni Member of Parliament; Mr.
Karim Al-Musawi, Representative of the largest political party
in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq (SCIRI), a Shia party; and Qubad
Talabany, Representative of the Kurdish Regional Government
and son of Iraq’s President, Jalal Talabany.
On Monday, the Subcommittee heard testimony focused on when
Iraqis can assume full internal security. Friday’s hearing
will explore the consequences of the different proposals for
leaving Iraq.
Click here to read the Subcommittee
briefing memo and
attachments.
The following is Shays opening statement:
“Today we continue our three day hearing Iraq: Democracy
or Civil War?, examining security force levels; prospects
for national reconciliation; and the consequences of leaving
Iraq immediately, later but still prematurely, or when Iraqis
are capable of taking over for Coalition forces.
“The conflict in Iraq finds US and Coalition forces
up against increasing insurgent, sectarian and terrorist violence.
“Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, a supporter
of the United States objective to foster progressive democracy
in the Middle East bluntly stated, ‘It is now obvious
that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting
a civil war.’
“While some may take issue with Mr. Friedman’s
choice of words, the broad contours of his point are clear—the
violence in Iraq continues, if not increases, the new Iraqi
leadership has not yet shown the political will to confront
it, and efforts to promote peace and democracy are stalled.
“Iraqi Security Forces are truly improving and growing
in number, but they face an uphill battle if Iraqi politicians
are not willing to confront the militias and make peace among
themselves.
“Our witnesses this past Monday came to different conclusions
about security in Iraq, but one thing was clear from their
testimony: our current baseline for overall security forces
is inadequate. We do not have enough Coalition Forces in Iraq.
“In addition it is clear to me, based on my fourteen
visits to Iraq and all our hearings, the 325,500 projected
Iraqi Security Force level to be reached in December of this
year will be inadequate, and not allow us to bring most of
our troops home.
“Only when we establish credible, realistic estimates
of the number of Coalition Forces and competent Iraqi Security
Forces will we be able to set the conditions to eventually
drawdown the US troop commitment in Iraq.
“We cannot delude ourselves. If we want to be successful
the Administration needs to work with the Iraqi Government
to reassess the total number of forces needed to secure Iraq.
This reassessment must be completed as quickly as possible.
“Today we investigate what may be the most important
issue for achieving stability and democracy in Iraq: the political
will to implement national reconciliation.
“Since January of this year little progress has been
made. Some of our diplomats and military officers openly question
whether Iraq’s leaders have the political will to make
the tough decisions required to drive down current violence
and maintain security. Last week when Iraqi legislators returned
from vacation, the Speaker of their Parliament, Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani,
said the Iraqis ‘have three to four months to reconcile
with each other. If the country doesn’t survive this,
it will go under.’
“Make no mistake. I understand the Iraqi people and
the officials they elected are grappling with daunting issues
that have no easy solutions—amnesty, roll back of de-Baathification,
federalism, sharing the oil wealth, and standing down militias.
But their current inaction is alarming, and should trouble
every American concerned for our men and women who are there
in harm’s way.
“Each of the political milestones achieved in Iraq
so far has been preceded by strong US pressure. They were
more than benchmarks. They were specific timelines established
to produce results. These timelines were not easy to meet,
but they forced Iraqis to make the difficult choices and compromises
to move forward.
“It is time for the US government to be blunt with
the Iraqi leadership: if they are not willing to make peace
among themselves, the United States will have no choice but
to rethink how long troops can remain in Iraq. It is time
to expect results.
“The topics we will discuss today are the prospects,
timing, and conditions for achieving national reconciliation
and a permanent Constitution. We asked our witnesses to address
the following questions:
- “What are the positions of the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish
political leadership on each issue related to national reconciliation?
- “What are possible ways to bridge the differences
among the political leadership?
- “What are prospects for agreement among the political
leadership, and when can we expect such agreements to be
reached?”
Contact: Sarah Moore, 202/225-5541
-30-
|
