[Senate Hearing 110-231] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-231 THE FINDINGS OF THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38-601 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN McCAIN, Arizona ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN WARNER, Virginia, JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine BILL NELSON, Florida SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHN CORNYN, Texas MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN THUNE, South Dakota JIM WEBB, Virginia MEL MARTINEZ, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri BOB CORKER, Tennessee Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director Michael V. Kostiw, Replublican Staff Director (ii) C O N T E N T S __________ CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES The Findings of the Iraqi Security Forces Independent Assessment Commission september 6, 2007 Page Jones, Gen. James L., USMC (Ret.) Chairman, Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq; Accompanied by Commissioners GEN John N. Abrams, USA (Ret.); Lt. Gen. Martin R. Berndt, USMC (Ret.); Gen. Charles G. Boyd, USAF (Ret.); Sgt. Maj. Dwight J. Brown, USA (Ret.); Hon. Terrance Gainer; Hon. John J. Hamre; Col. Michael Heidingsfield, USAF (Ret.); ADM Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.); GEN George A. Joulwan, USA (Ret.); LTG James C. King, USA (Ret.); Asst. Chief Constable Duncan McCausland; Lt. Gen. Gary S. McKissock, USMC (Ret.); Sgt. Maj. Alford L. McMichael, USMC (Ret.); Maj. Gen. Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (Ret.); and Chief Charles H. Ramsey............... 5 Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq........................................................... 66 (iii) THE FINDINGS OF THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION ---------- THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Bayh, Clinton, Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Warner, Inhofe, Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, Graham, Dole, Cornyn, Thune, Martinez, and Corker. Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member; Michael J. McCord, professional staff member; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; and William K. Sutey, professional staff member. Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw, Republican staff director; William M. Caniano, professional staff member; Derek J. Maurer, minority counsel; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; and Dana W. White, professional staff member. Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Jessica L. Kingston, and Benjamin L. Rubin. Committee members' assistants present: Sharon L. Waxman and Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; David E. Bonine and James Tuite, assistants to Senator Byrd; Colleen J. Shogan, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Richard Kessler, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R. Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh; Andrew Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Stephen C. Hedger, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., assistant to Senator McCain; Sandra Luff, assistant to Senator Warner; Anthony J. Lazarski and Nathan Reese, assistants to Senator Inhofe; Todd Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions; Mark J. Winter, assistant to Senator Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; and David Hanke and Russell J. Thomasson, assistants to Senator Cornyn. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. Today we welcome General Jim Jones and the other members of the Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq. We thank them for their extremely important work that they have done for our country. Service to country is nothing new to these commissioners. They have all served with great distinction in military or police capacities in their earlier careers. We very much appreciate the willingness of the members of this Commission to risk life and limb during three separate visits of relatively long duration in a dangerous Iraq to acquire the insights and to make the important findings and recommendations contained in this report. This Commission was established by congressional legislation which was authored by Senator Warner, who also consulted frequently with the Commission to ensure that no roadblocks were hindering the completion of their important work in time to inform the upcoming critical debates on Iraq policy. The Commission was tasked to assess the readiness of the Iraqi security forces (ISF) to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, to deny safe haven to international terrorists, to bring greater security to Iraq's provinces in the next 12 to 18 months, to end sectarian violence, and to achieve national reconciliation. On that last point, I would note that the Commission found that the ``Iraqi army and police services have the potential to help reduce sectarian violence, but, ultimately, the ISFs will reflect the society from which they are drawn. Political reconciliation, the Commission found, is the key to ending sectarian violence in Iraq.'' The Commission also assessed ``the single most important event that could immediately and favorably affect Iraq's direction and security is political reconciliation focused on ending sectarian violence and hatred. Sustained progress within the ISFs depends on such a political agreement.'' The Commission was further tasked to evaluate the capacity of the ISFs in key functional areas and to what extent continued U.S. support is needed by the ISFs. The Commission's major findings are not surprising to those of us who also visit Iraq frequently. They're consistent with what we found on our last trip there, just last month. The Iraqi army is making progress and is increasingly capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations, either independently or with coalition support. What is needed to achieve more independent operations, the Commission finds, include the ``key enablers of combat support, particularly aviation, intelligence, communications, and combat service support, particularly logistics and maintenance functions. For those, the Iraqi army will continue to depend on coalition support.'' The Ministry of the Interior and the police, on the other hand, are, in the Commission's words: ``dysfunctional, and require a major overhaul.'' They are the creation and tools of sectarian Iraqi politicians. The question is, of course, how to convince the Iraqi government to take the necessary steps to carry out the overhaul. The Commission believes, and has found, that ``The Iraqi army is capable of taking over an increasing amount of day-to- day combat responsibilities from coalition forces, but that the ISF will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities independently over the next 12 to 18 months.'' The key word is ``independently.'' However, the Commission also believes that the coalition forces could begin to be adjusted, realigned, and retasked as the Iraqi army is able to take on more responsibility for daily combat operations. Now, according to the statistics that we have from the administration's quarterly report to Congress, well over half of the Iraqi army and police battalions can operate at least in the lead with coalition support. It's my observation that far fewer than that number are actually now in the lead. That raises the question, which I hope the Commission will address, as to why more Iraqi units should not be given the lead responsibility that they are capable of now, and why the adjustment, realignment, and retasking of coalition forces, which the Commission calls for, should not begin promptly. One of the most significant Commission statements is the following, that ``perceptions and reality are frequently at odds with each other when trying to understand Iraq's problems and progress.'' Nowhere is this more apparent than in the impressions drawn from seeing our massive logistics footprint, our many installations, and the number of personnel, military and civilian, especially in and around the Baghdad area. ``The unintended message,'' the Commission writes, ``that's conveyed is one of permanence, an occupying force, as it were. What is needed is the opposite impression, one that is lighter, less massive, and more expeditionary, significant reductions, consolidations, and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent.'' So, the key issue that we're all going to be facing is what reductions in U.S. forces will be the result of the adjustment, realignment, and retasking of coalition forces which the Commission calls for. During our recent visit, one U.S. soldier, who is on his third deployment to Iraq, told us that the Iraqis will let U.S. soldiers do the job that they're supposed to be doing forever, and that we need to let them do it on their own. It is, indeed, long overdue that we cut the cords of dependence, push the Iraqis to take more responsibility and ownership by giving them the lead in counterinsurgency operations. I believe that is the thrust of the Commission's recommendations. Again, I thank the commissioners for their service to our Nation, for appearing at this hearing today. Senator Warner will have an opening statement. I, again, want to thank him for the leadership which he has taken in putting the language in our law which created this Commission. At the end of Senator Warner's statement, we'll turn to General Jones, and then we will have a 6-minute round, because votes are going to begin at 11:05. We expect up to five votes, and we're going to have to keep our hearing going during those votes, as best we can. I'll explain how I think we can best do that, after General Jones's statement. Senator Warner. STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and Senator McCain for scheduling this prompt hearing on this very important contribution to the dialogue and the gathering of a factual base for the benefit of the President and for the benefit of Congress, and, most importantly, for the benefit of the American people. Senator McCain will be here momentarily to make an opening statement. But I want to say, right off, my gratitude to Senator Byrd for joining me in getting this particular piece of legislation, together with the other framework legislation requiring the report in July by the President, the report this month by the President, and to have the appearances of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. So, I thank you, Senator Byrd. The reason that we came up with this legislation is that the foundation of all U.S. policies with regard to Iraq is predicated on the ability of this sovereign nation to muster the forces to train and inspire those forces to take over the security of this fledgling sovereign nation. I felt that, through the years, this committee, and other committees of Congress, had interrogated the Department of Defense (DOD) and other administration witnesses, time and time again, with regard to the status of the professional ability and the projections of the security force of Iraq. I'm not here to criticize those representations, but I felt it was important to have a totally independent analysis performed by individuals whose experience, collectively and individually, could bring to bear this report. General Jones, I commend you--John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, General Joulwan, former North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Commander, and Chief Ramsey, whom I've known through the years--for doing this work and leading the other gentlemen, who are behind you here today, in this very important contribution. On January 10, the President initiated, with a clear speech, the surge concept. When Senator Levin and I were in Iraq 2 weeks ago, we saw clear evidence that that the surge had achieved its goals in some phases, were measurable goals. But, at the same time, the President laid down in the speech, with clarity, that it was incumbent upon the Iraqi government to do the reconciliation, and that, the record shows today, has not come about. You have drawn attention to the fact that military forces have done their role, but, if reconciliation were to take place, it would bring about a cessation of the hostilities, the mixture of hostilities--perhaps not al Qaeda, but the mixture of hostilities between, particularly, the Sunni and the Shia, that would be equivalent to several brigades of coalition forces performing their military duties. It's that important, reconciliation. So, I thank you very much for your work. It will be studied carefully by Congress, and, most importantly, the American people, and I hope it will contribute to the President's analysis of where we go in the months to come. I'd like to yield a minute or 2 of my time to Senator Byrd, if that's alright, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. If there's no objection, we would be happy to do that. I want to add my thanks to Senator Byrd. I failed to mention that the language, which created this Commission, was not just Senator Warner's language, but was the language that Senator Warner and Senator Byrd, together, worked on. We add our thanks to Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd, could you give a few moments of your thoughts? Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator Levin. I thank my good friend and colleague, that venerable John Warner, a great Virginian, for his leadership on this issue. It has been my honor and my privilege to work together with this man--he is a great man--many, many times over the years, always with the goal of doing what is best for the country, first and foremost. It was in that spirit that my friend approached me about establishing an independent commission to assess Iraq's security forces. I was proud to join him as a cosponsor of the amendment to do so. Thank you. Chairman Levin. Thank you so much. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman? Could I just make one comment? Not a statement, but--I will not be able to stay here, because I am the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we have a very critical meeting, but I just want to echo the remarks of Senator Warner, and, particularly, General Jones, how much I enjoyed being with you on your last mission there before your retirement. I have to say this, on my 15th trip, last week, to the area of responsibility, I just get so excited about good things that are happening. The surge is having very positive results, and thank you for all your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. General Jones? STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES L. JONES, USMC (RET.) CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON THE SECURITY FORCES OF IRAQ; ACCOMPANIED BY COMMISSIONERS GEN JOHN N. ABRAMS, USA (RET.); LT. GEN. MARTIN R. BERNDT, USMC (RET.); GEN. CHARLES G. BOYD, USAF (RET.); SGT. MAJ. DWIGHT J. BROWN, USA (RET.); HON. TERRANCE GAINER; HON. JOHN J. HAMRE; COL. MICHAEL HEIDINGSFIELD, USAF (RET.); ADM GREGORY G. JOHNSON, USN (RET.); GEN GEORGE A. JOULWAN, USA (RET.); LTG JAMES C. KING, USA (RET.); ASST. CHIEF CONSTABLE DUNCAN McCAUSLAND; LT. GEN. GARY S. McKISSOCK, USMC (RET.); SGT. MAJ. ALFORD L. McMICHAEL, USMC (RET.); MAJ. GEN. ARNOLD L. PUNARO, USMC (RET.); AND CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY General Jones. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee, it's a great honor to be here today, and we all thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning about the work of our Commission over the past few months, and to have a discussion on our assessment. On behalf of the Commission, I would also like to thank Senator Warner and Senator Byrd for their vision and their work to bring about the legislation that enabled this Commission to come together. It has been a wonderful experience to work with a great group of professionals, and we're honored to be here today to share our impressions with you. Before I begin this morning, I'd like to take a minute to introduce my fellow commissioners to you. To carry out our mandate from Congress, we assembled a very highly-qualified team of 20 prominent senior retired military officers, chiefs of police, and a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, and, most importantly, two sergeants major who formed the balance of our team. This independent team, supported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, brought more than 500 cumulative years of military and defense experience, and 150 years of law enforcement experience in the professional disciplines that it was chartered to examine. The Commission consists of ten syndicates which examined each element of the ISF and the principal crosscutting support issues. So, it's my pleasure to introduce our Commission to you. First, let me introduce the members of our Army and Ground Forces Syndicate: General George Joulwan, United States Army (Retired), syndicate chair and, joining me at the witness table; General John Abrams, United States Army (Retired); General Charles Wilhelm, United States Marine Corps (Retired), who is not able to be here today, unfortunately; Lieutenant General John Van Alstyne, United States Army (Retired), also unable to be here today; former Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Alfred McMichael, United States Marine Corps (Retired); and Command Sergeant Major Dwight Brown, United States Army (Retired); Brigadier General Richard Potter, United States Army (Retired), who examined the Iraqi special forces, and is not able to be here today. Our Commission also benefited from the experience of Admiral Gregory Johnson, United States Navy (Retired), who principally addressed the issues surrounding the Iraqi navy; General Chuck Boyd, United States Air Force (Retired), who focused on the Iraqi air force and major strategic issues. The Commission benefited from over 150 years of law enforcement experience, headed by Chief Charles Ramsey, who joins me at the witness table. Chief Ramsey assembled a distinguished group of police chiefs: The Honorable Terry Gainer, who you also know as your Senate Sergeant-at-Arms; Chief John Timoney, chief of police of the Miami Police Department, who could not be here today; Chief Michael Heidensfield, a former contingent commander for the Police Advisory Mission in Iraq; Assistant Chief Constable Duncan McCausland, who joined our Commission from Belfast, Northern Ireland, to complement this extraordinary team of distinguished law enforcement officials. We also have Lieutenant General Martin Berndt, United States Marine Corps (Retired), who focused on the Iraqi border security and the Ministry of the Interior. We also had a number of commissioners who examined crosscutting issues relative to the ISFs: The Honorable Dr. John Hamre, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, who joins us at the witness table, focused on resource allocation and budget issues; Lieutenant General James King, United States Army (Retired), who focused on intelligence; Major General Arnold Punaro, United States Marine Corps Reserve (Retired), who focused on personnel; and Lieutenant General Gary S. McKissock, United States Marine Corps (Retired), who focused on logistics. I'm also grateful and pleased to introduce staff director Christine Warmuth, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We also had the benefit of a group of talented strategic advisors: James Locher, P.T. Henry, John Raidt, Sarah Farnsworth, and Colonel Art White, United States Marine Corps Reserve. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we were asked to conduct an independent assessment of the ISFs and to report back to the appropriate committees no later than 120 days from the date of enactment. As laid out in our enacting legislation, our report addresses the readiness of the ISFs in four principal areas: their ability to assume responsibility for maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, their ability to deny international terrorists safe haven, their ability to bring greater security to Iraq's 18 provinces within the next 12 to 18 months, and their ability to bring an end to sectarian violence to achieve national reconciliation. In addition, the Commission was tasked with an assessment of ISF capabilities in the areas of training, equipping, command-and-control, intelligence, and logistics. Each of the 10 syndicates was led by a senior commissioner and focused on either a discrete component of the ISFs or a crosscutting functional area. Syndicate inputs were subject to review and integration by all Commission members. During the course of its study, the Commission traveled widely throughout Iraq, on three separate occasions, spending a total of 3 weeks on the ground to gather facts and impressions firsthand. I will now refer to some charts, and I will also guide you through where you can find those charts in your individual reports, just mentioning the pages. On pages 23 and 24 of your report, figures 1 and 2 will demonstrate that we made more than 70 site visits in Iraq--as you can see from the charts--including visits to Iraqi military and ministerial headquarters in the various command centers, training facilities, and operating bases. We also visited Iraqi police stations, joint security stations, and law enforcement academies, and commissioners traveled to border, port, and internal security installations, as well as the coalition facilities designed to assist with Iraqi security training and transition. These visits were invaluable, as they allowed us a firsthand look at the real work being accomplished daily by members of the ISFs and their dedicated coalition partners. The Commission met with more than 100 Iraqi officials, more than 100 U.S. current and former government officials, and more than a dozen leading nongovernmental experts on the ISFs. Finally, the Commission examined previous studies and reports, official data, and documents with any information relevant to the performance and status of the ISFs. We examined their rate of progress and their prospects for fulfilling the responsibilities of a professional and effective security force. Before addressing our key findings, I want to emphasize that the findings and recommendations of this Commission were unanimous. I would also like to note that the Commission could not have performed its work without the generous assistance and support of many, many individuals. In particular, we're grateful for the support provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Multinational Force- Iraq, and the entire military chain of command, as well as the Department of State and Embassy Baghdad. We deeply appreciate the openness we were shown by many officials in the Government of Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the ISFs are composed of two major components: the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police. The Commission examined both components and their governing ministries. The Iraqi military includes the army, the special forces, the air force, and the navy, and they operate under the Ministry of Defense. They number approximately 152,000 personnel today. The Iraqi police forces includes the Iraqi Police Service, the National Police, the border forces, the Facilities Protection Services, and the Coast Guard, and they operate under the Ministry of the Interior. Their aggregate number is approximately 324,000 today. In terms of overall results, the consensus opinion of the Commission is that the most positive event that can occur in the near-term to influence progress in Iraq is a government-led political reconciliation which leads to an end, or a dramatic reduction, in sectarian violence. Everything seems to flow from this point, to include the likelihood of a successful conclusion to our mission. Absent such an event, it will be more difficult and will take longer to be successful. Our overall evaluation is that real progress has been achieved, but, as we will show, it has been uneven across the ISFs. With regard to the Ministry of Defense, we judge good progress being made, a strategic vision for the future, an eagerness to take on more responsibility, thousands of young Iraqis are now eager to join the armed forces, and are doing so. We have evidence of a worrisome bureaucracy, from the standpoint of effectiveness and efficiency, which inhibits the distribution of equipment and supplies from getting to the Iraqi front lines. The army is led by four Shia, four Kurdish, and three Sunni divisions that comprise the Iraqi armed forces. With regard to the Iraqi army, impressive progress in ability and willingness to defend against internal threats to the nation have been noted. Working with police units, where possible, to bolster their capability shortfalls, they are keen to take on more missions. This is an army that is now providing 10 operational divisions in the field, going to 13 divisions in 2008. I refer you to the chart on army growth, on page 57 of your report, listed as figure 11. Sectarian problems appear to be minor, as compared to other institutions that we saw in Iraq. Basic elements necessary to grow the army appear to be in place, and are functioning. As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be an unlimited amount of volunteers to serve in this new army. An alarming development with regard to the existence of duplicate chains of command and intelligence-gathering institutions was noted, and, also was noted, the requirement for needed improvement in cooperation with other ministries; in particular, the Ministry of the Interior. This Iraqi army cannot yet operate independently, due to a continuing lack in logistics, supply, mobility, and effective national command- and-control. While it cannot defend against the external threats to the nation, particularly along the borders of Syria and Iran, it is able to do more each day in the defense--along the lines of internal security. The special forces of the army of Iraq are judged to be the most capable and professionally effective military unit in Iraq, as good as any in the Gulf region. However, they continue to lack in mobility and support systems, as well. With regard to the navy and the air force, they are in their early development. It was judged that they are making satisfactory progress. The Commission recommends consideration be given to forming a single maritime force for a nation that has a 36-mile coastline. Currently, the navy and the coast guard are formed under two separate ministries. Turning to the Ministry of the Interior, the Commission judges this ministry to be very weak, despite recent attempts to change out senior personnel. Little progress has been made to date with regard to the efficiencies and effectiveness in discharging its functions. There is evidence of sectarian partisanship, indications of corruption and of a failed bureaucracy, little evidence of willingness to cooperate with other ministries, and evidence that this ministry is influenced by forces outside of the governmental structures. I refer you to a chart on the Ministry of Interior Forces Growth, on page 87 of our report. The Iraqi Police Service, which is under the Ministry of the Interior, numbers approximately 230,000 policemen. The salaries of police are provided by the government, but they don't always reach the local and regional levels, which fuels sectarian tension. Police by local ethnically representative units works best for the time being. There is an unlimited manpower pool to choose from, but, overall, the progress of police forces is judged to be unsatisfactory. Regarding the National Police, which numbers approximately 25,000, the Commission has recommended disbanding and reorganizing of the National Police, which is judged to be overly sectarian, composed 85 percent of Shia policemen, heavy- handed in their mission execution, not trusted by people of other ethnic origins, and there are allegations of corruption that pervade this force, as well. The Department of Border Enforcement, 37,000, also part of the Ministry of the Interior, is judged to be weak, poorly supported by the parent ministry, and unable to make a serious contribution against border threats, particularly coming from Iran and Syria. Finally, the Facilities Protection Services, which is composed of 140,000 personnel, also suffers from a lack of leadership, equipment, training, and direction. So, the overall conclusions, relative to our tasking, are as follows: First is that the ISFs, as a whole, cannot yet defend the territorial integrity of Iraq. This is not necessarily an alarming conclusion. Number two, improvement has been noted in the internal security missions. For example, in denying safe haven to terrorists. This improvement is likely to continue in the near future. Number three, it is judged that the ISFs can bring greater security to the provinces in the next 12 to 18 months, assuming a continuing rate of progress. Number four, the end of the sectarian violence has to be initiated by the Government of Iraq in order to be effective. U.S. and coalition support will be required until independent operational capability to defend against external threats to Iraq is achieved. Size and mission of coalition military forces could be altered in the near future as the Iraqi army and the police force continue to develop. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close with a few additional observations. In addition to our specific mandate, the Commission desires to add some interpretive context to the findings and the capabilities pertaining to the ISFs. Our goal is to be helpful in trying to arrive at a way ahead that will enable success in this critical mission. The strategic consequences of failure along national, regional, and global lines are significant. Similarly, the strategic consequences of success are equally impressive. To reiterate, the Commission's overall assessment of the ISF is that there has been measurable, though uneven, progress. I'd like to say a few words about the impact of the surge. Tactical success for both Iraq and coalition forces in the Baghdad region has been achieved, and I refer you to page 34 of the report, which has an illustrative figure. This tactical success has been accompanied by the sudden loss of support for al Qaeda by the population and tribal leaders throughout al Anbar province. This has had the result of gaining approximately 35,000 to 40,000 fighters in support of the coalition, as opposed to fighting the coalition. I refer you to page 29 of your report, to look firsthand at some of the dramatic results that have been achieved in Anbar province. The sudden rise in the capacity of day-to-day fighting of the Iraqi army also contributes to a favorable and confidence- building phenomenon. You can also witness, by the contribution of the Iraqi army, unfortunately, a dramatic increase in the ISF casualties. If you would turn to page 38, you will see a chart that depicts both the coalition and ISF casualties as a result of the fighting. We have achieved limited, but important, police success in local ethnic neighborhoods, especially in Anbar province. The positive trends we saw signaled a possibility of a strategic shift for coalition forces, perhaps commencing in 2008. Operational attention should be increasingly focused, and is increasingly required on the defense of the border regions and on the critical infrastructures of Iraq. The gradual shift of coalition to strategic overwatch positions, accompanied by force adjustments, is possible to envision. This is a very recent development. The gradual transfer of combat operations against internal threats to the ISF is possible. Attention is needed to offset major destabilization efforts of Iran and Syria, which are ongoing and very worrisome. The Commission also believes that it's possible to adjust the image of the coalition as an occupying force in Iraq to accompany a strategic shift of forces and mission set. This is an important element in our strategic messaging, both to our people and to the people of Iraq and the world at large. The force footprint should be adjusted, in our view, to represent an expeditionary capability and to combat the permanent-force image of today's presence. This will make an ultimate departure--an eventual departure much easier. It's important to establish an Iraqi coalition transition headquarters, which would be the single focal point for all transition efforts, in the broad sense, military, political, economic, legal and this would show visible and consistent progress towards transition, which is a crucial message that people need to understand. The Commission also recommends that all of Iraq's provinces should be transferred to Iraqi control, as a matter of policy. The provincial Iraqi control system, as currently explained, is that one-size-fits-all, which does not work, in our judgment, adequately. Full transfer of authority of all 18 provinces would bolster the Government of Iraq's political reach. I refer you to page 40 of the report. Seven provinces have been transferred to Iraqi control, and there is a projection for others, as well. But the logic of such a system was not convincing to the Commission, and we believe that political control of the provinces should be transferred to the sovereign government, supplementing the transfer, of course, with mentoring and assistance to enable success. To further modify our image as occupiers, the Commission recommends that consideration be given to enacting the Status of Forces Agreement as a visible means of reinforcing the sovereignty of Iraq. This would be consistent with the agreements that we have with many other nations, and all of our bases should fly both the U.S. and the Iraqi flags. Lastly, the Commission noted a internal problem that only the United States can fix, and that has to do with regard to our national capacity to generate equipment in a rapid timeframe identified by U.S. commanders through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program. This is a problem that requires some urgent attention. It will, when fixed, measurably contribute to increasing the readiness and capabilities of the ISFs. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my colleagues and I are ready to respond to any questions you might have with regard to our study. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. Again, thank you, General and your colleagues, for your tremendous service to the Nation. General, I'm going to ask you a series of questions to try to pinpoint some of the points that you've made in your report. There are four categories of capabilities by which we assess the ISFs, is that correct? General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. Category one is an Iraqi unit capable of independent operations. Would that be correct? General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. Category two would be a unit which is capable of being in the lead with coalition support. Is that correct? General Jones. Correct. Chairman Levin. Now, the goal is to get more of the Iraqi units up to category one or two, is that correct? General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. Now, there's few of the Iraqi units at level one, where they can operate independently, but, according to the chart that we got from the DOD, the majority of Iraqi units are already at level two. The figure we had is 89 of 159. Is that your understanding? General Jones. I accept that. Chairman Levin. All right. So that if the majority of the Iraqi units can already operate at either a one or a two level, does that not mean that we could transition the lead to Iraqi units as soon as those units are capable of being in the lead? General Jones. Senator, if you don't mind, I will ask General Joulwan to augment my answer, because this is his specialty. But I think a general answer to your question would be yes, that we found evidence that Iraqi units are planning their own missions and executing their own missions, in close coordination with the coalition. We found that the presence of advisors and highly qualified teams of coalition members who are embedded with the units is absolutely the link that makes it possible. Of course, I come back on the fact that, even at level two, units of the Iraqi army need considerable combat support, combat service support, as you pointed out. Chairmen Levin. Is it your understanding--and, General, you can just add a quick yes or no--that the majority of the Iraqi units that are capable of being in the lead is not reflected by all of those units being in the lead? There are some of those units that are a category two that are not yet in the lead. Is that a fair statement? Is that your understanding? General Joulwan. I would say so, yes. Chairman Levin. Okay. Now, why is that? General, you were telling me, in the office, that the Australians, for instance, had moved much more quickly to put those units of the Iraqis that are capable of being in the lead, in the lead, with the Australians being much more in a support role. Why have we not followed that model? General Jones. I think the short answer would be that it's situationally dependent. The criteria that exists in the province in the north would be completely different than the province in the south, and I think that metric has to be applied carefully and as evenly as possible. But without-- again, trying to find a template that you can impose on the Iraqi army, and then simply walk away from it, is not a good policy. Chairman Levin. Right. General Jones. So, I think you have to be evenhanded, and you have to do it wherever you can. But the fact that it is going on is encouraging. Chairman Levin. Is it not also your recommendation, on page 44, that Iraqi armed forces, ``are capable of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq?'' General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. Should that not happen as quickly as possible? General Jones. Yes, within reasonable prudence, we agree with that. Chairman Levin. All right. Now, when this happens, is a reduction of U.S. forces likely to result as the Iraqis--and should it result, as the Iraqis assume greater responsibility? General Jones. I think, of course, that will be the judgment of military commanders on the ground as they assess the totality of their mission. I would simply say that what's encouraging is that the combination of the police units and the Iraqi army, working together, can take on more responsibility for the internal threats, but the borders of Iraq, particularly the Syrian border, the Iranian border, remain very worrisome. So, what we believe is possible is some retasking, realignment, readjustment. Adjustment of forces can imply a reduction. But that would have to be studied as to how exactly to do that. Chairman Levin. On page 130, your Commission finds--and you're referring here, as I understand it, to the number of personnel, military and civilian, as well as to the number of installations and the logistics. You say that, ``Significant reductions, consolidations, and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent.'' Is that your finding? General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. That's referring to all of the previous itemized items, which are logistics footprints, the number of installations, and the number of personnel, military and civilian? General Jones. Correct. Chairman Levin. So, that is, in your judgment, possible and prudent? General Jones. Correct. Chairman Levin. You made reference to this quote in your opening statement: ``political reconciliation is the key to ending sectarian violence.'' General Jones. Yes, sir. Chairman Levin. Is that a consensus finding on the part of all the commissioners? General Jones. It is, sir. Chairman Levin. Did you make any findings as to why that political reconciliation has not been achieved by the Iraqi leaders? General Jones. No, sir. Chairman Levin. Was that within your purview? General Jones. It was a little bit outside of our purview, just the observed fact that it was not taking place was what we concluded. Chairman Levin. My time is up. Senator McCain. Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the members of this Commission. I don't think we've ever had a more outstanding group of people who have served our country with courage and dedication, such as the members of this Commission, and I'm grateful for their willingness to again serve and provide not only this committee and Congress, but the Nation, with their measured and experienced judgment. I especially want to thank you, General Jones. I was especially taken by your concluding thoughts where you say, ``While much remains to be done before success can be confidently declared, the strategic consequences of failure, or even perceived failure, for the United States and the coalition are enormous.'' I think that's a very important conclusion. I believe that if we set a date for withdrawal, as we have debated on the floor of the Senate, and will probably again, we would do exactly that. Do you believe that, if we set a timeframe for withdrawal, that that would be in the United States' interest in the region? General Jones. Senator, I'll speak for myself on this, but I think deadlines can work against us. I think a deadline of this magnitude would be against our national interest. Senator McCain. I thank you. In your statement delivered to the committee, you keep pointing out that we have seen significant recent success. Is that an accurate depiction of some of your comments? General Jones. Correct. Senator McCain. How do you account for that? General Jones. I think a number of things. I'll just cite three, to be very brief. One is the statistical success of the tactic employed, called the ``surge,'' which has had some impressive successes in the Baghdad region. Number two is the recent improvement over the last year, just in the last year, of the capability of the Iraqi army, which has shown itself to be willing to fight, not only by virtue of the number of missions it's taken on, but also by the number of casualties it's suffered. Number three is, in the fight against al Qaeda, and particularly in the Anbar province, which is a province that is one-third the size of the entire country--a very, very encouraging turnaround, where---- Senator McCain. So, part of this success is directly related to the new tactic or strategy commonly known as the ``surge,'' is that correct? General Jones. I think the surge is a part of it. I think I would also ascribe the success that the coalition has had in training the Iraqi army and also the reversal of al Qaeda, because of their savagery against the people of the province. Senator McCain. If we went back, by mandating withdrawals and reducing our military presence too rapidly, some of the benefits of the tactic of the surge might be negated General Jones. I think you have to adjust your force levels very carefully, make sure that you don't create the conditions that would have that happen, that's correct. Senator McCain. In answer to Senator Levin's question, you would rely to a large degree--not solely, but to a large degree--on the opinion of the commanders on the ground who are doing the fighting. General Jones. Absolutely. Senator McCain. I think that's important, because there are a lot of people who are armchair generals who reside here in the air-conditioned comfort of Capitol Hill, who somehow do not trust the judgment of some of the finest leaders that our Nation has produced. There will be various proposals about troop reductions, announcing withdrawals, which may not comport with conditions on the ground. I just have one other question. If we deploy troops to the Syrian and Iranian borders, that could lead to conflict between U.S. troops and Syrian or Iranian troops. Have you taken into consideration that aspect of the redeployment to the borders of Syria and Iran? General Jones. Senator, we have. We judge that the goings- on across the Iranian border, in particular, are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border. Senator McCain. Are we, sooner or later, going to have to address the issue of Iran? That may be a little bit out of the purview of the Commission's charter, but are we, sooner or later, going to have to address the issue of the Iranian activities, including a recent statement by the president of Iran, who said, ``Iran will fill the void in Iraq when the United States leaves''? General Jones. That is a worrisome statement, obviously. But the Commission has concluded that the significance and the level of Iranian activity in Iraq is of such concern that we believe that more attention has to be paid to the territorial integrity of the country and what's going on across the borders. This will be the next step in the growth of the Iraqi army. Ultimately, the police will take care of the internal threats, and the army will defend Iraq. But it is too soon for them to be able to do that, even though that's one of our specific charters. They are just now getting to being able to do stage one, collectively. That's the internal defense. At the rate of growth that we've seen, they will get to the territorial issues, but, until then, our assessment is that coalition forces need to make a statement and move some of the capability out of the internal regions, which are more capably handled now, increasingly by the ISFs, to stem the tide of fighters, resources, weapons, and contraband coming across the borders. Senator McCain. Unfortunately, my time is up. I would like again to thank the members of this Commission, not only for their present work, but for their past service to our country. We're very grateful. I think you have given us some very, very important and useful information and, I think, a realistic assessment of the situation, at least from what I can determine. Finally, General Jones, are you satisfied with the level of leadership that we have at all levels of our military that is now in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan? General Jones. I will speak for the Commission in providing that answer. We were extremely impressed by the leadership, both civilian and military, starting with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, but also the quality of the leadership in both the mission and in the military organization to do the job that they're asked to do. Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join welcoming General Jones and our panelists here, just echoing the sense that many of us who have had the privilege of being on this committee have listened to all of you at different times, and your service to the country is enormously appreciated. The Nation is grateful for your service, and we thank you for your presentation today. General, you must be able to understand the confusion of the American people listening to your testimony today. Here we have the greatest military that the world has ever seen, fighting in Iraq, a country of 25 million people, which we defeated 10 years ago, fighting them now there for 4 long years and having the casualty rates that we have. Now we're hearing, ``It's really an issue of national reconciliation and whether the Iraqis are really going to get their act together.'' You can understand why Americans are confused when they hear General Casey, in August 2006, say, ``I can see that, over the next 12 to 18 months, the ISFs progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibility for the country, with very little coalition support.'' They listened to General Casey tell--they're back home, and they're listening--2006-- General Casey saying, ``12 to 18 months, they're going to be able to fight.'' Then in June, DOD indicates that a total of 346,000 ISFs have been trained, more and more Iraqi army and National Police are in the lead in these areas. Then we hear your report this morning, 25,000 police are in an organization that's filled with corruption, ought to be disbanded; 37,000 border guards that need a great deal more training, a great deal more support, unreliable; the facilities protection, 140,000, they're weak. How long have we been training Iraqis over there? How long have we been training the Iraqi servicemen? How long has the United States been doing it? We've been doing it now since the time of the invasion, have we not? General Jones. Correct. Senator Kennedy. We did it in the last 3 years, intensively, now. Don't you think Americans are wondering when the Iraqis are going to fight for their own country? When you tell us that it's going to take, now, another 12 to 18 months for the ISFs to be able to take on the security responsibilities, and then you indicate to us that, really, the fundamental issue is the issue political reconciliation. You're not enormously reassuring about the hopes of having a political reconciliation. We have the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that supports just what you're saying. Government will continue to struggle to achieve a national-level political reconciliation--talking about months, possibly years. So, what should the American people understand about when the Iraqis are going to begin to fight for their own country? When are they going to be able to relieve American servicemen who have been fighting nobly, courageously, valiantly--be able to get a policy that's worthy of their bravery and valor? General Jones. Senator, you ask a very good question. It's a very complex situation. We tried to point out that the key to ending sectarian violence has to be found within the Iraqis themselves. They simply have to find the means by which they can lay down their arms. When they do that, the change internally in the country will be dramatic. That will allow a much greater acceleration to the end that we all hope we can achieve. However, we tried to draw a distinction, which was why we say there's real progress, but that it's uneven, between the capabilities we found in the Ministry of Defense and the emerging Iraqi armed forces, and the Ministry of the Interior and its force structure of police forces. Our assessment is that, where the Iraqi army is concerned, the Iraqi army is fighting. They do have 10 full divisions. They're going to 13 divisions by the following year. We have been to their training bases. We've seen their new recruits. We've seen their noncommissioned officer (NCO) schools. We've seen their academies. We've seen the NATO contribution to training young officers. We believe that, within their capabilities, such as they are, they are doing reasonably well and making a difference. We did not find the same optimism in the Ministry of Interior and the police forces. So, our respectful conclusion is that more needs to be done to change that. Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you, can the adequate training continue with less than 160,000 American troops, as proposing? General Jones. Let me ask General Joulwan, who headed that syndicate. General Joulwan. Senator, the quick answer is yes. I think what is important---- Senator Kennedy. Let me go down the line a little bit. Can it go down to 100,000, and still have the training? What's the figure? General Joulwan. I think what we have seen with what we call the ``surge is a tactical success creating a secure environment'' that should have been done 4 or 5 years ago, when we went in there. We're seeing that now. The issue, to me, Senator, is, how do you reinforce the tactical success that you have with the surge over the last few months? That, to me, is the issue. Remember, the Iraqi army is training and building an army while they're engaged in war. We dismantled the army, and they're training and building while they're conducting a war. I found some very good examples of where they can take the lead. Their special forces can operate independently right now, as far as I'm concerned. They need some enablers. I think we have to understand that. The issue is--what is the strategy to reinforce the tactical success on the ground? That, to me, is the fundamental issue, and we give some examples here. As to how many forces that's going to take, I think we need to start transitioning to an Iraqi lead, not a U.S./coalition lead. Whether it's 6 months or 12 months, I think the signs are there to do that, and we have to reduce that dependency. How many Americans that's going to take--as we say in the report, I think we have become overly dependent on the logistics and support areas that can be reduced, as well. So, as we go to what is called the ``strategic overwatch,'' there can be a reduction. But I would leave that reduction to the commanders on the ground and the political leadership of what direction that should go. Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. General Jones. Senator, if I could please ask Chief Ramsey to comment because the police aspect of this is extremely important. Mr. Ramsey. Thank you. Senator, the police have not made as much progress as the military. They are not, at this time, capable of filling the void that would be left once the military left the province, having cleared it of insurgents and militia, or at least neutralized the threat. That's due to a variety of reasons. When you look at the Iraqi police service, a lot of that is due to the fact that they're ill-equipped to handle that mission. They have soft body armor. They're issued an AK-47 and a couple of uniforms. They're still riding around in thin-skinned vehicles. The day we were talking to the police chief in Baghdad, he had two officers killed while we were there. Then, the day before, he lost three. He lost 550, just out of that one police station, last year. When we were there in July, the death count was up to 230 police officers. So, they're being lost at an alarming rate, because they just aren't being supported the way they ought to be supported. I think they can make very rapid progress once the Ministry of Interior issues are addressed. That's the Iraqi Police Service, not the National Police. That's a totally different issue. Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senator Warner. Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank each and every one of you for this very valuable report. I thought your opening presentation covered it very well, General Jones. I'd like to return to the issue of the borders. Clearly, the Iranian influence coming across that border, be it in weapons or people or trainers or whatever, is a very significant factor imperiling the ability of our forces to bring about greater stability. Now, I draw your attention to page 129, which I think is a very important part of this report. I'll read it, ``The circumstances of the moment may continue to present the opportunity for considering a shift in the disposition and employment of U.S. forces. This could be characterized as a transition to a strategic overwatch posture. Such a strategy would include placing increased responsibilities for the internal security of the nation on the ISF--especially in the urban areas.'' I certainly agree with that strongly. Further, ``coalition forces could be retasked to better ensure the territorial defense of the state by increasingly concentrating on the eastern and western borders and the active defense of the critical infrastructures to Iraq''--namely--that's the power and the electricity. To me, this is the heart of what you recommend. I'd just simply ask this question, because, in our private consultations, you have emphasized that the U.S. forces are better trained and better equipped to handle the mission of border security than are the Iraqi forces. Now, the Iraqi forces may be approaching that, but we have special detection equipment. We have special training. Could one member of the panel here--General Jones, General Joulwan--emphasize how we are better qualified to do that border security, and thereby lessen the Iranian influence, the Syrian influence, which is leaking across these borders, be it weapons or trainers or otherwise? General Jones. Senator, if I may ask Lieutenant General Berndt to come to the table and--he studied that, particularly, and I'd like to ask him to respond to your question. Senator Warner. Thank you, General Jones. General Berndt. Thank you for the question, Senator. First of all, if I may, the people that we talk to on the border, both ISFs and their coalition transition teams, they want to do a good job. There's no question about that, in our minds. The problems that they face are significant, however. The do not have the benefit of the technology, that we would expect to see, to prevent smuggling and weapons and bad people from crossing their borders. On the Jordanian border, for example, the table of organization calls for 243 people at that port of entry. There are currently 112. They have two backscatter radars to check vehicles, neither of which works. They don't have a central way of checking people's identity to ensure that folks are coming across that shouldn't, or a means of getting intelligence on when that may happen. As a result, while they want to do a good job, they are just not properly supported to be able to do that, and, in some cases, the director of the port responsible for that port is reaching into his own pocket to pay for things like fuel. Senator Warner. Let's focus on the Iranian border, because that's where the critical elements are. What is the type of technology we could provide--what is the type of training our people have, that can supplement the current security situation and, hopefully, make a material difference? General Berndt. Yes, sir. There are several things, I believe. There are five backscatter radars at the land port of entry with Iran. At the time that the Commission visited, none of them were working. You can't really check vehicles if you don't have the ability to see what's inside that vehicle. So, they need to be fixed, but there are better systems available. They are more expensive systems. Senator Warner. They're in U.S. inventory? General Berndt. Yes, sir, they can be purchased. It appears that there's a reluctance to do that, because of the cost. But some basic things--forklifts, cranes--the type of things you would expect that people would have at their disposal to check cargo. We witnessed an 18-wheel truck pulling up full of bananas, and, on the top of that truck were three Iranian young men, literally pulling bananas off the top and setting them on the side so they could see what was in the vehicle. Not a very efficient way of doing business. By their own admission, 95 percent of the things that come into Iraq come through the ports of entry. Senator Warner. Did you bring to the attention--General Petraeus and perhaps General Odierno, who, incidentally, I think, is an extraordinarily capable officer--this recommendation, that in our inventory is the equipment to help better seal that border, and our forces could possibly do that job, and supplement it, better than it's now being done? General Berndt. We did, sir. Senator Warner. What sort of response did you get? General Berndt. Not only did we make the recommendation, the recommendation is being made by the coalition transition teams that are co-located with those units. As a matter of fact, from one of the ports of entry I have a 7-page list of requirements for that particular port of entry that were submitted up the chain of command. I don't know this for a fact, so I don't want to get out of my lane here, but the problem is, with regard to the border, that the requests for support, infrastructure, improvement of roads, electricity, water, you name it--they don't seem to go up and then come back down with something that can be actually used to help those people do the job that they want to do. Senator Warner. General Jones, I draw your attention to the NIE that was issued, and it is, I think, an excellent guidepost as to our future strategy in Iraq. I'd like to ask if your Commission concurs with the findings. For example, just the first finding of the NIE stated that the ISFs have not improved enough to conduct major operations of the coalition on a sustained basis in multiple locations, and that the ISF remains reliant on the coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat. I think you've already answered, you agree with that. General Jones. It's generally consistent with our findings. Senator Warner. Good. The increase in the army end strength to address critical gaps will take 6 to 12 months, and probably be longer, to materialize. General Jones. We would agree, but that's not unreasonable, in army elements. Senator Warner. Insurgent militia and insurgent influences continue to undermine the reliability of the Iraqi force units. General Jones. Probably true. Senator Warner. The deployment of ISF units throughout Iraq to Baghdad in support of security operations marks significant progress since last year. General Jones. Concur. Senator Warner. Political interference in security operations continues to undermine the coalition and ISF efforts. General Jones. General agreement. Senator Warner. Lastly, the NIE also assessed that changing the mission of coalition forces from primarily a counterinsurgency and stabilization role to more of a support role, would erode security gains achieved thus far. That seems to be somewhat in conflict with one of your basic findings. General Jones. It is. I think it's a question of degree and timing--how you do it, when you do it. Senator Warner. It's the timing. General Jones. I think you're not going to turn the page and all of a sudden, switch to another metric. But our finding is that, over time, and starting in the relatively near future, this is the logical next step for how we should use our forces. Senator Warner. I would hope the President would take in consideration the valuable findings that you made. General Jones. Thank you, sir. Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd. Thank you, General Jones. Our policy in Iraq has long been linked to the performance of Iraq's own security forces. As President Bush said, we would stand down as Iraq forces stood up. After more than 4 years of this interminable war, we have yet to see much standing up by the Iraqis. Instead, we have seen more U.S. troops sent into the line of fire. A number of us in the Senate have questioned the rosy assessments routinely provided by the White House about the readiness of the Iraqi forces. Too often, those reports do not seem to match reality. That was the reason for establishing this Commission, to help us get some truth--truth--truth about the progress of our efforts in Iraq. Your conclusions the Commission reached are deeply troubling, and, to my mind, call into question the whole foundation of the administration's strategy in Iraq. Standing down only after Iraq is ready to stand up seems to be a recipe for an unending U.S. occupation. General Jones, your report notes evidence of improvements in Iraq's security forces which states that they will not be able to operate independently--independently--for the foreseeable future. Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the President that it would take him 5 years to raise an army or a navy. It takes us a few months to turn a U.S. citizen into a combat-ready soldier. In Iraq, we have been at this effort for more than 4 years. The reason we are able to train a soldier or a policeman so quickly is because we have to. No one else will do it for us. As long as someone else is willing to assume the risk for Iraq's security forces, I do not see them rushing to fill the breach, themselves. General, what incentive is there for Iraq to step up and take on its own security if we continue to do it for them? General Jones. Senator, thank you for that question. I think that, within our report, we tried to express the sense of the Commission, that in units of the Iraqi army we are seeing the development of that spirit, of that willingness to fight for the Nation, and to put their lives on the line. The statistics show that, at the rate of over three-to-one casualties being suffered are being suffered by the Iraqi forces. We find that to be encouraging. We would be much more happy to sit here and also be able to say the same thing about the police forces, which is the next critical link that has to be developed. But, as to the progress of the Iraqi army, I believe that we are of one mind that we were impressed with what we saw. As Chief Ramsey mentioned, with regard to the police force, that if we could get the same type of will and the same type of support generated for the development of those police forces, and the Iraqi government could bring about a reconciliation that would either bring and end or significantly diminish the sectarian violence, then I think we would be on a much more rapid road to progress. Let me ask my colleagues if they're like to add to that. General Joulwan. What we've seen in the Iraqi army is this recent tactical success because of, now, creating a secure environment for them to operate in. They've been afraid to go back to the homes and villages, because they were targeted. There is now some progress. It takes time, when you've dismantled an army like we did, to build and train an army. The trends are in the right direction. How we build on that success--incremental though it is--is going to be important. That is going to take some time. I think we're heading in the right direction. But, again, it's political clarity that's important here, to be able to take advantage of the tactical success that we've had on the military side. Chief? Mr. Ramsey. Senator, as far as the Iraqi police service goes, it's very similar to what was experienced in the army, trying to rebuild a police force in a time when they're in a combat situation. It's not an all-bad news story. There are about 230,000 members of the Iraqi police service. We visited many of the training sites, and, quite frankly, we were very impressed with the level of training that was taking place. In fact, when we visited Anbar province, at Habbaniyah, the academy there, the courses were being taught by Iraqi instructors, there was a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of recruits. People are working very hard. The problem on the police side is that there simply aren't enough trainers, and, because of the security environment, they often are not able to get to training sites on a consistent basis to provide the training, so they continue to fall behind. At the provincial level, they're hiring police officers, not through the normal process, so you have people being hired that are receiving almost no training at all. So, that's a constant problem of trying to keep up. So, there are some positive things going on, but that's not to say that they don't have significant challenges, because they do. Senator Byrd. General, an article in this week's Washington Post noted that a fundamental problem with Iraq's security forces is that many are thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias. As one U.S. soldier said, speaking of an Iraqi army battalion we are training in Baghdad, ``We're trying to get them to develop enemy targets, but the enemy targets are their friends.'' Some of the conclusions in your report also reference this issue, which seems to go to the heart of the problem in Iraq. No matter how much training and equipment we may provide Iraq's security forces, we can never, never force the political and sectarian reconciliation that is ultimately required from the Iraqis. In fact, we may be inadvertently supporting one side of a civil war against another. General, to what extent are Iraq's security forces contributing to the growing sectarian split in Iraq? Doesn't this call into question the very core of our strategy? General Jones. Senator, sectarianism is a endemic problem in Iraq, and it has to be addressed by the Iraqi government, as we've said. Since there are two portions of the ISF, I'll ask General Joulwan to address the military side of your question, and the Chief to address the police side. General Joulwan. Senator, as I said before, it takes time to build and train an army. I think that's what we're seeing going on now. The trends--what we're trying to report here--we think, are in the right direction. It is going to take time. But, without a political overview, without some political clarity, without political movement, capacity-building, I would call it, on the institutional side of political institutions, much of what success or tactical success we're seeing on the military side, I think, will not succeed in the end. General Jones. Before I pass to Chief Ramsey, the overall conclusion of our Commission was that the sectarianism is a problem throughout the country, that it is less a problem in the military, more of a problem in the police. Mr. Ramsey. Senator, a lot of the problems that you've identified on the police side are due to very poor vetting procedures that were followed in the past. It has improved. They're taking advantage now of some biometrics, retinal scans, fingerprints, and the like. Their database obviously isn't very complete, so the results of those checks aren't always that reliable. But the process is at least beginning. There is a problem with infiltration of militia and insurgents in Police. Both the Iraqi police service and, we believe, the National Police, as well. But the people are aware of it and are doing what they can to try to rid their ranks of those individuals, but it's a very difficult situation. For those that have been there in the past, and have seen this over time, they say that it is far better than it was. But it still has a long way to go, and that gets right at the heart of trust, when it comes to police, the trust on part of the public, trust on part of the military, trust on part of others, and information-sharing doesn't take place like it should, I think, due, in large part, to the fact that people are afraid if they divulge sensitive information, that information will get in the wrong hands. Senator Byrd. Thank you. General Jones. I'd ask Dr. Hamre, who would like to make a comment. Dr. Hamre. Sir, just very briefly. The sectarianism has crippled the Ministry of Interior, and that ineffective ministry is the core problem that's keeping us from developing competent policing. Senator Byrd. Thank you, Dr. Hamre. Thank you. Senator Kennedy [presiding]. As our chairman pointed out, there is a series of votes now. There's several minutes left, if there is a member that wanted to stay. I'd be glad to recognize them at this time, or we'll go into a recess. Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank the Commission for your work in this excellent report. I guess I would follow up, to some extent, on Senator Kennedy's questions, because clearly this is a very difficult dilemma that our country faces, and that we, sitting on this side, face as well. The theory behind the tactic of the surge was that adding these troops would create the political space for some kind of political reconciliation--``reconciliation'' maybe too hopeful a term, but certainly political compromise that could lead to a greater commitment to the stability and security of the country, and an end to the sectarian and personal advantages that were being sought. It is clear in your report, as well as in the NIE, that the Iraqi government will struggle to continue to achieve such national reconciliation. What, if any, factors that you assessed in your work on the security forces leads you to believe that the government will pursue this political reconciliation? General Jones. General Jones. Senator, that question is a little bit outside of our charter. The only thing the Commission observed is that, absent such a reconciliation, which has not been codified, at any rate, even though we were encouraged to hear that--in our conversations with senior Iraqi officials, members of the government, that they are working on it, that they understand the importance of it. But the fact is, it hasn't happened. We regret that because that certainly is a key to accelerating the progress that we would all like to see in Iraq. So, we've identified that, very strongly, as essentially the starting point for good things to take place. On the surge, I'd like to just say a few words about that. The surge had two components to it. One was Iraqi, and the other was coalition. The surge itself had an effect, but it had effect in the area where it was concentrated, and that is the Baghdad region. Two other phenomenon that also happened simultaneously to enhance the security situation were the unexpectedly good performance of the Iraqi army, which is a credit to our trainers and those who have brought them online, and also the stunning turnaround in al Anbar province, where al Qaeda lost the popular support of the people, which has resulted in the country's most violent province becoming one of the most peaceful. So, those three things--the surge, the Iraqi army's performance, and al Qaeda's reversals--have been positive, in terms of the ISFs. But this progress will always be measured against the overall sectarian problem in the country, and it simply has to be a political solution. Senator Clinton. Of course, that's our dilemma. How do we get the appropriate pressure on the Iraqi government to do what we know they must do for the Iraqi people to have any future and for us to withdraw and hope that there can be some stability in the region? I am concerned that we are not getting answers to the questions that we need from the administration. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Senator Warner led the effort to have this Commission created to get an independent judgment, because we've heard so much contradictory information going back, now, so many years. I wrote a letter to the President, yesterday, requesting that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker be prepared to address 20 questions that come from the NIE, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and your Commission report, because, at the end of the day, we have to make judgments on whether or not we believe continuing military presence by American troops, whether they're in Iraq for a day, a year, or 10 years, will make any difference to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. I have, obviously, reached a conclusion that I don't see that difference occurring, I don't see the Iraqi government responding. If we take away deadlines, we take away benchmarks, we take away timelines, what is the urgency that will move them to act? You can have pockets of stability. We're now seeing, as the British withdraw in the south, a lot of the militias vying for power within the south. You're seeing the Iranian proxies and the Saudi proxies and everybody else's proxies, looking for advantage. So, I think that your Commission has certainly performed a great service, but one of the problems is that, in evaluating Iraqi policy, the administration and the Iraqi government keep moving the goal posts for success. I am deeply concerned that we're not going to see any difference in 12 to 18 months, but we'll see more American casualties, and we'll see the opportunity costs of our being bogged down in Iraq, with respect to all of the other challenges we face, from Iran to the Middle East to China and everywhere else. So, Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the Commission's report, and I'd better go and try to get this vote in. I thank you all very much. Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Clinton. Senator Warner has a quick follow-up if that's all right with Senator Cornyn. Senator Warner. Thank you. Following along Senator Clinton's observation, I made a similar observation in my opening statement, but I'd like to have your answer to this question. Is there not a direct correlation between the level of success of political reconciliation and the dangers to forces fighting the insurgents or any other element on the battlefront? Namely, to the extent you get political reconciliation, in my judgment, it lessens the danger to the individual troops, or groups of troops, fighting, wherever it is in Iraq. General Jones. Senator, you're absolutely right. It clarifies the whole situation, because if you get a meaningful reconciliation, which means that the leadership of the three major ethnic groups tell their militias to lay down their arms, the landscape of Iraq is transformed immediately, in terms of the security to our forces and Iraqi forces. The police have an opportunity to develop into a meaningful force. If you can impress on the government the need to develop national institutions that are composed of all ethnicities and equally represented, and do this in a sensible way, but without the backdrop of violence and the fear of terror, the transformation in Iraq would be, I think, very rapid. General Joulwan. Senator, one of the observations that I came to, when I asked, from the Minister of Defense to his division commanders on down, whether they were Sunni, Shia, or Kurd, they would respond to me, ``I'm an Iraqi.'' I think the army, in particular, there is a possibility to have this integration. I see trends in that direction. I think it's too early to tell, but we ought to try to foster that. We saw that when the NCOs went to the academies, that good NCOs are being developed in a way that really tries to foster this working relationship to get away from sectarianism. But it's going to take time. Remember, we destroyed this army, or dismantled the army, and we're trying to build it up again. Senator Warner. I understand that, General, but we have to understand here at home. Every day that goes by, you do not have political reconciliation from the top down. Now, there's some of it beginning at the bottom to come up, like sheikhs and so forth, trying to resolve problems in their provinces. Until it comes from the top down, our troops are at greater risk, and we continue to take our casualties, killed and wounded. General Joulwan. That ought to come from Washington straight to Baghdad. You can't expect the military to do that, Senator. Senator Warner. No, I'm not suggesting that, because military witness after military witness, over these years that this committee has conducted hearings, have constantly said there is not a military solution to these problems in Iraq. Do you agree with that? General Joulwan. Yes, sir. Senator Warner. Thank you. Chairman Levin. Okay, just a quick fine point on that. You would agree, I think, from your report, General and others, that the failure of the Iraqi politicians, the national leaders, to reach political agreement is costing American lives and American casualties. General Jones. I would agree with that, and I would also add that it's costing Iraqi lives, as well. Chairman Levin. Of course. Absolutely. Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn. General Jones, thank you. Thanks to the entire Commission for your tremendous continuing contribution to our Nation. You represent a tremendous national resource, and I want to express my gratitude, along with everyone else, for your tremendous assistance in helping Congress understand what we're confronted with and, perhaps even more importantly, the American people. I just want to summarize a couple of things in the assessment, because while it's obviously a mixed bag, it does represent some good news, as well. I think we can't just ignore the good news, and that is that you find that the Iraqi armed forces are increasingly effective and capable of assuming greater responsibility for internal security of Iraq, and the Iraqi police are improving, although you've noted a significantly more serious problem with them. You assess that over the next 12 to 18 months, there will be continued improvement in the ISF readiness and capability. You make a finding that the ``clear, hold, and build'' strategy that began, but was not really implemented until this summer, is on the right track and shows potential. You say that the Iraqi army and Iraqi police service have the potential to help reduce sectarian violence. I want to just ask you straight up, General Jones, if you could speak, either individually or on behalf of the Commission, in explaining the statement on page 129 of the report, when you talk about the strategic consequences of failure. We can all debate, is the glass half full or the glass half empty? What do we do to encourage political reconciliation, which we all know is important to bringing our troops home and maintaining--and achieving stability in the region. I'm not sure that people understand well enough the consequences of our failure in the region. The statement here is that, ``The strategic consequences of failure, or even perceived failure, for the United States and the coalition are enormous.'' Could you explain to mothers and fathers, perhaps watching this on cable news or C-SPAN, why it's important to them and to the security of the American people? Because I think some people perceive this as just a risk to the Iraqis or people in the region. I believe that's not an accurate reading of the risk. Could you explain that? General Jones. Yes, sir. I'll give you my personal views on this, but I would also invite any members of the Commission to feel free to express their own views. Senator, to try to be brief but thorough, I believe that there are three levels of strategic concerns here that are at play. The first is national, the second is regional, and the third is global. On the national basis, the United States has clearly established itself in the 20th century as a Nation of great influence, and achieved many, many great things. As a matter of fact, success on the battlefield and success in the areas of rebuilding friends and allies, or defeated enemies, if you will, is part of our history, and one that I think Americans are justifiably proud of. As a matter of fact, we refer to one of our generations as ``The Greatest Generation,'' and I agree with that. The 21st century announces itself as being a century of incredible complexities. What was bipolar in the 20th century is now multipolar. What was symmetric is now asymmetric. The forces that are arrayed against us and our way of life, as a freedom-loving people, are significant. Whether it's Afghanistan or Iraq, these are the battlefields where this question will be resolved. The answer to those questions are very complex and very time-consuming, but nonetheless, very important. On a national basis, I personally don't believe that the United States can afford to be perceived as having not been successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and I think the consequences for such a perception, or such a reality, will be with us for years to come, in terms of our ability to be the Nation of great influence in the 21st century. I don't think it's predestined that we get it for nothing. We didn't get it for nothing in the 20th century, we won't get it for nothing in the 21st century. The young men and women who wear our uniform and who are representing our country in civilian clothes around the world are doing a magnificent job making sure that doesn't happen. Iraq just happens to be one of the focal points where that primacy is being tested, and the national will is being tested. So, for all kinds of reasons that have to do with how this country is perceived around the world in the future--maybe 10, 15, 20 years from now, it's important that we be successful. There's a regional consideration, as well. Iraq, as a stable nation, sovereign nation, is important to the security and the balance of the Persian Gulf. It's important to check the rise of Iranian influence. It's important to stem the efforts of the Syrian Government that--across whose borders about 70 to 80 fighters flow a month, and who are reported to have training camps. It's important that the regional stability of the Gulf be maintained, and the United States being successful on that side of the issue will be a key contributor to it. It affects the global strategic issue, in the sense that at the basic level--the flow of energy and the importance to the world that the energy from the Persian Gulf and the surrounding states plays in the economic stability of our economies and the economies of our friends and allies. So, there is a great deal at play here--national pride, national influence in the 21st century, a test of wills--do we have what it takes to stay the course and be successful?-- regional balance with global implications. I think all three of those things are very important. Let me ask my fellow commissioners if they would like to add to that. General Joulwan. I would only add, Senator, that, I think, as we go about this, we have to understand we're not alone in this venture. How we work with our allies, how we broaden the base of what we're trying to do, not only in Iraq, but in the total region, I think, is extremely important. It can't just be ``our way or the highway.'' I think we have to include them in what we're doing, and build that consensus, political as well as diplomatic, military, and economic consensus, for the way ahead. That, to me, is going to be vital in the next year to 10 years. Senator Cornyn. If we leave Iraq before it has the capability to defend and govern itself, and it results in a failed state, does that make America, and Americans, less safe? General Jones. I think that precipitous departure, which results in a failed state in Iraq, will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, jihadists, however you want to call it, in the world, who believe that they'll have toppled the major power on earth and that all else is possible. I think it'll not only make us less safe, it'll make our friends and allies less safe, and the struggle will continue; it will simply be done in other areas. So, yes, I think the answer to that question is yes. Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. General, I want to go back to page 130 of your report, because it seems to me that what you're recommending there is critically important to our deliberations. You've talked about a massive logistics footprint, many installations, U.S. installations, and the number of personnel, military and civilian, and you've said that the unintended message of the size of that is one of permanence, an occupying force, where what is needed is the opposite impression, one that is lighter and less massive. Then, going down a line, it says that you recommend that careful consideration of the size of our national footprint in Iraq be reconsidered with regard to its efficiency, necessity, and cost. Then, to me, the critical line, because this goes to the heart of what our debate is, that significant reductions-- and, as I asked you before, that includes all three--reductions in the logistics footprint, the number of installations, and the number of personnel, military and civilian, that significant reductions in those--consolidations and realignments--would appear to be possible and prudent. I want to put that in what I consider to be a logical order. First, by my logic, you recommend that we reconsider the size of our national footprint, for a number of reasons, which you state. Second, you say it's prudent to make significant reductions of U.S. military and civilian personnel. Third, you've said, in another page, on page 44, that Iraqi armed forces--army, special forces, navy, and air force--are increasingly effective and are capable of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq. Now, that leads to the other question, which is the assumption of that greater responsibility by the Iraqi forces, you've indicated, should lead to a reduction in the number of our forces. So far are we together? General Jones. We're together. Chairman Levin. Now, what you've done, though, as I understand it, you have not said what the amount of the significant reduction of those forces is. You have not put a numerical amount on that. Is that correct? General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. Other than saying it should be significant. We're together? General Jones. We're together. Chairman Levin. Okay. Now, how many of the Iraqi units that are capable of taking the lead--that would be either a unit-- category 1 or a category 2 unit--are now not in the lead? Do you have a number for that? General Jones. I think the reason we're struggling with the answer is because the definition of what it means to be in the lead is a little bit soft. Chairman Levin. Okay. But would you agree--and this is my clear impression--that there are a significant number of Iraqi units that are capable of being in the lead now, that are not yet in the lead? Is that fair? General Joulwan. Yes, I would say yes. We're talking enablers, we're talking logistics to help them. But I would also say, as we try to say in the report, in 12 or 18 months, which you charged us with, there'll be more of those available. How many more--but there will be more, and, I would think, significantly more, if we do certain things. Chairman Levin. Of course, that's where the enablers come in. General Joulwan. FMS. Chairman Levin. FMS. By the way, we're getting into the FMS issue, believe me. General Joulwan. That's important. Chairman Levin. Believe me, we're going to get into that. But I want to go back. The 12- to 18-month charge was what you were asked to look at. General Jones. Yes, correct. Chairman Levin. You were not asked to say how many Iraqi units, right now, that are either category 1 or 2, could be put in the lead, that are now not in the lead, and what number of American troops that would reduce. Is that correct? You were not asked to do that, or you were asked to do that? General Jones. We weren't asked specifically to say how many could be in the lead. We were supposed to assess their capabilities--12 to 18 months out. Chairman Levin. Okay. I want to go back to what, to me, is really a fundamental question. Do we have agreement on that point, that there are some Iraqi units that are capable of being in the lead now, that are not currently in the lead? Can we just agree on that much? General Jones. I am still not clear as what the term ``lead'' means. Chairman Levin. That's category 2. Are there currently category 2 Iraqi units that are not now in the lead in their operations, that have the capability, but that are not now in the lead? General Jones. I think that depends on the situation. For example, there could be some operations that are launched by the Iraqi units, independent of the coalition, because they don't need too much support. Conversely, there are others that are more complex, where they would need coalition support, and they might not be in the lead for that aspect of it. Chairman Levin. All right. General Jones. So, I don't think there is one answer to that question. Chairman Levin. Let me go back to page 44, then. When you say the Iraqi armed forces--you identify all of them--are capable of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq. General Jones. That's correct. Chairman Levin. That's your finding. General Jones. That is correct. Chairman Levin. The next question is: we have that possibility right? General Jones. Exactly. We think that it's there. Yes. Chairman Levin. Now? General Jones. Now. Chairman Levin. Okay, and is there any reason why we should not begin now to transfer that responsibility, and to utilize that capability? Or is that what you're recommending in this? General Jones. No, I think there are two answers to that. One is that, I think, increasingly, that is what's going to happen. I think we've seen some evidence---- Chairman Levin. Not ``going to.'' Should it happen, General? General Jones. I think there is some evidence that it's happening already, today. Chairman Levin. Should it happen? General Jones. I think it should happen whenever possible. Dr. Hamre. Every single unit we saw still needed to get fuel, ammunition, and uniforms. Chairman Levin. I understand. But they have the capability now. You've said they have the capability now. General Joulwan. For certain missions, yes, sir, they have the capability now, and they're doing it. Chairman Levin. So, in other words, what you're saying is that they are utilizing, right now, their capability that they have. Is that what you're saying? General Joulwan. The special forces brigade, in particular, is able to conduct, for the most part, independent operations. Chairman Levin. That's category 1. I'm talking about the category 2 forces, which you've indicated on your chart there's a significant number of category 2 forces. Is it not fair to-- which are capable, with our support--with our support, of taking the lead. I think your report is clear on it. But is it, or not? Is there not now a significant number of category 2 Iraqi forces capable of taking the lead that are not yet in the lead? General Jones. Exactly. Dr. Hamre. With our support. Chairman Levin. Capable, with our support, of being in the lead, that are not now in the lead? John, let me repeat it. Are there not now a significant number of Iraqi forces, category 2, which means with our support, capable of being in the lead, that are not yet in the lead? Mr. Ramsey. Yes, I think we say yes. Chairman Levin. So do I, but is there some reluctance to say yes here this morning? General Jones. No reluctance. I think that there's a question of semantics here between what the chairman means by ``lead'' and what we mean by ``capabilities.'' Chairman Levin. Okay. I'm just saying category 2. You define it. That's your category, right? Are there not now a significant number of Iraqi forces that are category 2 forces that are not yet in the lead, that you believe should promptly be taking the lead--taking responsibility, assuming greater responsibility, in your words? Is that not clearly what you're saying? General Jones. We're saying that, at level 2, the unit is capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations, with ISF or coalition support. Chairman Levin. My question is, are there not now a significant number of category 2 Iraqi units that have not yet been put in the lead under those circumstances, under those conditions? General Jones. I'd have to defer to the Active-Duty military, who work with them every single day. My impression is that if an Iraqi unit is in the level 1, level 2 category, that they are conducting operations, and frequently in the lead. Chairman Levin. So, then--when you say that they're ``increasingly capable of assuming greater responsibility''-- what you're saying is that all the category 2 units in Iraq have now assumed greater responsibility. Is that what you're saying? Or that they should assume greater responsibility? General Jones. That, in our judgment, if they reach this category, they are able to, with help, that they're increasingly able to take on more and more missions for the internal security of the country. Chairman Levin. I understand, and should, therefore, take on that responsibility? General Jones. Should take on that responsibility. Chairman Levin. Have you made an assessment as to how many of those category units have not yet taken on that responsibility? Have you made that assessment in your report? General Jones. No, I don't think we have. Chairman Levin. Okay. Senator Thune. Senator Thune. General, members of the Commission, we appreciate and thank you for your good work and your willingness to come up and present your findings. General Jones, I have a question dealing with the Interior Ministry, more with the police force than with the armed forces, but I know that the Commission was not specifically tasked to assess the capacity of the Iraqi ministries, even though you weren't specifically--tasked the Commission does address it. Since it is so integral to the development and the readiness and the capability of the ISFs, we appreciate your good work in that area. The Commission's report finds that, ``The ISFs, military and police, have made uneven progress.'' While the Iraqi armed forces, especially army, have shown clear evidence of developing the baseline infrastructure that lead to the successful formation of a national defense capability, the Iraqi police forces are hampered by--and this, again, a ``corruption and dysfunction within the Ministry of Interior.'' The Ministry of Defense is assessed as being one of the better- functioning agencies of the Iraqi government, and so my question is, what can be done to achieve the same level of success with the Ministry of Interior, since the Iraqi police force is so essential to the security and stability in Iraq? General Jones. Senator, thank you. I'll ask Chief Ramsey to respond to your question, as he did most of the work in this area. Mr. Ramsey. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think there are a couple of things that can be done. We've talked a lot this morning about the military surge. As one of my colleagues, Terry Gainer, mentioned, we need a similar surge in policing, as well. We need more trainers. For example, we need to have an infusion of qualified people to assist the Ministry of Interior in developing the structure it needs to be more effective. We have to work very aggressively toward getting rid of some of the issues that really plague Ministry of Interior, which I think is the biggest reason why the police progress has been so uneven. The officers in the field are not getting the equipment that they need, they're not getting paid on a consistent basis. There is certainly the perception that sectarian issues are preventing a lot of these things from taking place. The National Police, for an example--85 percent Shia, 13 percent Sunni. I have never, in 38 years of policing, experienced a situation where there was so much negativity around any particular police force. It was unbelievable the amount of negative comments we got, whether we were speaking with Iraqi army, with Iraqi police service--it didn't seem to matter-- community members--there was almost a universal feeling that the National Police were highly sectarian, were corrupt, had been accused of having death squads and the like. A lot of that perception, I believe, is a carryover to a lot of the feelings that many had toward some of the issues in the Ministry of Interior. I think these are fixable problems, with the exception of the National Police. We do believe, in our recommendation, that the National Police be disbanded and reorganized with a different mission. Part of their problem is the fact that their mission has been unclear. It's not clear whether they're supposed to be a light infantry military type unit or a police unit. They're not very effective, because they lack the trust that they need in order to perform their jobs, either with their partners or with the community at large. The other police force, the Iraqi police service, I believe, can make very rapid progress once the problems with Ministry of Interior are addressed. The balance now, in terms of the Iraqi police service, using al Anbar province as an example, they are actively recruiting people into the police force, from the same ethnic background as the people that they're serving. That seems to be working very well. Sheikhs are very involved in trying to get recruits. The military, I think, that are working there, really understand and get it. They understand the importance of the police being able to get up to speed to be able to take over some of these responsibilities. When you go to the Kurdish region, certainly the same situation exists. They have a little bit of a headstart, obviously, because they haven't had the degree of violence that they've had in other provinces. But the police there are capable of being able to perform as a police force, and they don't have nearly the problems you see in other provinces. But it's the Ministry of Interior that is really holding back the police, in our opinion. I don't think there's any question, in my mind. I think that the National Police, it's beyond repair, even though I know there are people who don't agree with that. But we were unanimous in our assessment, as police leaders, that their mission needs to be redefined. Senator Thune. The challenges that the Iraqi government faces have been described as building an airplane while you're flying it--and, in this case, also getting shot at. But the question I have is, given those challenges facing the ISFs, is it possible to remove some of the sectarianism that you have talked about from the ranks without requiring a complete overhaul of the Iraqi police force? Mr. Ramsey. I think--with the Iraqi police service--and I'll approach these from two different standpoints, because I think the two groups are quite different--with the Iraqi police service, I think what you're starting to see now, at the provincial level, is recruiting of officers from that province that understand that community and that are trusted. You don't have nearly the problems that you have with the National Police forces being brought into different provinces, and you don't have the conflict that comes from that sort of thing taking place. So, with the Iraqi police service, I don't think that they are, for the most part, that far away from establishing themselves as a viable police force. Most of their problems, again, stem from their inability to get equipment, to be trained on a consistent basis, because, in some cases, the environment is such that trainers cannot get to academies in order to train; the vetting process that they're using is getting better, but has a long way to go, so they have been infiltrated by criminals, by militia, by insurgents. Even though, in many instances, we're seeing where that's being weeded out, still it is a serious problem. The National Police, on the other hand, I think, because of its composition and because of the opinion that many have toward the National Police, I don't think the same things can be effective. I think they need to have their mission redefined, and that's what we're recommending. Senator Thune. What's the feasibility of moving the Iraqi police force under the Defense Ministry? Mr. Ramsey. There's a couple of things that I personally-- and our syndicate--feel, and we're aware that that was a recommendation, but we're opposed to it, for a couple of reasons. One is that a civil police force ought to be overseen by civilians, not by military. I think that that's very important. I also think that one of the most critical factors is that, when you have the Ministry of Defense--and, although they're doing a lot better than the Ministry of Interior, they're still very fragile--to put that added burden on them could cause problems for them, in general. It also creates an imbalance, I believe, of power within Iraq, when you look at the military already being in the Ministry of Defense, and if you add police on top of that, that could cause some long-term problems. We have to find a way to get the Ministry of Interior up to speed. The Iraqi government has to fix the Ministry of Interior. Moving a problem from one ministry to another is not going to fix the problem. The baggage that the National Police are carrying is such now that it doesn't matter where you put them, they're not going to be trusted, they're going to be highly ineffective, because they don't have the trust of the people that they have to work with and the people that they have to serve. General Jones. Dr. Hamre would like to say a word. Dr. Hamre. The Ministry of Interior was captured, really, by the Shias as something to protect themselves, for fear of the rise of the Sunni again. Because the ministry is so dominated by Shia sectarian factions, it is impeding the development of a real police force. The law allows the local provinces to hire the cops, but only the Federal Government gives them money. It's this tension--this is like the State of South Dakota hiring policemen, but only Washington can give you a budget, and if you have party differences that they're using to try to leverage each other--that's what's going on. We have to fix that. If you were to move it over to the Ministry of Defense, it would be like adding a cup of vinegar to a barrel of wine. It would poison the whole barrel. We have to fix it. Senator Thune. Thank you. I see, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. But thank you for your response. Senator Lieberman [presiding]. Thanks, Senator Thune. General Jones, thank you very much, and thanks to the members of the Commission. I think you've done an extraordinary piece of work here, and a real service in this debate, which is at a historic turning point, about Iraq. You were asked to do an independent report. It is independent. It's totally nonpolitical. I think that's what gives it its weight. As I was reading the press on it this morning, and listening to some of my colleagues, respectfully, this is the old story of, ``What you see is--depends on where you stand.'' This is not all good news, but, I must say, on balance, I find the report to be extremely encouraging. It wasn't so long ago that the testimony we had about the Iraqi military portrayed it as pretty much a rag-tag army, where, on the day that they got paid, they basically all went home, and stayed home for 2 or 3 weeks, and then came back close to the next payday. I think you're showing us, also, that--when we asked how many of the units were rated at the levels 1 or 2, according to the metric we have, very few. Today, we can say that more than half--a good, sizable majority--are at that level. So, I'm encouraged about this, particularly--and I appreciate very much the metaphor that the report uses, where you say that building the ISFs in Iraq's exceedingly diverse and complex security environment is roughly akin to trying to build an airplane in midflight while being shot at. That sounds right to me, and that makes it all the more encouraging that the Iraqi military has made the progress it has. I want to ask you a few questions, consistent with that. Your report notes, ``noticeable improvements in the Iraqi army's ability to conduct counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations,'' and, again, ``even when American units are absent, the Commission observed indications that Iraqis are taking the fight to the enemy.`'' So, I ask you, is it accurate to say that the development of the Iraqi army, in your opinion, has made significant progress over the past 12 months, and will, in all likelihood, in your estimation, continue to make progress over the next 12 months? General Jones. Senator, with your permission, I'd like to call General Abrams to the witness table for the answer to your question. Senator Lieberman. That would be a great honor. General Jones. He's done an awful lot of work on this particular issue and, we feel is well-qualified to represent the Commission. Senator Lieberman. Good to have you here, General Abrams. General Abrams. Good to see you again, sir. Senator Lieberman. You've been drafted again by General Jones on this occasion. General Abrams. These friendships go for a long time. Some days they're up, and some days they're down. [Laughter.] But it has been an honor to be a part of this. Just by way of introduction, most of us traveled, not through the staffs, but were able to talk to the people on the ground doing the work on both sides of this. I think General Jones and I came away with a shared experience in one incident, and it was this--presence of this Australian battle group in al Nasariyah. What I would share with you is, in terms of progress, what came to us is the confidence of our people that are embedded from the coalition, with these units. This was an environment where Shia-on-Shia battles were occurring. This province had been turned over--basically, had been provincial Iraqi controlled, and that you had, frankly, a U.S. presence and overwatch and both the political action team and an economic team directly involved in, not only the communities, but also the military structure. What we got out of the exchange is that, increasingly, the Australian battle group's view--who was charged with the responsibility to provide overwatch--was not only the ability of the army, but, in this specific instance, the ability of the police force and the army to work together, to develop intelligence on likely targets, to go after this very complex environment of Shia-on-Shia engagements, were able to sort that out. They did describe to us, in terms of limitations of logistics and fire support and the like. For what we took away from that model, if you will, that experience down there, this was what we considered to be a very difficult series of operations, done day and night over sustained periods of time. We saw evidence of this occurring in other areas, where the coalition was not in a dominant role. It was, in fact, in a support role. Those that had visited over there in the course of the last 3-plus years, that accompanied us and were a part of the Commission, felt confident that this was a new horizon of their ability to lead, to direct, and to engage in what were sophisticated operations. We found, as we traveled the hotly contested area in Baghdad, which, quite frankly, is where we saw the emergence of this--what the Commission is referring to as counterterrorist capability--we view that capability in terms of military-force application at the highest end and degree of difficulty to be able to pull off. The special operations units of the coalition referred to this brigade, in many instances, as an equal partner that had the ability to go into these neighborhoods, work on targets that were directly either al Qaeda or directly linked to providing sanctuary to al Qaeda, and do it at a comparable level. We found that to be a significant departure in the performance, not only of that brigade and its leadership, but the autonomy of the decisionmaking process that was outside of the coalition to be able to properly employ that. Those would be representative examples, that I would share with you on behalf of the Commission, that give indications that we witnessed, during our 3 weeks, a context of capability that, frankly, I think, has been borne out by the very difficult investments that have been made by our troops and our leaders. Senator Lieberman. Right. General Abrams. We were very confident by it. Senator Lieberman. General, I appreciate that firsthand recollection very much. It's powerful, and it's dramatically different than what we heard not so long ago. If I can ask the indulgence of Senator Webb, I just want to follow up with a quick question, building on that. One of the papers today had the headline on your report, ``ISFs Won't Be Ready for 12 to 18 Months.'' In the report, you say, ``coalition forces could begin to be adjusted, realigned, and retasked as the army is able to take more responsibility for daily operations.'' Your specific conclusion is that, ``it is reasonable to believe that such adjustments could begin in early 2008, depending on the continuing rate of progress of the ISF''--in other words, not ordered by us, but depending on what the judgments are. I take it that the connection between those two--the fact that some people grabbed on to ``12 to 18 months'' and--to operate independently, and still you're raising the possibility that the Iraqis will be able to take on enough that we may be able to reassign or bring home some of our troops--is based on the fact that they don't have to operate independently to take on some of the responsibility that American coalition forces have now, as General Abrams just described. Do I have that right? General Jones. I think you do, Senator. I think you have that right. I would like to just leave it, in the mindset of people who are listening or watching, that there are two levels of progress here, at least from our Commission's standpoint. One is the capability of ISFs, which is the army and the police together, to take care of the internal problems--the violence, the crime, the sectarian problems, al Qaeda inside Iraq--and then there's the larger problem--or the second level of problem of the army coming into its full maturation of defending the borders of Iraq against nation-states outside of Iraq. That second level is where the Iraqi army will eventually get to. I believe that it's not realistic to expect that they could be there in 4 years, but, at the rate they're going, they're going to get there. So, what we're suggesting is, because of the increased ISF capability inside the country to take care of internal matters, recognize that's still significant, that there is a possibility to consider that other forces of the coalition could begin to pay a little bit more attention to the critical infrastructure and the borders, which are very porous and are significantly affecting the recovery, internally, in Iraq, as a result of the smuggling and---- Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that, and--so that some of the ISFs, without being able to operate independently, nonetheless would be able to take on, in partnership with coalition forces, some of the responsibility the coalition forces have now. General Jones. Correct. Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much. Senator Bayh is next. Senator Webb. Unfortunately, when I indulged you, Senator Lieberman--I not only lost my place, but we have a 10-minute vote, and it appears that I'm going to have to go vote. If I may just make a quick statement. Senator Lieberman. Sorry. I apologize to you. I owe you one. Senator Webb. I wanted to be here to give my appreciation to the people who did this work. Unfortunately, you know the process, all of you, and this is an amendment that I'm actually a cosponsor of, I'm going to have to run down and vote on. As quickly as I can in the time that we have, I want to make sure, for my own understanding, that I am getting the data right on your report. In the executive summary, the ISF is defined as ``the military, the Iraqi police, and the Department of Border Enforcement.'' The last two, I assume, administered by the Ministry of Interior. Is that correct? General Jones. Correct. Senator Webb. The numbers that have been thrown around are 152,000 military, 194,000 for the Department of Border Enforcement, and then, Chief Ramsey, you mentioned, I believe it was 230,000 police. Is that correct? Mr. Ramsey. As far as the police go, Senator, the 230,000 refers to the Iraqi police service. There's another 25,000 National Police in addition to that. Senator Webb. Okay. But those three are additive, right? So, if we put them together, that's a minimum of 576,000 individuals counted in the ISF. General Jones. That's correct. In my opening remarks, I said 324,000 make up the totality of the police forces, the coast guard---- Senator Webb. I have to run--when you're talking about the casualties in your report, and the percentage of those casualties, as measured against the Americans, what you basically are having--if you take that number and put it against even the top number in the surge, 3.6 times the American forces. So, what you're seeing still is probably--and also depending on where these casualties are taking place, because so many of them, as Chief Ramsey pointed out, have been police being knocked off in their local environments--that I would just submit that, in and of themselves, the casualty numbers do not indicate that the Iraqis are out in the same places and doing the kinds of things that the Americans are-- for the record, since I have to leave. General Jones. If you play the percentages and you accept that we're comparing the army of Iraq against the coalition, which is probably a fairer metric, simply because we don't have policemen over there, you could come up with different conclusions. Senator Webb. I would say, there are ways to---- General Jones. There are different ways---- Senator Webb. This has been used by your group. General Jones. Right. Senator Webb. That's why I think it needs to at least be put into some perspective, because even the Americans--they're a deployed force, but a huge percentage of the American force is in the logistical tail on this. General Jones. Exactly. Senator Webb. So, just for the record, I think the Iraqis still have a long way to go, in terms of the types of things you're talking about. I regret I don't have a full amount of time here to have a further discussion. General Jones. Thank you. Senator Webb. Thank you. Senator Sessions. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your insight and the time and effort you've given to this, and the expertise you bring to it. I believe General Petraeus's phrase was, when he testified before us before he went over to do the surge, he defined the challenge as difficult, but not impossible. General Jones, how would you see the long-term view of Iraq, just based on your commitment? I'll ask the others if you briefly would share your thoughts to the American people, is this a hopeless thing? What are our realistic prospects for a long-term situation in which there's some stability and a functioning government that's not threatening to the United States? General Jones. Senator, I think that General Petraeus's words were correct. I think it is a difficult situation, it's multifaceted. I think most of my colleagues have been involved in other situations like this, unfortunately, nationbuilding and reconstruction and the like. Generally, whether you look at Kosovo or Bosnia or other places like that, it's a generational problem, it's not a, necessarily, generationally military problem. But what we're looking for is that balance--or that moment in time when the balance goes from the big ``M'' in military to the big ``P'' in political reconstruction, and there's a handoff. We saw that in Bosnia, we've seen that in other places. But it is a generational problem. So, it's about bringing about, in Iraq, not only safe and secure conditions, but a completely different method of government, jumpstarting an economy, rule of law, the whole aspect of transition is just enormously complex. Regardless of how we got there, we are where we are. It is, strategically, enormously important, not only nationally, but regionally and globally, for this to come out to and be seen as a success. Our report is, I think, not only unanimous, but very hardhitting in certain areas, intentionally, to make the point that there are some good things happening, and we are all excited to see that's certainly encouraging--but that there's more work that needs to be done, and we wanted to be very specific about where it is we think that work should be done. It doesn't mean it can't be done. Senator Sessions. Did any of your Commission members, or any significant number of them, conclude that this could not work, it was a failed effort, and we just ought to figure a way to get out, regardless of the consequences? General Jones. I don't believe that there is a commissioner who feels that way. Senator Sessions. I think maybe a year or so ago, when so much bad news was occurring, that American people began to doubt that, could we be successful? Were we going to have a realistic chance? I think they will consider being supportive in the future if we can say, honestly, that, yes, it's difficult--and it is difficult, and I will admit that--and I think the biggest error we made is underestimating how hard it is to take a dysfunctional government and create a functioning government. That is a very difficult thing. If you look at history, it's been done very few times. Yes, Germany, and, yes, Japan, but those are hierarchical, unified societies in ways that Iraq is not, and had traditions of law and order that they didn't have, and it was just not quite the same, to compare Iraq to Germany or Japan. Chief Ramsey, I've been interested in the police situation for some time. I think being western as compared--the lack of prison space in Iraq to New York's prison system--I did the numbers, before that, for Alabama, and I concluded that Alabama has--with 4 million people, has 38,000 beds. I believe that now there's about 24,000 in Iraq. On a per-capita basis, that number, to be at Alabama's level, would be pushing 200,000. So, you've been a chief, you've dealt with police officers. What does it do to a police officer who goes out and arrests a no- good criminal, and they turn him loose the next day? What does it do to the neighborhood and community if you can't detain people who need to be detained? Mr. Ramsey. Senator, let me just say that we did not look specifically at corrections while we were in Iraq. Terry Gainer and I did visit one location, where some prisoners were being held. We had an opportunity to talk to a few of them about their treatment and the like, but we did not really study that particular issue while we were in Iraq. The whole system needs to be reviewed, and we do mention that in our report, that it's not just the police, we do have to look at prosecution, we have to look at the judges, we have to look at corrections. You have to look at the entire criminal justice system and make it function properly if you hope to see any long-term gains and success. Senator Sessions. Which is hard to do. Mr. Ramsey. Very hard. Senator Sessions. Hard to be in a country that hasn't had a tradition of doing that correctly. I want to move away from that to ask you, next about the National Police. This is a very delicate thing. We solved it in the United States, historically. We have local sheriffs, we have local police chiefs, and we have Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Marshals on the Federal side, and all of these things. But it's a mix. My time is about up, so I would just ask this question, the average policeman that's walking the beat in Baghdad, is paid for by the national government, but he answers to supervision that's local. Mr. Ramsey. Right. Senator Sessions. That's an odd way to maintain order. Dr. Hamre? Dr. Hamre. Yes, that's the central problem. That does not work. Our police force over here in the United States is paid for locally. Over there, all the money is coming from the Ministry of Interior. It's captured by the Shia militias. So, the money is not getting out to these provinces. Over half of their budget was left on the table last year, they didn't distribute it to the police. This is a problem. Senator Sessions. It's a difficult challenge for them, to walk a beat by yourself in an area where you and your family could be assassinated if you enforce the law. So, it's a challenge to the police. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. Senator Bayh, would you, if you're alone at the end of your questions, recess until we get back? There will be a few of us coming back. Thank you. Senator Bayh [presiding]. With the assistance of our able staff, I would be delighted to, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your service and this report, and for your patience here today. Let me, at the outset, apologize if any of the questions that I am about to put to you have been asked previously, because I was absent, voting. So, if it is a little bit redundant, I apologize in advance for that. It's an occupational hazard in this line of work, when we have votes going on and hearings, simultaneously. In assessing the kind of forces and the configuration of forces necessary to achieve security in Iraq, of course you have to assess the kind of threats that they're facing, internally and externally. I'd just like to ask you, General, just very briefly--our intelligence services and other experts have indicated, publicly, that, in their opinion, 2 percent or fewer of the adversaries that we're facing in Iraq, and that the Iraqis are facing in Iraq, are foreign jihadis, are al Qaeda and Iraq affiliates, that 98 percent or more are Iraqis fighting amongst Iraqis over the future of Iraq. Is that consistent with your understanding? General Jones. I think we would agree with that. Let me ask General Berndt. Yes. Senator Bayh. You've offered a number of good opinions here, and a number of other opinions. Let me transition to a series of questions you had with Senator McCain and some others. You indicated it was your personal opinion, somewhat beyond the purview of the Commission, about the advisability of setting a deadline, timelines, that sort of thing. Your consensus is that political reconciliation among Iraqis is the key to long-term security. I think you used words, ``it may be more difficult, it may take longer,'' but, in essence, without that, this is probably never going to work out very well. Isn't that the bottom line? So, one of the questions we face is, what, if anything, can we do to promote the process of political reconciliation? General Jones. No, this is very important, and it certainly is going to make things much harder, and take much longer, without it. Senator Bayh. Indeed, security in that country, without political reconciliation, is probably not achievable. General Jones. Probably. Senator Bayh. Right. So, here's my question. We've pursued a strategy over the last 3 or 4 years of trying to build up the competence of the Iraqi political leadership so that they would be more likely to make the hard decisions, the tough compromises necessary to achieve political reconciliation. We felt that confident people were more likely to do that than insecure people. Doesn't seem to have worked real well. Your report indicates that that process is not going adequately. So, some of us have concluded that trying to force them in a better direction, with some notions of accountability, consequences for failure to act, some notions of timelines, that sort of thing, are more likely to make the process of political reconciliation come about than simply just saying, ``If you don't do it, that's okay, we're still with you, no consequences,'' which is what we've had for the last 3 or 4 years. So, I'm interested in your opinion about why--I guess my own view would be--to continue enabling their dysfunction is the appropriate course of action? Why not accountability? Why not consequences? Why not some timelines? General Jones. Senator, you're correct, that's a little bit outside of the scope of our taskings, but---- Senator Bayh. I'm only asking, because you offered your opinion. General Jones. I understand. I'll be happy to continue to develop that opinion. First of all, in terms of what we're trying to achieve here, what the coalition is trying to achieve in Iraq, is a long-term proposition. Three and 4 years, in terms of the magnitude of what we're trying not do--frequently simultaneously--building an army while it's being shot at, whatever metaphor you want to use--this is hard work, and it's going to take a long time. Iraqis, the citizens themselves and their government, are going to play an increasing role in this, and they're just getting used to what that means, I think. However it comes out in the long run, national reconciliation and putting an end to sectarian violence is one thing that has to happen. A decade ago, we were having similar discussions about---- Senator Bayh. Should there be no consequences for their failure to act, where's the sense of urgency on their part? They're dithering while their country is in great distress. General Jones. Of course. A decade ago, we were having the same type of discussion about Bosnia and the ethnic killings and the murders and assassinations that were going on, and seemingly out of control. I think you're absolutely right, I think there should be consequences. I think it's up to coalition governments to express themselves in the way that only governments can. Certainly a commission can't do it, except to point out the fact that this is one of the hurdles and obstacles that is delaying the progress that we all think will be possible once you clear this hurdle. The fact that it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it won't be done. I hope that it will be. Senator Bayh. I have a couple of other things I want to ask about. We all want to be successful, we all know that political reconciliation is essential to bringing that about. The debate that we're having is, what is most likely to encourage the Iraqis in that direction? It has seemed to some of us that the strategy we've pursued for 3 or 4 years hasn't born much fruit, and that perhaps a different approach is worth trying. That's the essence of what I'm trying to say. Here in your concluding section, which I thought was good and interesting--``Concluding Observations,'' under ``Strategic Shift''--you make the statement--``coalition forces could begin to be adjusted in early 2008.'' Now, there's a lot assumptions that underlie that. I'd like to ask you, what confidence level do you place in that assumption? General Jones. I think our Commission felt that, based on the measured and observable progress of the Iraqi army, in particular, and hopefully some of the accompanying progress by Iraqi police forces, that, if this continues on the current glide slope that we've seen, that the Iraqis will be able to take on more and more of the day-to-day responses to the internal---- Senator Bayh. Would you say your confidence level is high, medium, or low? General Jones. I would say that it's high, that it's going to continue over the next 6 months to a year in a very positive direction. Senator Bayh. In a direction that would enable us to begin to adjust our troop levels? General Jones. That will give us some options with what we can do with our forces in a different way, yes, sir. Senator Bayh. That would be about contemporaneous with the spring estimate of--we're running up against the 15-month deployment period. General Jones. We said early 2008, but we'd certainly defer to the local commanders and authorities. Senator Bayh. The British have withdrawn substantial numbers of their forces from the south, and I was reading, recently, that they are basically withdrawing to their principal base there in the south. Now, it's different there. You have fighting among Shia groups, as opposed to Shia-Sunni fighting down there. But there are rivalries and so forth. What lessons, if any, can we learn from the British redeployment there, about the future of Iraq as we, according to your high- confident assessment, may begin to also redeploy our forces in the springtime? General Jones. I think the overall lesson learned with regard to Iraq is there is no template that you can apply to Iraq and have it be valid for the region. The situation in the north is dramatically different from the south; the situation in the west and the east is also different; central Baghdad has its own dynamics. The thing that troubled us, as members of the Commission, was the degree to which Iranian influence is exerting itself in the southern part of the country. Four provinces in the south have been transferred to provincial Iraqi control, and we believe that that doesn't mean that you should not pay attention to those regions and be careful about what's going on there, because it is worrisome. But the Shia-on-Shia fighting is essentially a reflection of the fact that the majority of Iraqis seem to want an independent Iraqi, they don't want to be dominated by a neighboring country, and most of the Iraqis that we spoke to in that region said that they are going to take care of this problem, ultimately, themselves. I think that we're going to have to pay attention to the border questions, to make it more difficult for Iran to exert as much influence as it has in the internal affairs of Iraq in the coming years. Senator Bayh. Thank you gentlemen, I'm about to miss a vote. So, I apologize. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. General Jones, I want to talk to you about two different issues. The first is the recommendation in the report having to do with the National Police. I would welcome Chief Ramsey's comments on that, as well. When I first read your assessment of the National Police as, essentially, being ineffective, and the subsequent recommendation that it be disbanded, it brought to mind what I think was a disastrous policy decision to disband the Iraqi army in the early days of the war, thus creating a large number of trained, armed, alienated, and unemployed men who subsequently joined the insurgents or the militias. In talking to you before the hearing, I learned that that is not really an appropriate parallel. For the record, so that everyone has the benefit of the discussion that you and I had, could you or Chief Ramsey describe exactly what percentage of the police force you're talking about and the fact that the National Police is a smaller group among the security forces? Chief Ramsey? Mr. Ramsey. Yes, Senator. Thanks for raising that issue, because there is a lot of confusion around that particular recommendation. The National Police consists of about 25,000 members. The Iraqi police service has 230,000, roughly. So, it is not the entire police force that we're talking about. We're talking about a separate department that is significantly smaller than the Iraqi police service. We also are not talking about total disbandment, to the point where people are just going back out into provinces and become armed insurgents and all that sort of thing. We're talking about redefining their mission. We believe that there are many functions within policing that are highly specialized, require a great deal of skill and training, that the provincial police may not be able to sustain, long-term, such as explosive ordnance disposal or bomb squads, SWAT teams or emergency response teams, urban search-and-rescue, which in the United States is largely fire-centric, but, obviously, police could perform that particular function, river patrols, air support. All those kinds of functions could be performed by a group, national in scope. That's what we're recommending. Small groups in the provinces, but being controlled centrally. That would take about 6,000 people, roughly, maybe perhaps a few more, of the 25,000. The remaining people could go in either the army or to the Iraqi police service, where there's still help needed. Counterinsurgency is obviously very important in Iraq. For now, the National Police, that is probably one of their principal functions, as they are currently organized, which has led to a lot of issues, quite frankly. Last October they disbanded an entire brigade because of 26 Sunnis allegedly kidnapped, 7 of which were later murdered, and the National Police--or at least a brigade within the National Police-- believed to be responsible for that. Those are very serious allegations, and it's highly sectarian, and our sense was that, if they were given a real police mission--and right now, their mission is unclear, whether it be a military unit or a police unit--that that would solve a lot--or at least lessen--of the issues and problems surrounding the National Police. Senator Collins. Thank you. General Jones, the second issue I want to bring up with you concerns the transition to a new mission that you've described in your report. Your report suggests that coalition forces could begin to be adjusted, realigned, retasked as the Iraqi army becomes more and more capable. You look ahead to the first quarter of 2008, when this might be able to be accomplished. This is very similar, in many ways, to the new mission proposed by the Iraq Study Group and also proposed by Senator Nelson and I in a proposal where we've suggested that our troops focus on border security, counterterrorism operations, training and equipping of Iraqi troops, and protecting Americans and American infrastructure. My question for you is, how soon do you think we could begin that transition to a new mission for our troops? I'm not talking about setting a timetable or deadlines for withdrawal, but transitioning the mission, I believe, is important. I think we need to do that as soon as possible. Could you give us more guidance on when you believe the kind of realignment that you recommend could begin to take place? General Jones. Senator, thank you for that question. I would just simply say that such a transition is probably going to be incremental. It will not be a certain date, when the mission changes dramatically, but accomplished over time, depending on the situation, the capabilities of the units, the progress that we hope will continue to be made by the ISFs. But we saw some evidence, in some areas, that it has actually already started. General Abrams mentioned Nasariyah province, with the Australian brigade down there, and their relationship with the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army has already begun to show signs of instituting that kind of overwatch transition. So, I think it will be sequential, but our report suggested early 2008, but, really, the commanders on the ground can determine that, the transition of the mission. Dr. Hamre. I'd defer to my colleagues who studied the military mission more directly, but we recommended that we stand up a transition command that would help facilitate this very thing. I don't know if my colleagues would care to comment on it, but it's one of our recommendations, that we institutionally lead this with structure at the top, in a command. General Jones. I'm glad Secretary Hamre raised that issue. I believe we feel very strongly, as a Commission, that what is lacking in the briefing sets that one gets when you go to Baghdad is a sense of the center of mass of transition. You can get answers to a transitional question if you ask the military or if you ask the Justice Department or if you ask other aspects of the government, but you don't get a sense of transition being discussed, in the broad sense, in any one place. So, we recommended, as one of our suggestions, that such a place be established. It sends a good, clear intent of what we're there to do, and it also is a place where you can measure the progress that we're making with regard to transition. It goes beyond simply the police and the military. It would include legal reform, economic reform, unemployment, the services--political reforms that governments must go through, and how the ministries are working. Capturing all that in a center, so that people can see where we were a year ago, where we are today, and what the plan is for the future, we think is an important message to send forward, and that's why we made that recommendation. So, built into that would be the military aspect of it. Senator Collins. General? General Joulwan. In my view, what is needed for this transition is a political surge to match the military surge. That is beyond the scope of what--our soldiers and the Iraqi soldiers have provided an opportunity here for that to take place. How we do that is going to be very critical in the next 4 to 6 months, and I think it's very important, at least from my view, that you understand that. Senator Collins. Thank you for your great work. Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General Jones, I've been interested in violence in Iraq. The reason for that is, there's been some differences on reports, and even some dispute on those differences. In the Commission's report, it cites that there are signs of improvement in the security situation in Baghdad, based on reductions in the average number of daily attacks and the daily number of sectarian killings. Experts from the GAO, however, dispute the accuracy of those conclusions. The data that forms the basis for the military's conclusions have not been publicly released. General, did the Commission review of the data on violence independently arrive at the conclusion that the levels of violence have decreased? Or did it rely on the military's previous assessment of the levels of violence? General Jones. Senator, we relied on the data that we were provided by both Iraqi authorities and also our own authorities in Baghdad. We have no reason to doubt the validity of those figures. Clearly, anytime you inject 30,000 U.S. troops in a capital region that is, in this case Baghdad, you're going to affect the level of violence. It's going to go down, I guarantee it. The other participant in the surge was a significant number of Iraqi police and Iraqi troops in the same region, so, thankfully, that surge--that tactic did result in the numbers going down significantly. I can't swear to their absolute accuracy, down to the individual, but I'm certainly confident in--and the Commission is unanimous in--the feeling that it did have that effect. Senator Akaka. General, many of the Commission's recommendations rely on continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. The Commission's report states that the Iraqis would not be able to assume responsibility for their own security for the next 12 to 18 months. The Iraqi logistics organization has estimated to need even longer time to fully develop. We've heard differently on that, as well. General Jones, what kind of U.S. troop levels would be needed to provide the support recommended by the Commission? How long would those troop levels need to be sustained? General Jones. Senator, our mandate was to evaluate the capabilities of the ISFs and the likelihood of their continued progress over a defined period of time, and we did not get into the scope and the structure of U.S. forces, with the exception of coming to some conclusions that would suggest, as we said in our concluding remarks, that some sort of reassignment, remissioning, retasking of those forces would be possible as a result of the progress that the Iraqi army and the security forces are making. That was about as far as we could go in the 90-day timeframe, without doing considerably more analysis. I presume that the military authorities that are presently executing the mission can give you a better answer than we can. General Joulwan. Can I just add, on that--which is a point I think we all agreed on. On the logistics side, for example, it was clear to us that there is an Iraqi way and then there's an American way. Many of us felt that we're trying to impose an American way on logistics and other areas, when an Iraqi way may be good enough. We mentioned that in the report, and I think we need to go back and look at that. We've mentioned that to the commanders on the ground, that perhaps the Iraqi way may suffice, and that may, indeed, in the long-term, work better. So, I wanted to bring that out, because I think that's important in our discussions as we consider the way ahead. Dr. Hamre. They have never failed to make payroll. When it's something important to them, they get it done. General Joulwan. We forget, they moved large corps on the battlefield in the 1980s--on a front wider than the central front of Europe in World War II, and they did that in the 1980s. So, I think there's something here to go back and look at; is there an Iraqi way of doing this? Senator Akaka. Thank you for that. General, it appears that the longer our military has spent in Iraq, the more it is viewed by the Iraqis, and possibly by other countries in the region, as an undesirable occupation force, and culturally, as you just mentioned--that could be part of the reason. General, in the Commission's assessment of the security situation in Iraq, and in developing its recommendations, to what extent did the Commission consider the long-term effects of our presence in Iraq on the Iraqi citizens and how it might affect their cooperation with U.S. and coalition forces? What were the Commission's conclusions on that? General Jones. Senator, we did assess that, and our findings are contained in the last chapter of our report, which suggests that we should do a number of things to lessen the perception that we are, in fact, an occupying force. We believe that it is time to look at our footprint, it is time to look at the number of bases we have, our disposition, the number of forces, to make sure that we have the right number of personnel there, but not an excessive number, and that we are sensitive to the perceptions that, rather than being an expeditionary force, which is temporary, we might inadvertently be giving the impression that we are, in fact, an occupying force. We've made several recommendations to that effect. We believe that transferring control of all the provinces to the sovereign government would be a good thing. We believe that a transition headquarters would be a good thing. We believe that taking a look at our footprint, and reducing it, rescoping it wherever possible, would be a good thing. If you take all of those things together, it would lessen the image of the coalition being an occupying force. Senator Akaka. I know, as you pointed out, you particularly were dealing with the Iraqis. Is there any evidence that the Iraqis are sympathetic with the administration's claims that we have to fight terrorists over there and that we do not have to fight them here? General Jones. I think that we've seen evidence that, at least in certain parts of the country, they would feel that way. I think my overall personal conclusion is that I came over there with the fact that the Iraqis that we spoke to, be they Shia, Sunni, or Kurd, are desirous of an independent nation able to stand on its own. We think that there are some impediments to that happening, and some of them are internal, but we also believe that the destabilizing factors brought into play by Iran and Syria do play a significant role in this, as well. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, General Jones. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator Chambliss. Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, let me just echo what others have said, and that is to thank you, as well as all the members of the Commission, for the great work you've done. I can't think in my 13 years in Congress of a more important Commission than this group of individuals, nor a more important issue to consider than this particular issue. I commend all of you for taking the time, obviously giving it the great effort that you've given it, and we thank you for that. You touched on an issue in your opening comments, and you allude to it in your report, that has been pretty obvious to me from the start, at least when we began trying to train the Iraqi soldiers and the security police, and that's the issue of leadership. I've been concerned about parallels and the fact that we can take a young kid out of a high school in the United States and send him to Fort Jackson or Fort Benning or any of our training installations, and we make a soldier out of him pretty quickly, but we haven't been able to do that over there. In one of the early hearings that we had, I was told by one of your former colleagues that that was an issue that we were going to have to face, because these people had never been able to exhibit leadership. If they were under the rule of Saddam, if they showed some form of leadership or wanted to be a leader, unless they agreed with Saddam, they had their head cut off or their family was threatened, intimidated. I think, obviously, that has been the case, and it's been very difficult to get the gut feeling out of a large group of these folks to be able to develop themselves as leaders. I'm not sure how we do that, but I want you to expand on it. I was thinking, as you were introducing everybody from General King down to my buddy General Punaro that every one of these folks is a great leader in their own respect, and somehow we have to be able to develop that leadership within the grassroots of the Iraqi army, the security police, as well as the government side. I don't see it, and I'm wondering if there's anything I'm missing, or is there anything that we ought to be doing that we're not doing to try to move that ball down the field with respect to leadership? General Jones. Senator, thank you very much for that question. We were privileged to have as members of this Commission two very distinguished sergeants major, Sergeant Major Brown and Sergeant Major McMichael. With your permission, I'd like to ask Sergeant Major McMichael to come to the table and respond to that grassroots-level question about the basic Iraqi leadership at the NCO level that he observed. I think you'll be interested by his answer. Senator Chambliss. Sure. Sergeant McMichael. Good morning, sir, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question. It is obvious, with our assessment and having the opportunity to observe the Iraqi NCO corps, that they have a great need for an effective NCO corps, and that will take them down to the grassroots. The problem is the ability to allow them to be properly trained. As we had the ability to, and the opportunity to, observe their academies and their training-- entry-level training--we have great training facilities and great teams there that are providing the training. The problem is that they have to be able to understand the training, and we have to adjust the training to their level. As we have said here on the panel earlier today, it is not a U.S. model, it is not a NATO model, it is the right model. We're trying to provide them with that. We have seen that they are grasping the training. Without the NCO piece, it would be very difficult to have a military that has the cohesion or the effectiveness not only to respond to orders, but to follow them effectively. We have to understand that the NCO corps that we have in our great military, in our great country today, did not happen overnight. It took a while to build what we now know as sergeants majors or chief master sergeants or master chiefs. They did not develop in a microwave effect, of ``pop it in, and they popped out.'' They grew from the grassroots up. They have to have that same opportunity. But, in growing their NCOs, they also have to have the ability to train their officer corps along with it to accept this new entity that their NCOs will bring to the table. To train the NCO to be effective, and then put them back into the forces and not allow them to do what they've been trained, will allow no progress whatsoever. Senator Chambliss. Do you have confidence that that can be done in the short-term, versus long-term? Sergeant McMichael. I have confidence, sir, that it can be done. The terms of effectiveness will be how effective we are providing the training and their willingness to accept it. To put a timeline on it will actually not be able to mirror what we are confident of what we do every day, because we come from a great educational background and system. Many of their individuals in their military have a fourth-grade education. That does not indicate that they're not intelligent enough to grasp it, because if we observe their training, both in weapon training and other small-unit-level training, they had no remedial courses. To me, that meant that they were grasping the training and the information as it was provided for them. Senator Chambliss. Gentlemen, again, thank you very much for a job well done, once again, we appreciate it. General Jones. Senator, if I could just piggyback on the Sergeant Major a little bit, at the officer level, we are very much watching the development of the next generation of Iraqi officers. Frankly, this will be no surprise, but the younger officers really get it, but they're going to have to wait their turn, although it'll probably be accelerated as the older generation moves out. But this is the generation that is going to make the difference in Iraq. On that score, we were pretty optimistic by what we saw. Senator Chambliss. Good. Thank you. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. Senator Reed. Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, not only for your work on this Commission, but for your lifetime service to the Nation in many different capacities. General Jones, General Joulwan, you probably know as much about the force structure of the Army and the Marine Corps as anyone, and my understanding is that, given our present force structure, unless we take draconian steps to increase deployment times overseas, that by next April the surge, the additional 30,000 troops, approximately, will end. Is that a fear? Or is that your understanding? General Jones. My understanding is that there will be a point when the surge will end, yes sir. Senator Reed. Roughly next spring? General Jones. I think it's forecasted for that, but I don't know, exactly. Senator Reed. So, in one sense, really, reducing the forces is not an option, it's a reality. The question, I think, is, when is that date? Is it March? Is it April? Is it June? Is it May? Which raises, I think, one of the more fundamental questions here. The increase in forces would justify a mission of population control. Those forces go away next year sometime. So, what are the missions that a smaller force cannot only support, but would be more central to our interest in Iraq? General Jones, General Joulwan, do you have any thoughts? General Jones. We've suggested that assuming the continuing rate of progress in the Iraqi army, and a renewed effort with regard to the police forces, which would result in being able to handle the internal threats to the country, and hopefully, some evidence of national reconciliation that diminishes sectarian violence, then the rate of progress can be enhanced. But, having said that, with regard to what's going on right now, the rate of progress in the Iraqi army seems to be improving to the point that we can consider, not only alternate missions, but alternate force structures to take on some of the things that are not being done very well, and that is the territorial defense, the border defense, the critical infrastructures of the country upon which the government relies on for its popularity--electricity, water, all kinds of services. So, we think that, assuming a steady rate of progress, that the coalition, over time, could be retasked towards that mission, and that would mean new numbers and new capabilities; hopefully, fewer. General Joulwan. Senator, implicit in your question was, somehow we may have time, early 2008, to the issue of, will the troop deployments, because stretched thin or not, they're not-- at least my standpoint, that was not our intent. We based that on what we saw in development, in our professional judgment. I want to make that clear, that I think it's important here that we see tactical success. How we build the strategy now to build on that strategy is key, and we think, going to a strategic shift of some sort, we can see possible reductions next year. Senator Reed. This is where you sit is what you're seeing, basically, and I understand, your mission was to evaluate the ISF, to see what progress--independent of any other factor. But, at the same time--and I think we're all aware of this-- there are huge strains on the land forces--on Army and the Marine Corps--and that--everything I have heard, from the people that I respect and admire and were being quite forthright, are indicating that, by next spring, unless you increase the deployment time to 18 months, call up Reserve and/ or National Guard units at a much more accelerated rate, then this surge will end. Essentially, that's what General Petraeus told me in Baghdad about a month ago. So, I think we have to be realistic about what happens. Regardless of the progress of your folks on the ground, our troops are coming down. What are the missions? But let me ask you, a different way, something I think is critical. This is not central to your mission, but you were there, you have a sense of it, I think, and you have great expertise. The real question here, I think, is, when those troops come down--April, May, June--how reversible are the tactical successes that we're seeing today on the ground? Where is the force that's going to come in and replace them? Where is the political coherence and the political infrastructure that will build on these gains? How long will it take--and we've seen this repeatedly--as our forces are drawn down--necessarily, by the force-structure constraints--will it take for the insurgents to begin to backfill, to begin to express theirself? General Jones. The rate of progress that's forecast for the Iraqi army is to grow to 13 divisions in 2008, from the 10 that they have now. So, assuming they're able to do that--and we see no reason to believe that they can't--manpower is available, the volunteers are standing in line to join, the training bases are established, the schools are up and operating, the equipment is in the pipeline--they should be able to grow to 13 divisions, and that's 3 more than they have now, and they'll be tested, and they'll be taking over more and more of that internal security. Under that scenario, that ultimate reduction of our forces is commensurate with the increase in theirs, and that's the challenge the commanders would have to face. Senator Reed. So, you don't anticipate at least a temporary period of time in which our force is drawn down, the Iraqis forces that you've looked at closely, are getting up to a level of expertise, but a gap in which, once again, the insurgents can exploit a decrease in our forces and the inability of the ISF? You don't anticipate that at all? General Joulwan. I think you always have to anticipate different options, but if we see the continued improvement that we've seen on the ground during our visits, if we can speed up the foreign military sales, the equipment, they have $2 or $3 billion in the bank in New York ready to buy things that's plugged up. That's our problem, not their problem. So, if we give them the means, there may be substantial improvement by next spring in the ISFs, particularly the army. We ought to say, how can we facilitate that--stay out of the political side of it, but, how can we facilitate that? That's incumbent upon a lot of folks here in Washington. But I think there's opportunity here. I think we ought to try to see if we can capitalize on it. Senator Reed. My time's expired. I think, as you pointed out, the resources are growing, there are resources we have to provide. Particularly, this foreign military sales issue is, to me, a disaster. We've known about it for a year, we can't get equipment to them they pay for. But the real question which resonates throughout your report and throughout your testimony today is--do the Iraqi people have the will to do these things? Frankly, after 4 years--I would poll you individually, but my time's expired--that's a highly debatable point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Jones. Senator, if I could respond to that, though, because I think that's an important thing. One of the things that the Commission did is, we actually took a poll of the Multinational Force commanders, all eight commanders, and we asked General Petraeus to do this for us. It's a poll that is unsigned, but we asked some interesting questions, and I'd like to share some of the responses. These are the most senior commanders on the ground--eight, representing the coalition. The assessment of the progress that has been made by the ISFs towards attaining the capabilities required to protect the territorial integrity of Iraq. The choices were: excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. Within the MOD, six responded ``satisfactory,'' and only two ``unsatisfactory.'' With regard to attaining the capabilities required to deny international terrorist safe havens: seven ``satisfactory,'' one ``unsatisfactory.'' Assessing what progress has been made by ISFs towards attaining capabilities required to bring greater security to the province in your area of operations: seven ``satisfactory,'' zero ``unsatisfactory,'' one ``not applicable,'' for some reason. Assessment of the progress that had been made by ISFs towards ending sectarian violence and achieving national reconciliation--this is, again, the Army, only--six ``satisfactory,'' two ``unsatisfactory.'' Ethnic composition of sectarian and its impact on performance: two ``moderate,'' five ``negligibly.'' Capabilities required to significantly enhance independent direct combat operations against the al Qaeda and other forces hostile to the government of Iraq--choices: 12 to 18 months, 18 to 36, or more than 36--three said ``12 to 18 months,'' four said, ``18 to 36,'' and one said ``more than 36.'' Finally, the assessment of the progress that has been made by ISF towards creating the administrative, financial, training, and other institutions needed to sustain the force: ``satisfactory,'' four, ``unsatisfactory,'' three. So, just to give you a flavor that--the response to these questions--very important--by the people--by the commanders who are actually running the Multinational Forces on the day-to-day basis, working with the Iraqis. The trend lines are favorable, and I think this is a meaningful finding. Senator Reed. My time's expired, but, again, gentlemen, thank you for your service and your comments. Thank you. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Graham. Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to add my thanks to your service. The panel has provided us a lot of insight. I'm sorry if I'm asking questions already asked. That's the way the Senate is. That's the price you pay to come here, I guess. The old strategy, as I understood it, was: keep the military footprint fairly low, train, transfer power, and leave. It seems to me that the insurgents benefited from that old strategy, because they grew in power and influence. Is that a fair statement about what we did before the surge? Did we have enough troops? Did we make a fundamental mistake after the fall of Baghdad I guess is what I'm asking? General Jones. This Commission started on a certain day, and we didn't visit the details of the past. But, obviously, I think, if you polled each one of us, we'd all have our own opinions, but certainly everything didn't go quite the way we visualized it collectively. But I think our consensus is that, regardless of what may have happened in the past, that there's some indications that things are moving in the right direction in some quarters, and that's encouraging. That's the first bit of, I think, positive news that I think that we've heard in a long time. Senator Graham. General? General Joulwan. Personally, I think that you're correct. If we had it to do over again, I think the planning would have been different, that what we would try to do is create a secure environment after Baghdad fell, and we didn't. But we are where we are. I think what we're doing now is trying to assess where we are, what we can recommend for the future. Senator Graham. For what it's worth, my assumptions were wrong. It's okay to say that around here. I thought it would be, after the fall of Baghdad, that the model we had would work. But it was pretty clear to me, after about 6 months, it was going in the wrong direction. After about 3 years, it was crystal clear we were going nowhere fast. So, the new strategy seems to have paid some dividends. Rather than talking about just all the good news here from our side--the police have always worried me. I was there for the election, and I came back to the White House with Senator Biden, Senator Chambliss and--four of us went over. The one thing that struck me was how the Iraqi army viewed the police. The Iraqi army did not have a very high opinion of the police. I have been over there eight times now, and I think the Ministry of Interior is one of the most sectarian groups--maybe this new guy is making improvements. Do you see any improvements on his watch in terms of firing some of the battalion commanders? General Jones. We've noticed the recent actions. Our report is fairly critical of the Ministry of the Interior and everything that flows from that ministry. So, the ability of the ministries to work together is virtually nonexistent. You're right, police and and military didn't work together. Senator Graham. I think you're dead-on. I've been saying that in different capacities--when you sit down--done a little legal work over there, and you're sitting across the table with some Ministry of Interior folks, they just don't give you a warm, fuzzy feeling about--the judges are different. Did you spend any time with the judiciary? General Jones. Unfortunately, we did not. Senator Graham. Did you get to go to the Rule of Law Green Zone, by any chance? General Jones. Yes, we did. Senator Graham. Okay. That's a compound where they're trying to secure the judges, and I think hats off to General Petraeus there. Why is the Ministry of Interior so different? Dr. Hamre. You have to remember the election, the Sunnis sat out the election. So, the people that really helped populate the first part of the government were the Shia. The Shia have felt victimized by the Sunni for years. So, they looked at the Ministry of Interior as a bulwark of support for them, for fear of the rise---- Senator Graham. Why not the army? Why didn't they look at the army the same way? Dr. Hamre. They didn't. I can't explain that. They basically turned the National Police into a praetorian guard. It is a Shia praetorian guard. Senator Graham. Is there something about the army that's different, in terms of its command structure or history, what do you think, General? I think that's an important question. Why not the army? Why the police? General Joulwan. Senator, I watched this from my work for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the 1980s, where the Iran- Iraq War was fought on--as mentioned earlier--a very large frontage, and they were Iraqis fighting Iranians. They were Sunni, Shia, Kurds. There is a national identity here. As I mentioned when we talked to commanders from the Minister of Defense on down, and I said, ``Are you a Sunni, a Shia''--he said, ``I'm an Iraqi.'' So, I think within the armed forces-- the army, in particular--there is this identity. I think we need to build on it. That's, at least, the point we're trying to point out. Senator Graham. Do you have any confidence that the Minister of Interior that they have now will turn this around? Dr. Hamre. He doesn't go to the ministry. Senator Graham. Let me just do a poll. Does anyone thing the guy in charge now can turn it around--has the desire to turn it around? General Jones. I think he should be given credit what he's already done. But he certainly has not had enough time to either say he will or he won't. But there's no doubt in our minds that it has to be done. It's not negotiable. Senator Graham. So, this guy, in your opinion, could do it. He has the willingness to try? General Jones. The actions that he took to take out a significant number of leaders because they were sectarian, and the fact that it happened, is encouraging, but there's an awful lot that needs to be done. Senator Graham. Thank you. General Joulwan. Senator, there was a great comment made to me, that the Sunnis know that they have lost, the Shias haven't realized they've won. Senator Graham. Yes, I think that's pretty true. I'll just end on this thought. One of the things that strikes me very disturbing is that there are a lot of Sunnis that are qualified to join the police, they just can't get hired. General Jones. That's correct. Senator Graham. All over Baghdad, when I was there doing some Reserve duty, working on rule-of-law issues, there's 1,700 qualified Sunni police candidates who have been vetted by us, in parts of Baghdad that are out of control, that could really make a difference, and we can't get the government to hire them. Did you find that to be a problem? General Jones. Yes, we did find that. Mr. Ramsey. Yes. Senator, when we took a look at the police, we did see that as a serious issue. There's really no reason why that's not taking place. The National Police, in particular, 85 percent Shia, only 13 percent Sunni. Most of the problems lie right there with the National Police. Not to say that the others aren't having some issues, but most of the real criticism and problems are really with the National Police. That has to change. The other point that you made earlier that I think is a difference between the army and the police, the police are basically being led by former military leaders that don't have a background in civil policing. Whereas, the coalition has done, I think, a remarkable job of putting quality training together, doing the best they can to really try to bring people up to speed, it takes time to really understand to operate as a police force in a different where you do have a rule of law. It is just totally foreign to them, and it's difficult, and it's going to take a little time before they're able to really, I think, be effective. With the National Police, they're under strength in their officer corps by about 45 percent. So, command and control becomes an issue. So, there's just a lot of issues and problems that are impacting the police, and that's not even talking about the dysfunction of the Ministry of Interior, which is, I think, the overriding problem that they have. But all those things, combined, are just retarding the growth of both the Iraqi police service and, certainly, the National Police, with their other problems. Dr. Hamre. Sir, and the revenues come through the Ministry of Interior to all the police, and that's the central problem. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham. Senator Graham. Thank you very much. Chairman Levin. Senator Corker. Senator Corker: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I want to echo the comments made when this hearing began. We are all honored that you are here, and deeply appreciative of the service you've provided, both in the past and today. I've prided myself on never asking a question that's already been asked. I'm not sure I can do that today, the way this hearing has gone, with votes in between. I'm sure this actually has been asked. But, when I left the hearing, there was discussion about the border and discussion about some of the basic equipment necessary to secure the border, especially between Iraq and Iran. I've been in General Odierno's office twice this year, and, on his cocktail table in his office, he has there a lot of Iranian arms, if you will, that have come in from there, and it's basically on display so that everyone who comes into his office knows that arms, if you will, are coming into Iraq from Iran, which, obviously, everybody thinks is a big, big issue. Could you expand a little bit on the border issue? It just seems so elementary, especially when it relates to the equipment pieces. We're spending $10 billion a month. I know I had conversations with General Hadley early on about making sure General McCaffrey had been before us, in the Foreign Relations Committee, talking about the lack of expenditures on equipment, the fact that if we'd just spend some basic dollars on equipment, we could really lessen the effort, if you will, that we were having to do by our own men, militarily, because we'd be giving them the equipment to do the things they need to do. I wondered if you could just expand on that a little bit, and I apologize, I'm sure somebody else has asked that question. General Jones. Glad to do it, Senator. If I could, I'd like to call on Admiral Johnson, who also spent time on the border-- General Berndt is also our expert--but to give Admiral Johnson a chance to respond to that very important question. Admiral Johnson. Thank you, Senator. Indeed, we have gone over some of this ground before. Fact of the matter is, we got a late start on border security force. It's only been in the last year to 18 months that we've given it a fairly serious effort to help them establish a security force. It's under the leadership of the Ministry of Interior, and, as has been discussed previously, that's one of the more ineffective ministries we have in the Iraqi government. The force is some 37,000. They are making progress. They seem very eager. We visited three different border-crossing facilities. I visited one on the Iranian border. General Berndt visited one on the Jordanian border and one on the Syrian border. All the forces were eager. But there's no standard operating procedure, they have a very rudimentary capability. They don't have modern-day equipment that can examine cargo, such as backscatter arrays that can look inside of cargo vans. There were five of them at the Iranian site that we visited, none of them worked. They don't have the more modern gamma-ray facilities. They didn't even have cranes or forklifts that would lift cargo off so they could examine it. Furthermore, this is the primary Iranian-Iraqi border crossing, and, since the war began, the Iranians made the trans-shipment point on their side of the border, put up berms and walls so the Iraqi trucks go over to the Iranian side of the border, behind this berm, transload the equipment or whatever the goods and services are that are being imported into Iraq--onto Iraqi trucks, no one sees what takes place there or what transpires. They drive over to the Iraqi side. We witnessed a few people crawling over the trucks, maybe looking into them, looking at whatever manifest the driver might have, but that was the extent of the effort taking place there. That was all the capability they had. So, we have a long way to go in this area. Senator Corker. We've been training servicemen now for 3 or 4 years. This is one of those things that you would think you could solve in a week or 2 weeks. This is infuriating to know that this is happening, and that, truly, I think that two of you, with a few folks--one of you, probably, with a few folks-- could figure out a way to solve this problem, like, yesterday. Is that simplifying this thing? Admiral Johnson. It probably is simplifying, a little bit. I think that there could be a much greater sense of urgency in this particular area, and it would have some impact. But this is a very long border. It's roughly equal to what we have with Mexico in the United States. So, even if you had better equipment at the border crossing points, to be able to zip up the border is a monumental task. What General Jones has referred to, maybe, as transition takes place in the coming months, we could help and exert a greater effort in this particular area, which is of a strategic importance to us to tighten up that border. But they need a lot more training. They need standard operating procedures--and they need more modern and technical equipment. The Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES), there's no real list of who should be allowed into the country. Many of the passports that are used are not scanable passports anyway, even if they had a PICSES site system and they had electrical power to run it. So, there are some rather significant challenges there. Senator Corker. I know a big part of the problem is that people are coming and going, and that's something that's very difficult to contend with. We have the same problem here in our own country, and has been around for a long time. Admiral Johnson. We were reminded of that frequently. Senator Corker. Yes. The issue, though, of equipment coming and going, of arms coming and going, seems to me to be something far simpler to resolve. You don't have to have documents to know that there are explosive devices on the back of a truck. Could you speak to the order of magnitude of that problem, as it relates to affecting us in a negative way in what we're doing in Iraq itself--the order of magnitude of those arms, those munitions, those weapons coming across the Iraqi border into their country? Admiral Johnson. I think the display on General Odierno's table there in his office speaks to that. The stuff comes every day. I haven't even begun to talk about the sea border, which is also very porous, particularly down in the Basrah area, where it's controlled by Shia militia. So, I'm not saying that we can't make progress, and we can make a dent in it, but to be able to zip up that border so that stuff can't get in, I think, is nearly impossible. So, what you're going to have to do is internally take away the ability of people who are so inclined not to be able to use that stuff. I think that that's the approach we need to take, at the same time we continue to build up the capacity of the border security force and professionalize them. There's also the whole issue of corruption, which we haven't discussed, which is very severe in this particular area of government capacity. Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Chairman Levin. Senator Corker, thank you so much. Senator Warner. Senator Warner. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I think you should depart with the sense of mission accomplished here, if I can use that phrase, in terms of--you've fulfilled the charter that Congress specified, in my judgment, and you did it admirably, individually and collectively. I thank you. General Jones. Thank you. Senator Warner. But, as I look at the future, there's an awesome decision that has to be made by our President, under his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, as to what changes should be made in our strategy as we look at the future. Certainly, we've covered, clearly, the troop requirements and how the leading will begin to fall if we maintain the current deployment, which I rigidly would adhere to, no deviation in the current length of time these able soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are serving. Anyway, back to my point--and then you look at General Petraeus. I was trying to think of the parallels in history when a single officer has had to make a decision that is so determining of the future, not only of this military operation in Iraq, but the determination of the future of our Nation's status in that region, our credibility, our ability to deal with Iran in nuclear power, in nuclear weapons as they're dealing with, and all of the other decisions. So, we're at a very major pivotal point in this conflict. I think back to Eisenhower, trying to struggle with the decision of when and how we would initiate Operation Overlord to go into Europe with our forces. It really is extraordinary. I join with you and others, saying that I think that General Petraeus can make that. But strategy of the future, it seems to me, can no longer be based on a predicate of the reconciliation that you've emphasized from the top on down. I see no signs of that coming into place in a timely or an effective manner to really begin to affect this strategy. It'll be a missing component of the decisionmaking. That's why I'm drawn to your recommendation, on pages 130 and 131, about provincial Iraqi control--since it's not functioning at the top, at least give the provinces the measure of autonomy under the existing constitution in Iraq to govern and do things for themselves. You say, ``For the sake of Iraqi sovereignty, and to lessen the perception that we are occupiers, all provinces should be transferred to Iraqi control immediately.'' That's a very profound finding, and I support that. I'm interested, what reaction did you get from the administration, particularly General Petraeus and others, when you brought forth that recommendation? General Jones. Senator, we did touch on that in our briefings, and it was received with interest and, I think, the seriousness with which something like that should be considered. I think it's being discussed in various centers at DOD and the National Security Council (NSC). Senator Warner. All right. I think that's sufficient. They took it, did not reject it. General Jones. Took it. Senator Warner. My last question would be, in your report, you talk about transferring our forces to perform critical infrastructure security. That translates into the very basic needs of water, removal of sewage, electricity, all of those things by which the average Iraqi citizen can judge that his nation is moving forward or remains basically stagnant, as it is now. All these years, all of the investment that this country has made into trying to bring up those essential services for decency of living and existence have not materialized. Now, how would we undertake that security operation differently than what we have to assume is the ineffective security now being provided by a combination of whatever coalition forces and Iraqi forces is taking place? How would we go about augmenting that such that electricity and water and sanitation and other essentials can be given equally to the Iraqi citizens, no matter where they live? General Jones. Senator, as the ISFs become more able, obviously the result of that would be that they would take on more of the problems associated with the internal security threats that we currently experience. Having more troops available means that some of the other issues that we have not been able to devote, as much as we would like to have done, to that aspect of external security and assuring the safety and security of the most critical infrastructures of the country, could be accomplished. Senator Warner. By our forces as they transition from overwatch---- General Jones. Could be as part of the strategic---- Senator Warner. Right. What would we do differently than is being done today? Is it just the size of the forces, the technology we would bring, the equipment? General Jones. I think it's the availability of forces to do those kinds of things. I think Admiral Johnson and General Berndt spoke about the critical situation along the borders. That's one aspect of it. Obviously, if terrorists can keep impeding the flow of progress, in terms of electricity and water and other basic elements of life, that is very destabilizing and contrary to our mission. So, as you get more mass and more capability, we can do more of these things. That will help, certainly, turn the attitude of the average Iraqi citizen, in support not only of the coalition, but in support of his own government. Senator Warner. I thank the witness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions. Thank you. This is the beginning of an important fall discussion dealing with the commitment we've made in Iraq, what we're going to do, what our level of commitment will be, and what the prospects are for success. I thank you very much for your wisdom and mature judgment on these issues. I take away a few things. One, that the situation is not hopeless. I think some of our constituents may have just felt like throwing up their hands, and, ``There's no way we're going to be successful.'' I do not believe that, and I'm pleased that you do not, because a failure would be a very bad thing for our country, as you note in the report. I think it's important--General Jones, you noted that--you conclude that the Iraqi people do want a unified Iraqi government. They would like that as a goal. I think that's important, fundamentally, as to whether or not we can be successful. You've noted it would take a long time. I just want to pursue that a little bit. I agree, it's going to take a long time to have an established government here. But that does not mean, when we convey that to the people of this country who provided the soldiers and the resources to fight it, that we have to maintain the same level and the same expense level, does it? General Jones. Right. Senator Sessions. You're providing us some ideas about how we can begin to draw down that expense and that troop-level commitment. Is that fair to say? General Jones. That's absolutely correct, sir. Senator Sessions. So, that would certainly be my vision and hope, that we could draw down our commitment, have more of the burden carried by the Iraqi people, and that we can end up with a stable, decent government that's an ally to the United States, and not a base for terrorist activities, and would not result in the kind of end that would embolden the enemy and would cause them to make a decision where would they attack next. If they're successful here, the next thing that they would do is to decide where next they're going to attack. I think we would be on the defensive. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing. I would just note, I believe the press have previewed your report a bit more negative than I hear it today. I hear yours as a fundamental, wise evaluation that gives us a cause for belief that we can prevail here. Likewise, I think the spin on the GAO report was more negative than it deserved. But we certainly face difficult, difficult challenges. It's not an easy thing. This is a very difficult thing. But, given where we are, I think your report is very helpful. Thank you. Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Senator Corker, do you have any additional questions? Senator Corker. The gentleman said that we haven't delved into even the issue of corruption yet. Has there been much discussion of that as it relates to security today in this hearing? General Jones. Not specifically. Senator Corker. I'd like for you to expand a little bit on that and how that is affecting what's happening on the ground. I'd like to begin by asking if the oil that is coming out of the ground in Iraq--is it metered? Dr. Hamre. Sir, the estimate is that about 400,000 barrels of oil is pilfered every day. Senator Corker. 400,000 barrels is pilfered. Are there meters--which, again, is a basic elementary step--are there actually meters on those wells? Dr. Hamre. I don't know the answer to that. Admiral Johnson. I can't speak for the well heads, but I visited the offshore loading platforms, and the modern one, the new one that we have just poured a considerable amount of money in, is state-of-the-art. It's one of the top six, in terms of capacity, in the entire world. It does have modern-day metering capacity on it, with telemetry back to the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad, so they can see precisely how much is being shipped every day. Now, I might add that, when we were there, the U.S. Navy security folks that were resident on this platform told us, as a sidebar, that the Iraqi Southern Oil Company people, who are also resident on there, are urging the construction company, who has put in this telemetry and metering equipment as they finish up the project, to shut it off before they leave. So, that speaks to some element of corruption and what have you, as an example. But, right now, I can tell you that there's very good telemetry. Now, the northern rig does not have telemetry, and there's some conjecture of where that oil that gets shipped out of there--it's a very small amount compared to the southern facility--but that doesn't have telemetry. So, they don't have a good feel for exactly what's being shipped, except from the modern one, today, which they have very good---- Senator Corker. The estimate of the number of barrels of oil that are being pilfered is what? Dr. Hamre. Between 200,000 and 400,000 a day. It's been steady at that rate. Senator Corker. Are those funds, that are obviously being generated by someone, being used to counter our efforts there? Or are they funds that are being used--I hate to say this-- to help our efforts there? What is happening with those 400,000 barrels? Dr. Hamre. Sir, you see a combination--and, actually, General King should speak to this--but I think you'll see a combination of criminality and insurgency that gets blended unevenly. Some of this is just pure criminal activity, and some of it is definitely flowing into the hands, into the resources of insurgent and militia elements. Jim, why don't you come up here, speak to that? I think it's important. General King. Sir, I think we could just define, also, that an amount of this does lead itself into terrorism being financed, and to be used against the coalition forces. However, because of the criminal element being so tightly tied in with Shia-on-Shia or Sunni of various factions with it, it is hard for us to give an accurate assessment about the flow of funds, although we do know that the flow of funds that goes out of the country does enable forces to come back in. Senator Corker. It would seem to me that figuring out how much oil was coming out of the ground is like the border question a minute ago. Figuring out the amount of oil that was coming out of the ground, and where it was going, would be a more elementary solution than some of the more difficult issues of sectarian violence that we are dealing with that involve human behavior. Again, these things are mathematical and can be metered. Is there a reason that we've not employed methods to keep 400,000 barrels of oil, which is indicated to be the case, from going into the wrong hands or into hands that are not legally holding those oil reserves or oil? General King. I'm not capable of answering that statement fully, or accurately, but I would offer that, just as the way that the coalition forces have been now, it depends on where you have to use your forces. What would it take to be able to do that? I think that we would find that, in partial, with some of the oil and other things that are going out, that would be simultaneous with the border security, both going out through Turkey as well as through other areas. Senator Corker. These don't have to be army personnel. We have, I'm sure, people around the world in civilian activities that figure out how much oil is coming out of the ground and who's paying for it, right? Dr. Hamre. But, sir, the black marketing really started during the years of embargo on Saddam. That's how he raised $400 million a year to build palaces. There's this very elaborate, large black-market activity that's very mature in this country. So, a guy pulls up, he says, ``Okay, only write down 1,500 gallons in my tanker truck,'' and you put in 3,000, and he's taking the other 1,500 off into a diversion. This is very widespread. This is a big, heavy-duty black-market activity in this country. Senator Corker. Are you saying the reason that we're not intervening is that that would create other issues, other revolts for us to deal with, and this is just a common practice, and, to try to intervene creates other issues that we would have to deal with as a country? Dr. Hamre. Sir, I shouldn't comment on that. My sense is that we have had our hands full with a whole range of things, and this was a problem, but it wasn't as imminent and immediate as people shooting at us. Chairman Levin. Let me just conclude with a few clarifying questions. I hope this will be brief. On page 46 of your version, you've indicated, again, that, ``The armed forces of Iraq are capable''--and that's present tense--``of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq.'' I think each of us have noted that, and the importance of that conclusion. That seems to be one of your thrusts, is that we want them to take over greater responsibility, and that they are presently capable of assuming greater responsibility. Would you agree with that? General Jones. Correct. Chairman Levin. Okay. Now, on page 60 of our version, 62 of your version, there's a statement that, ``There is rising confidence that progress is being made at the rate that will enable Iraqi army tactical formations and units to gradually assume a greater leadership role in counterinsurgency operations.'' That's totally consistent with what you said on page 46. General Joulwan. In the next 12 to 18 months. Chairman Levin. That's the part that's confusing. Page 44 is present tense, that they are presently capable of assuming greater responsibility. Am I correct that the reason the words ``12 to 18 months'' are in there is because that was your mandate, that's what you were tasked to do? General Joulwan. Correct. Chairman Levin. ``Could this happen in the next 12 to 18 months?'' and your answer is yes. General Joulwan. Yes. Chairman Levin. But you're not saying that that cannot, and should not, occur promptly, as soon as that capability is established. You're not saying you want to delay that. General Jones. We're not saying that, no, sir. Chairman Levin. Okay. On page 61 of the binder, ``Without continued training, mentoring, and key combat enablers from the coalition, it would be difficult for the Iraqi army to progress to a point where it can conduct effective, independent counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. Further, it is likely that hard- won progress made to date would atrophy.'' That is ``without continued training, key mentoring, and key combat enablers.'' Would the slight rephrasing also be true that ``with continued training, mentoring, and key combat enablers from the coalition, that the Iraqi army will be able to progress to a point where it can conduct effective independent counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, and that, under that circumstance, it is likely that hard-won progress to date could be sustained``? In other words--do you see what I'm saying? General Jones. Yes, sir. General Joulwan. Yes, I agree. Chairman Levin. Okay, you agree with that. General Jones. Yes, sir. Chairman Levin. General Jones, to you and your colleagues, again, this was a little bit of an unusual thing. The Senate's always unusual, but this is more unusual than usual, because of what we had to do, in and out, but you've handled it very, very well, and I think my colleagues have. Some of my colleagues who clearly were here to ask questions were aced out when somebody who had a prior preference suddenly appeared. I apologize to them, but I think we all understand it. We know you're old pros around here, you understand this, too, and we're not only appreciative of your effort here in this report, but also of your patience with the way in which this had to be handled, given the five votes that interrupted this proceeding. Thank you very much for your service, and we'll stand adjourned and hope you get lunch. [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh THE SURGE 1. Senator Bayh. General Jones, in your view, how much of the military success the administration is reporting the surge has wrought is sustainable? General Jones. The surge is the combined effort of coalition and Iraqi security forces (ISF); the U.S. contribution to the surge was only fully realized in the summer of 2007. It is too early to fully assess the effects of the surge, but there are signs of encouraging tactical successes in the Baghdad region. Violence levels in Baghdad have decreased measurably during the period of the surge. The average number of sectarian killings in Baghdad has decreased, and the average number of daily enemy attacks has decreased as well. At the same time violence is still a fact of life in Iraq and in Baghdad in particular. The Commission found that the ``clear, hold, build'' strategy being implemented by the ISF as part of the surge and as part of the broader counterinsurgency campaign is heading in the right direction and shows real potential, but noted that neither the Iraqi armed forces or the police forces could execute these kinds of activities without coalition support. If the coalition continues to provide key enabling support and training to the ISF over the next few years, the Commission believes the ISF will be able to build on the military results of the surge and bring increased security to more areas in Iraq, which in turn could lead to a more durable security environment in that country. 2. Senator Bayh. General Jones, how much of that success could be transferred to Iraqi forces? General Jones. As noted in the Commission report, the ISF can bring greater security to the provinces in the near-term, but neither the Iraqi armed forces nor the Iraqi police forces can provide security and stability without significant coalition assistance. The Iraqi armed forces are growing more able to combat Iraq's internal threats, and over time they will be able to take on more responsibility for daily combat operations. If the ISF continue to progress as they have during the last year, the Commission believes that the coalition could being adjusting its forces, realigning them and re-tasking them to more of a ``strategic overwatch'' posture, beginning as soon as early 2008. 3. Senator Bayh. General Jones, what timeline would that transfer take place? General Jones. See answer above. SECTARIANISM 4. Senator Bayh. General Jones, can sectarianism be rooted out of the security forces absent a broader political reconciliation between Iraqi sects? General Jones. The Commission emphasized in its written report and in its testimony before Congress that the most important step toward progress in Iraq is a political reconciliation process led by the Government of Iraq. While the Iraqi armed forces and police services have the potential to help reduce sectarian violence, these forces reflect the society from which they are drawn. Absent a political reconciliation process, it is unlikely that the ISF will be immune to sectarianism. SUPPORT 5. Senator Bayh. General Jones, what would happen to the Iraqi army and police if U.S. forces were not providing the backbone of logistic, transport, and equipment support? General Jones. In its report, the Commission concluded that the Iraqi armed forces are becoming increasingly effective and are capable of assuming greater responsibility for internal security. It also concluded that while the Iraqi police are improving, this progress is not occurring at a rate sufficient to meet their essential security responsibilities. In the near-term, neither the Iraqi armed forces nor the Iraqi police forces can operate independently or provide security over time without relying on coalition forces for combat support and combat service support. 6. Senator Bayh. General Jones, how do coalition and American strategies differ in terms of providing combat support and combat service support assistance to the ISF? General Jones. During its trips to Iraq, the Commission did not observe significant differences among members of the coalition in terms of how forces provided combat support and combat service support assistance to the ISF. 7. Senator Bayh. General Jones, is the United States in danger of providing too much of a crutch to the ISF in terms of logistical, communications, and transportation assistance? General Jones. In its written report, the Commission did note specifically that both the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi police forces need to develop functioning logistics and maintenance systems. The Commission observed that in some areas coalition experts may be pushing the Iraqis toward solutions that are more complex and elaborate than is necessary. 8. Senator Bayh. General Jones, how can we help ensure that this doesn't happen? General Jones. Identifying the tipping point between assistance and dependency is a challenge, particularly when the presence or absence of coalition assistance can make or break ISF participation in actual operations. The Commission observed that in many instances, coalition forces are sensitive to the dangers of dependency and are working closely with ISF to help them become self-sufficient. For instance, when the Commission visited the Baghdad Police College, leaders of the school asked coalition representatives to reconsider their decision to terminate the coalition's contract for ``life support'' services in November 2007, but coalition representatives held fast and reiterated the need for the Police College to become self-reliant. In the area of logistics, where development of functioning Iraqi systems is particularly important, the Commission recommends that the coalition work with ISF to develop an ``Iraqi solution'' that gets the job done to an adequate level, even if that solution does not result in optimal efficiency and speed. IRAQI SPECIAL FORCES 9. Senator Bayh. General Jones, why have the Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) been so much more successful than other components of the ISF? General Jones. The ISOF have been more successful than other components of the ISF for several reasons. The determining factor in ISOF's success has been the ability of U.S. Army Special Forces since 2003 to continuously exercise their specialty of training foreign counterparts, building trust through repeated tours, shared operations and hardship, and carefully selecting operations that build the capabilities and confidence of Iraqi units. Foreign internal defense and force development-force multiplication have for 50 years been an Army SOF mission set; and this mission set has been executed to the best of their ability in Iraq. The coalition, working and living closely with ISOF, has been able to ensure that ISOF is capable of missions and tasks other Iraqi forces are not--including logistics and maintenance. The ``student to teacher'' ratio allows the coalition to focus on a range of tasks that trainers involved with the regular Iraqi Army cannot. Also, members of the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group and 10th Special Forces Groups are back in Iraq on their fifth or even sixth tour, rotating in and out of country every 7 months and providing remarkable continuity in building long-term relationships with Iraqi counterparts. This has also allowed U.S. Army SOF to build up a strong junior officer and noncommissioned officer corps in ISOF, through continued mentoring and instruction. Resident U.S. Army Special Forces Teams assigned to ISOF live with, train, provide combat enablers, accompany on operations, and provide a continual U.S. Army Special Forces presence and commitment to the success of ISOF. This has created a Special Forces coalition effort with shared hardships, operational time, soldier and leader bonding, and exposure during combat operations. Because of the relatively small size of the ISOF--at present, a single brigade--its leaders are able to cull the recruit pool. In a smaller group, it is also easier to inculcate a shared culture of national service and pride. ISOF not only have strong capabilities, but they have confidence in their capabilities. U.S. Army SOF have put into place an operational paradigm of detailed planning, rehearsal, combat operations, after action discussions, and training again to address any shortfalls. 10. Senator Bayh. General Jones, why are they so much farther ahead of the Army? Is it due to the small size of the force? General Jones. The response to question number nine explains why the ISOF are in many cases ahead of the Iraqi Army in their development. In brief, ISOF training began in 2003 and there has been remarkable continuity in this effort, including the rotation in and out of country of the same U.S. Army SOF teams. Unlike the military training teams working with the Iraqi Army, the U.S. trainers working with the ISOF consistently fight alongside Iraqis and share the same living spaces. Moreover, the ratio of U.S. trainers to Iraqi special operations soldiers is higher than it is for the military training teams working with the Iraqi Army because the overall size of the ISOF is much smaller than that of the Iraqi Army. 11. Senator Bayh. General Jones, who is the force comprised of and what is their training? Who are their trainers? General Jones. The ISOF is the operational component of the Iraqi Counterterrorism Command. The ISOF is a brigade-size force composed of approximately 1,500 soldiers: a counterterrorism battalion, a commando battalion, a support battalion, and a special reconnaissance unit. The ISOF is trained by U.S. Army Special Operations Forces (5th and 10th Groups), as outlined above in more detail. Their training is mostly in direct action missions against targets in semi-permissive and non-permissive urban environments. They train continuously in a ``shoot house''--an indoor tactical shooting range that mimics an urban housing complex and allows soldiers to practice forced entry and marksmanship, even under pitch-dark conditions (using night vision equipment). A key component in developing an Iraqi counterterrorism capability is the ongoing effort to double the number of soldiers in the ISOF. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, this expansion will include an additional commando battalion with forward-based commando companies in Basra, Mosul, and Al Asad. 12. Senator Bayh. General Jones, how can lessons learned with ISF Special Forces translate into better successes for the Army and National Police? General Jones. Translating best practices and lessons learned from Special Forces to regular forces is a challenge even for U.S. forces. The best lesson to draw from the ISOF experience is that Iraqis can take the lead and operate at a high level of proficiency. ISOF are among the best special forces in the Middle East, and that is testament to what Iraqis can accomplish when provided the right training, equipping, and leadership development. Many of the best practices in training that the U.S. Special Forces have applied to ISOF have already been transferred in some measure to the regular forces through Military Training Teams and Police Training Teams. ______ [Annex: The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8601.153 [Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the committee adjourned.]