| < Go Back |
| |
For Immediate Release
September 15, 2006 |
| |
Shays Completes 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 third
in a three-part
hearing entitled Iraq: Democracy or Civil War?
Today’s hearing explored the consequences of the different
proposals for leaving Iraq.
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
to find observations and recommendations from
his 13th trip and prior oversight trips.
Today Shays continued the panel which began at Wednesday’s
hearing, taking testimony from 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.
The second panel included Dr.
Fouad Ajami, Director of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins
University’s School of Advanced International Studies;
Dr. James Fearon, Professor
of Political Science at Stanford University and
an expert on ethnic conflict and civil war; and Ambassador
Peter Galbraith, Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for
Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
On Monday, the Subcommittee heard testimony
focused on when Iraqis can assume full internal security.
On Wednesday, the hearing
focused on Iraqi national reconciliation.
Click here to read the Subcommittee briefing
memo and attachments.
The following is Shays’ opening statement:
“Today we convene for the final day of 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.
“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.
“At our second session this past Wednesday, officials
from the Department of State and US Agency for International
Development, and a panel of distinguished Iraqis testified
on the prospects, timing and conditions for achieving national
reconciliation and a permanent constitution.
“Ambassador David Satterfield, Senior Advisor on Iraq
to the Secretary of State, told us that quashing militia violence
is a priority, but that all of the tough decisions currently
facing Iraqis—standing down militias, sharing the oil
wealth, federalism, and the rollback of de-Baathification—are
parts of the solution. He concluded that a grand bargain incorporating
all of the parts would be required to achieve lasting reconciliation.
“Our second panel on Wednesday, comprised of Dr. Hajim
Al-Hasani, former Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament and currently
a Sunni Member of Parliament; Mr. Karim Al-Musawi, Washington
Representative of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq; and Mr. Qubad Talibany, Washington Representative
of the Kurdish Regional Government and son of Iraq’s
President, Jalal Talabany, identified what they saw as key
mistakes that have led to the sectarian violence in Iraq:
- Permitting the looting that followed the US invasion;
- Allowing Iraqis to divide and identify by distinct groups;
- Inadequate vetting of new volunteers for the new Iraqi
Security Forces, especially the national police, leading
to corruption within the ranks;
- Dissolving Iraqi Security Forces, and not subsequently
reconstituting them more quickly;
- Creating a political vacuum by not having a provisional
government prepared to take over when Hussein’s government
dissolved; and
- Devoting insufficient attention to economic development.
“We begin today by continuing the national reconciliation
discussion with our second panel from Wednesday.
“Following the conclusion of this panel, we will hear
testimony from today’s panel discussing the consequences
of leaving Iraq immediately, later but still prematurely,
or when Iraqis are capable of taking over for Coalition forces.
“For all the talk of US withdrawal, serious consideration
of the consequences of leaving Iraq has received relatively
little attention.
“The Administration has made clear its view that the
consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely would be disastrous.
It believes removing US forces before Iraqis can defend themselves
would abandon the Iraqi people to an environment of death
and uncertainty, destabilize the Middle East, embolden terrorists
around the globe, and leave the world a more dangerous place
for generations to come.
“I believe leaving Iraq prematurely would result in
a full scale civil war, Islamist terrorists winning a huge
victory, and Iran being the dominant power where two-thirds
of the world’s energy resides. That is my opinion. And
this is why we are having our hearing today: What will be
the consequences of leaving Iraq, whenever we leave it?
“I struggle with the fact that since we invaded Iraq,
and dissolved their entire security force, I believe it would
be immoral to leave Iraq before we replace those security
forces.
“I also struggle with the fact that President Bush
said, ‘As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.’
But the fact is this has not happened. As of August 30, 2006
there were 294,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces
and yet no Coalition Forces have stepped down.
“Debate will become more pronounced in the coming weeks
and months over when the United States can drawdown forces
in Iraq. Engaging in serious debate is healthy. It is exactly
the sort of dialogue our country needs to be having about
Iraq right now.
“But this debate should be informed by serious consideration
of the impact of our leaving Iraq, not by partisan politics.
“We thank all of our witness for sharing their perspectives
with us today, and hope that this hearing will help illuminate
the consequences of the paths our nation may choose in Iraq.
“Iraq’s future—and our own—hangs
in the balance.”
Contact: Sarah Moore, 202/225-5541
-30-
|
