[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8898-H8903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ/MILITARY/RESERVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from
[[Page H8899]]
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2003, the United States invaded
Iraq against the broadest international opposition I had ever seen.
President Bush remarked the coalition invaded; yet of the troops in
combat theater, 94 percent were Americans.
Then on May 1 of this year, George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief,
flew onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, after circling 30
minutes outside the San Diego shipyards as the ship approached shore,
dressed in a flight suit, to announce that major hostilities were over.
The battle of Iraq, he said, is one victory on a war on terror that
began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.
That is what the President said. But now 5 months later, more U.S.
citizens have died in theater than before the President declared
victory. Our National Guard and Reserve forces are experiencing their
longest deployments in U.S. history, with the Department of Defense
extending their orders every day, and indeed today announcing more
call-ups.
As of September 9, 2003, according to Department of Defense
officials, approximately 148,000 U.S. forces are in Iraq in support of
combat operations. There are also 21,700 non-U.S. coalition forces from
29 countries in Iraq. There are 172,362 Guard and Reserve soldiers on
active duty during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the majority of those
serving in the Army, 108,000.
America's Guard and Reserve forces are being sent to Iraq for record-
breaking deployments. It is obvious that the war in Iraq is not
proceeding as we were originally led to believe and longer troop
deployments in theater have been necessary. But that is still no reason
to turn our National Guard and Military Reserve into something they
were never intended to be, active duty forces. Unfortunately, this is
what is happening.
At the beginning of September, the Department of Defense extended the
tours of duty for Guard and Reservists to 1 year. Because of the
dynamic situation in theater, one Army official said, asking he not be
identified by name, ``We had to take a look at our overseas forces to
make sure we were maximizing their deployment opportunity.''
What possible dynamic situation could he be referring to? Could it be
the fact that since President Bush announced that hostilities in Iraq
were over that in fact 164 U.S. soldiers have been killed compared to
the 138 who lost their lives before May 1? Over 1,240 have been
injured.
In our foolhardy rush to war, this administration clearly missed the
mark. By relying on faulty intelligence, an utterly ill-conceived
notion of Iraqi resistance and the total lack of an exit strategy, our
brave servicemen and women are being placed in harm's way to face a new
guerilla-style warfare. Active duty forces have been focused in Iraq,
which the President says is the front in the battle on terrorism; yet
most people know that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers did not come
from Iraq; they came from Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban is now regrouping in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and
Afghanistan is a teetering tinderbox. More U.S. troops are being called
to Afghanistan. Madrassas across the Islamic world turn out hate-
mongering acolytes daily. And the Israeli-Palestinian killing fields
have never been so bloody. So what state of mind would compel a
President to say it is over, and why would he define the front as Iraq?
My primary concern this evening are those who are dying, in our Armed
Forces and the innocent bystanders in the Middle East and central Asia.
On ``Meet the Press,'' before the war, Vice President Cheney told Tim
Russert, ``I really do believe the war, that we will be greeted as
liberators. There is no question that they want to get rid of Saddam
Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we
come to do that.''
It is inconceivable that the administration could commit our brave
men and women to battle with such a flawed perception of Iraqi
sentiment. The fact is our troops are being shot at instead of welcomed
with open arms. And when they are not being shot at, they are being
price-gouged by profiteers because the administration has not
adequately provided for our troops, ranging from telephone service to
goods and supplies to even Internet access.
{time} 2145
Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents tells me that troops are having
to ask family members to send them cash in one-dollar-bill increments,
so they can pay to call their families back home by going to Iraqi
establishments to make phone calls stateside. It costs them $1 a
minute, our troops, the people who are putting their lives on the line.
To me, that is totally unacceptable.
And if they cannot afford $1 a minute, they are being told you can
pay $3 an hour to use e-mail. The problem is the lines are so long,
they cannot wait to do it. The administration has asked Congress for
$87 billion more to fund nation-building in Iraq. Let me ask where has
the $79 billion that was voted on last year gone? We cannot get reports
back to the Congress line item by line item on where that money has
been expended.
Why can our troops not make free phone calls without having to pay $1
a minute to an Iraqi citizen. Dozens of tales like this tell me that
military morale will become lower in Iraq. Yes, our men and women are
gutting it out, and we are proud of them, but it did not have to be
this way. Here are quotes from soldiers deployed and their families. A
letter I received on June 24 from a soldier stationed in Iraq, ``If
morale was any lower, this soldier, my mother's son, would have taken
his own life a week ago. There ain't nothing you can do but read the
sorrow through my pen. I hope between us something can be done to
alleviate some stupid mistakes the Army has unraveled on us.''
Another letter from a soldier reads, ``Mom, things here have just hit
a new low. Go ahead, have a seat. Here is a small list of things going
on here. Our deployment papers were cancelled before we left, but they
still sent us. Nobody knew our unit was overseas until our tent burned
down in Kuwait. We have enough bulletproof plates for half of our
battery, front and back during the day. They give us one day's supply
of water, and expect it to last 3 days. We receive mail once a week,
Wednesdays, plus they lost two bags of mail. If morale was any lower,
your son would not be writing you any more. What is happening?''
Another letter from a mother of a servicewoman writes, ``We bravely
watched as our soldiers left, not knowing what the future held. And
surprisingly enough, we could not believe one of the first requirements
from us would be to send such a basic item as toilet paper. Whenever I
pack my care packages, I would use rolls of toilet paper to fill out
the box. For anyone who says there is toilet paper in a soldier's MRE,
don't be fooled. There are six squares, four inches by four inches. If
you save all day, you will have 18 squares to handle your problem. Oh,
and by the way, pray you do not get diarrhea. We sent our son mosquito
netting, calcium and snacks. Today, we continue with our packages and
ignore the cost of shipping. An average package costs around $15 to
send. Two a week, 4 weeks a month averages about $120 a month. Oh, by
the way, that does not include the cost of what goes into the package.
``Many families took considerable pay cuts when their soldier left,
and today almost 7 months to the day, there are still families that are
not getting the full benefits their soldier is entitled to. As families
struggle to juggle all of their responsibilities at home, our soldiers
are forced to struggle without many of the basics needed to survive.
They are in heat averaging around 120 degrees with full gear on. Every
day they face the risk of being shot. What is an issue and seems to be
the most puzzling thing to me is their treatment by regular Army. In
most cases, they are considered second-class citizens because they are
Guard. As families, we go through the Guard ranks to inquire about help
with this problem. We are told that the National Guard cannot help us
because our soldiers are regular Army now. Well, if they are regular
Army, why are they treated as if they are National Guard? And there is
the ever-changing return date. Our soldiers have been deployed twice in
2 years, so we wait and we pray for a return date.
[[Page H8900]]
``Every time our leadership appears on the news and without blinking
an eye, they say our soldiers' orders are for 1 year, and that is what
they should expect, but how can we keep up the morale of our soldiers
without a real date of return to look forward to?''
Mr. Speaker, this week the Bush administration has asked Congress for
another $87 billion in American taxpayer money for the President's
nation-building experiment in Iraq. What I want to know as one Member
is why the troops from our region do not have the supplies and do they
not have the services we should be affording them with the billions we
have already sent?
Yes, our Nation is being asked to do nation-building in Iraq. In
fact, it is the mother of all nation-building experiments. Eighty-seven
billion dollars in request is more than we send around the world for
all of our foreign assistance in any year. In addition to that, it is
more than we spend on all veterans' costs in a year, plus all of our
housing programs around the country, plus all of the costs of NASA,
plus all of the costs of transportation, plus all of the costs of
environmental cleanup, all rolled together.
It is an enormous amount of money. How ironic that the President, who
was a candidate in 2000, bitterly denounced the practice of nation-
building, but he is now engaged in the largest nation-building
experiment in history. Make no mistake, this is an extremely expensive
experiment in nation-building, especially when we stop to consider that
the United States Government is already digging a hole of debt deeper
and deeper every day.
Those $87 billion being requested will come out of the Social
Security trust fund. Why? Because the fact is there is no more money to
go around. We have huge deficits, and so we are going to have to borrow
the $87 billion from somewhere and there is only one place to get it.
This is the most fiscally irresponsible administration that I have ever
seen.
Now, how much is $87 billion? I do not think the American people
really realize how huge this request is. Eighty-seven billion dollars
equals $3,480 for every man, woman and child in Iraq. How would you
like to get a check for $3,480? Eighty-seven billion dollars is more
than all of the State budget deficits across this country combined.
Our States are raising taxes and cutting programs like education with
college tuition going up, cutting jobless benefits, Medicaid, library
services, social services. Our States are choking from a lack of tax
revenue because of unemployment in this Bush economy. We have $87
billion for Iraq, but not even half of that for our States in this
union? Eighty-seven billion dollars more is double what we are
investing here in homeland security right here in the U.S.A.
I can travel to any community in my district and hear from first
responders, fire departments, police departments, emergency personnel,
and port security who are desperate for funds to protect their
communities. I hear from our personnel from the Port of Toledo who need
funds to upgrade the security of our port, and that is true of every
port in America. Eighty-seven billion dollars is eight times what we
invest in Pell Grants for our college students. Ask any middle-class
family about economic anxiety, and they will tell you they worry about
job security, economic security and pension security. And they worry
about how to pay for their kids' college.
Our young people leave college with tens of thousands of dollars of
debt. Some of them will be in debt for the rest of their lives just to
pay for college. The United States Government just does not have $87
billion laying around. We have budget deficits as far as the eye can
see. Our next Federal budget deficit is probably in the neighborhood of
half a trillion dollars, the largest in the history of the Republic.
Where does it stop? The administration has no idea. We had a
subcommittee hearing today and heard testimony from Ambassador Paul
Bremer and also from General Abizaid, both men who live the words
honor, duty and country. They do not know, they do not have a clue what
it is going to cost our Nation to stabilize Iraq.
This additional $87 billion is only a down payment until next year
when the money runs out. The ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked them for a ballpark figure, how much
ultimately? They could not provide an answer. It is an open-ended
commitment. They even said during the hearing, well, the waste water
systems of Iraq are so bad that only 6 percent of the people are
accommodated.
I thought, oh, all right, so the $400 million that might be needed
for waste water treatment in Toledo, Ohio will have to be put on hold
because we have to transfer those dollars there, even though the waste
water treatment system in my home community is spewing pollution into
Lake Erie every day. There are some important trade-offs we have to
think about.
We have no exit strategy militarily, and that is a violation of the
Powell Doctrine, in case anybody remembers, and we have no exit
strategy fiscally. Iraq is a fiscal black hole becoming bigger every
day. We can pour as much money as we want down that hole, and we have
no idea, no idea where it ends.
I have never seen pallets of U.S. cash being flown to a country and
handed out on the streets, but that is exactly what we are doing in
Iraq. One of my questions is as money, as U.S. dollars are being
distributed to Iraqis to pay their pensions, to pay them for doing
police work, and I am not sure what all this money is going for, why is
it being distributed in dollars? Why are dinars, their home currency,
not being used? What is this business of pallets of U.S. dollars being
flown over? We have flown over plane loads of $20 bills to hand out to
people. In my life, I have never seen this happen. We have seen rice
and flour and beans being handed out to hungry people. We have never
seen pallets of money being distributed. It looks like what some people
might call street money, walking around money. Maybe if we hand out
enough $20 bills, the Iraqi people will suddenly fall in love with
America and with our confused policy of nation-building.
How strange that a neoconservative administration and Republican
Congress, who are hostile to social programs such as Medicare and
Social Security and students loans, would adopt a policy of handouts to
the Iraqi people. Are we creating a Middle East version of a welfare
state where people get money for doing nothing? While we cut benefits
for Americans, we hand out $20 bills to Iraqis? Is this the legacy of
the Bush policy? Free money for Iraqis, is this really what the
administration wants?
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is charging our troops in the
Middle East in Iraq $1 a minute to call home to their families, yet
they are handling out $20 bills in Iraq. Is this really U.S. policy in
Iraq? It is happening. Families in my district are sending one dollar
bills to their loved ones. One mother sent $75 in one dollar bills, put
on the postage and sent it over there so her son could call home. At
the same time, our government is handing out $20 bills to Iraqis.
Is it too much to ask that our government provide a seamless
communication system for our troops in theater, including Guard and
Reserve forces, without whom we could not conduct this campaign, who
are experiencing the longest deployments in U.S. history, and their
families are missing them? So it goes in the war on terrorism.
Yesterday, President Bush said that Iraq is the major front in the
war on terrorism. But on Friday, he said that Saddam Hussein had
nothing to do with 9/11. The administration cannot seem to get its
story straight. Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?
President Bush says no. Vice President Cheney says yes. Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld says no. Paul Wolfowitz did not appear. Secretary of
State Powell seems to be laying kind of low lately. The administration
policy is confused about where the front is. The President says the
front is Iraq, but let us look at the facts. Fifteen of the 19
hijackers were not from Iraq, they were from Saudi Arabia.
{time} 2200
Now we see the Taliban forces are regrouping and fighting again in
Afghanistan. Afghanistan is far from over, far from lockdown. Madrassas
in Pakistan continue to churn out thousands of hate-filled young men
each year. And the Israeli-Palestinian killing fields are bloodier than
ever.
[[Page H8901]]
Think about this. Think about where the front is. When President Bush
nominated Texan Phillip Carrol, the former chief executive officer of
Shell Oil, to oversee oil operations in post-war Iraq, was it merely
coincidental that over one dozen Shell gas stations in Pakistan were
bombed by terrorists? Think about it. Where is the front? Yet President
Bush insists that Iraq is the frontlines in the war against terrorism.
More troops from Ohio have just been deployed to Afghanistan because
of uprisings in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Where
is the front in this war? The President insists he needs another $87
billion to clean up the mess in Iraq and build a stable nation, but the
American people are deeply skeptical about where the front is and the
administration policy in Iraq. And for good reason. Not only is there
no coherent plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, there are serious
doubts about where the front in terrorism really lies, and there is no
clear road map, no exit strategy. Now more of our Reserve and Guard
forces are being called up, without the ones currently in theater being
given a certain rotation date out. It appears to me that the
administration is making up their plan as they go along.
In terms of the cost of all this in the President's $87 billion new
request on top of the billions and billions already appropriated last
year, Secretary Rumsfeld told us back in January of this year that we
would not have to do this. In fact, his words were, ``Well, the Office
of Management and Budget has come up with a number that's something
under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S.
burden and how much would be with other countries is an open
question.'' But he said, ``I don't know that there is much
reconstruction to do.'' He said that in April of 2003. The story must
have changed because now we are being asked for $87 billion more.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, ``There's a lot of
money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and
it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people . . . and on a rough
recollection,'' he said, ``the oil revenues of that country could bring
in between 50 and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years
. . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' I think the question I would ask
there is, then, why are we appropriating hard U.S. dollars? Why are we
not making loans that can then be repaid back once the oil fields begin
to operate again?
Secretary Rumsfeld told us back in the fall of last year, ``If you
worry about just the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different
situation from Afghanistan because Iraq has oil.'' And again the
Secretary said in March of this year, ``I don't believe that the United
States has the responsibility for reconstruction because in a sense
reconstruction funds can come from those various sources such as frozen
assets, oil revenues, and a variety of other things including the Oil
for Food program, which has a very substantial number of billions of
dollars in it.''
Clearly, this administration really does not know what it is doing.
Secretary Powell, in answer to my question this year in an
appropriations hearing prior to the invasion of Iraq, assured me that
the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as a liberator, because I
had been questioning him, ``Mr. Secretary, how do we know when we are a
liberator versus when we are an occupier?'' Secretary Powell, with all
due respect, was wrong.
Vice President Cheney said the same thing on TV on ``Meet the Press''
in March when asked by Tim Russert, and I will repeat Mr. Russert's
question: ``If your analysis is not correct, Mr. Vice President, and
we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors and the Iraqis begin
to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people
are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant
American casualties?'' And the Vice President responded, ``Well, I
don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do
believe that we will be greeted as liberators . . . there is no
question that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will
welcome as liberators the United States when we come to that.''
I think Vice President Cheney was wrong. At best, Iraq is a cauldron
of competing interests, much as it has been since it was created by the
British Empire. At worst, the Bush administration has succeeded only in
creating another failed state that can serve as a staging ground for
more international terror war.
Before another $87 billion in cash is directed at Iraq, we had better
get clear answers on how the current situation can yield a governing
structure that is representative. Of the 25 members the United States
has appointed to Iraq's governing council, 11 are exiles, 11 of 25.
These are people who had been living outside of Iraq for some 3 and 4
decades. That means 44 percent of the people on the governing council
were not even there, some for decades. What do we really know about
these people on the governing council? How representative are they of
the Iraqi people? Indeed, whose interests do these 25 represent?
We should ask how can exiles be more representative of Iraqis than
those living in the country now, those who endured the suffering of the
Hussein regime. Indeed, many new sources have reported the current
president of that council, appointed by the United States Department of
Defense, Ahmad Chalabi, was a convicted felon who embezzled over $350
million and counting in Jordan, who was then exiled, escaped in the
trunk of a car, and subsequently took up residence in London for years.
He had been associated with the former monarchy of Iraq. So whom does
he represent?
In the Record tonight I am going to place two compelling news stories
about who is this man, how democratically was he chosen? I am
submitting for the Record also the names of all persons on the
governing council of Iraq. The world community should assess them and
their ability to represent the people of Iraq. From my study of the
list, it appears Iraq's indigenous Shia majority is seriously
underrepresented as is its Sunni minority. Tragically, one of the
council's Shia members is the brother of the famed Ayatollah Hakim, who
was just assassinated. And another Shia representative, Aquila al
Hashimi, a woman, was shot a few days ago but survived.
With two thirds of Iraq's population composed of Shia Muslims, but
only about a third of the council comprised of Iraqi Shias who actually
have been living in the country, one can question how representative
the governing council is. Further, the Sunni minority's
underrepresentation is worrisome as well. Somehow the world community
and our Arab friends must weigh in on creating a governing structure
that is more representative and moves Iraq toward free elections as
expeditiously as possible. After all, the Iraqi people are a literate
people. An unrepresented governing council cannot possibly succeed in
transferring democratic principles to Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding this evening, the path forward to me is
clear. Congress should not give a blank check to the Bush
administration on its $87 billion request for more funds for Iraq. We
must demand clear reporting of all expenditures to date in Iraq and
demand clear explanations of why more appropriated dollars are
necessary as opposed to loans that can be repaid as Iraq's economy
recovers. We must clarify the front in this war on terrorism and not
lose focus on other places where terrorism is spawning. A major
diversion of funds to Iraq can indeed draw attention and resources from
equally tender places where terrorists are spawning. For example, the
deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation feeds growing
terrorism across the region. Indeed, it is its clarion call. The
continuation of the madrassas schools that foment violence by young men
continue to graduate thousands. There is no money in this budget to
deal with that festering problem.
And Afghanistan is far from buttoned down. Importantly, we must do
more for our troops and provide them with what is necessary to complete
their mission and return them home soon. We must assure the
administration provides them with clear rotation out schedules. And we
must enlist the broader world community in assuming a larger role in
the massive task of rebuilding. We must urge the composition of the
governing council be more representative, indeed more democratic, in
order that a transition to a more orderly society through free
elections can occur soon. Doing any less
[[Page H8902]]
will not yield an enduring victory for freedom in Iraq.
MEMBERS OF THE IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizational
Name Shiite/Sunni, etc. affiliation Rotating presidency Occupation Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abd al-Aziz Al Hakim............... Shiite................ Political leader of Yes.................. ..................... .....................
the Supreme Council
for Islamic
Revolution.
Abdul Karim Mohammedawi............ Shiite................ Guerrilla affiliated ..................... ..................... ``Prince of the
with Supreme Council Marshes''--led
for Islamic opposition in the
Revolution. Southern Marsh
Region.
Adnan Pachachi..................... Sunni................. ...................... Yes.................. ..................... Served as Foreign
Minister before the
Baath Party came
into power. 80 years
old.
Ahmad al-Barak..................... Shiite................ General Coordinator ..................... ..................... Worked with UN
for the Human Rights programs in Iraq
Association of Babel. since 1991 in the
Foreign Ministry.
Ahmad Chalabi...................... Shiite................ Leads Iraqi National Yes.................. ..................... Exiled for the nearly
Congress. 45 years. Educated
at MIT. Convicted of
embezzlement in
Jordan.
Aquila al-Hashimi.................. Shiite................ ...................... ..................... Diplomat. Holds Woman. Led the Iraqi
doctorate in French delegation to the
literature. New York donor's
conference. Worked
in the Foreign
Ministry under
Hussein.
Dara Noor Alzin.................... Sunni Kurd............ ...................... ..................... Judge................ Served on the Court
of Appeal until
Hussein imprisoned
him for ruling
against the
government.
Ezzedine Salim..................... Shiite................ Head of the Dawa ..................... ..................... .....................
Islamic Party.
Ghazi al-Yawar..................... Sunni................. ...................... ..................... Civil engineer....... Had been living in
Saudi Arabia where
he was president of
Hicap Technology.
Hamid al-Moussa.................... Shiite................ Secretary of Iraqi ..................... Economist............ .....................
Communist Party.
Ibrahim Jafari..................... Shiite................ Spokesman for the Yes--first to take ..................... Party was banned in
Islamic Dawa Party. post. 1980 and he fled the
country.
Iyad Allawi........................ Shiite................ Secretary-General of Yes.................. ..................... Exiled.
the Iraqi National
Accord.
Jalal Talabani..................... Sunni Kurd............ Leader of the Yes.................. Lawyer............... .....................
Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan.
Mahmoud Othman..................... Sunni Kurd............ Founder of Kurdish ..................... Independent Kurdish Lived in London.
Socialist Party. politician.
Massoud Barzani.................... Sunni Kurd............ Leader of the Yes.................. ..................... Commands tens of
Kurdistan Democracy thousands of armed
Party. militia fighters.
Mohammed Bahr Uloom................ Shiite................ ...................... Yes.................. Cleric............... Fled Iraq in 1991.
Headed charitable
clinic in London.
Considered pro-US.
Mohsin Abdul Hamid................. Sunni................. Secretary-General of Yes.................. ..................... Author of more than
the Iraqi Islamic 30 books on the
Party. interpretation of
the Koran.
Muwaffaq al-Ruba................... Shiite................ Dawa Party............ ..................... Physician and author. Human rights
activist. Educated
in UK.
Nasir al-Chadirchy................. Sunni................. Leads the National ..................... Lawyer and Lived in Iraq
Democratic Party. businessman. throughout most of
Saddam's regime.
Raja al-Khuza'i.................... Shiite................ ...................... ..................... Heads maternity Woman. Studied and
hospital in lived in the UK
Diwaniyah. during the 60's and
70's. Returned to
Iraq in 1977.
Salaheddine Bahaaddin.............. Sunni Kurd............ Founder of Kurdistan ................... ..................... .....................
Islamic Union.
Samir Shakir Mahmoud............... Sunni................. ...................... ..................... Writer and .....................
Entrepreneur.
Sondul Chapouk..................... Turkmen............... Directs the Iraqi ..................... Engineer and teacher. Woman. Represents the
Women's Organization. Turkmen community.
Wael Abdulatif..................... Shiite................ Governor of Basra..... ..................... Lawyer and judge..... .....................
Yonodam Kanna...................... Assyrian Christian.... Secretary-General of ..................... Engineer............. Served as
the Assyrian Transportation the
Democratic Movement. first Kurdish
regional assembly
and as Trade
Minister.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Spelling of names may vary.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 20, 2003]
Listening to the Wrong Iraqi
(By David L. Phillips)
Critics say the Bush administration had no plan for postwar
Iraq. In fact, before the war, hundreds of Iraqis were
involved in discussions with Washington about securing and
stabilizing their country after military action. Today's
difficulties are not the result of a lack of foresight, but
rather of poor judgment by civilians at the Pentagon who
counted too much on the advice of one exile--Ahmad Chalabi of
the Iraqi National Congress--and ignored the views of other,
more reliable Iraqi leaders.
Last year the State Department, joined by 17 other federal
agencies, put together the Future of Iraq Project, which was
supposed to involve Iraqis from the country's many ethnic and
religious factions, including representatives from the exile
community. The project had working groups on topics ranging
from agriculture to the economy to new government structure.
I was adviser to the democratic principles working group,
which the Iraqis called the ``mother of all working groups.''
Anticipating many of the problems playing out in Iraq today,
participants worked on plans for maintaining security,
restoring services and making the transition to democracy.
On security, the participants envisioned a key role for
reformed elements of the Iraqi Army. They insisted on the
dissolution of agencies involved in atrocities--like military
intelligence and the secret police (the Mukhabarat)--and
proposed setting up a body to investigate war crimes, prepare
a ``most wanted'' list, and prosecute war criminals. They
envisioned a military council vetting and then taking steps
to professionalize the armed forces.
Representatives of the Iraqi National Congress, however,
claimed to control a vast underground network that would rise
in support of coalition forces to assist security and law
enforcement. They insisted that the entire Iraqi Army be
immediately disbanded. The Pentagon agreed, in the end
leading many Iraqi soldiers who might otherwise have been
willing to work with the coalition to take up arms against
it. Mr. Chalabi's promised network didn't materialize, and
the resulting power vacuum contributed to looting, sabotage
and attacks against American forces.
The working group also emphasized winning hearts and minds
of average Iraqis, largely through improving living
conditions. It urged cooperation with Iraq's existing
technocracy to ensure the uninterrupted flow of water and
electricity. Though civil servants and professionals for the
most part were required to be Baath party members, the
working group maintained that not all Baathists were war
criminals. The group proposed so-called lustration laws to
identify and remove officials who had committed. atrocities.
On the other hand, the Iraqi National Congress was adamant
that all former Baath party members were inherently complicit
in war crimes. Siding with Mr. Chalabi, the coalition
provisional authority decided that the Baath party would be
banned, and dismissed many party members from their jobs. As
a result millions of Iraqis are still without electricity and
fresh water, necessities they could at least count on under
the criminal regime of Saddam Hussein.
Most important, the working group insisted that all Iraqis
needed a voice in the transition to a stable, democratic
Iraq. Participants agreed that exiles alone could not speak
for all Iraqis, and endorsed discussions with leaders inside
and outside the country as the basis for constituting a
legitimate and broadly representative transitional structure.
Before the London opposition conference in December, Mr.
Chalabi lobbied the United States to appoint a government in
exile, dominated by his partisans, to be installed in Baghdad
at the moment of liberation. Concerned about legitimacy, the
Bush administration ultimately rejected this proposal. Still,
Mr. Chalabi's supporters in Washingotn--particularly
civilians in the Pentagon--relentlessly promoted him as
Iraq's future leader. Exceptional treatment included
airlifting Mr. Chalabi and his American-trained 700-man
paramilitary force to Nasariya in the middle of the war. He
is now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, serving as
its president this month.
Why such devotion to a man whose prewar advice proved so
misguided? For one thing, Mr. Chalabi has shown himself
amenable to those in Washington who want to reshape the
entire Middle East. They envision Iraq as a springboard for
eliminating the Baath party in Syria, undermining the mullahs
in Iran and enhancing American power across the region.
There are benefits to spreading democracy in the Middle
East, but hegemonic ambitions are sabotaging the shorter-term
project of turning Iraq into a viable state. The other day, a
Sunni participant in the democratic principles working group
told me he is reluctant to speak up about how its
recommendations have been ignored lest criticism discourage
the coalition. In frustration, he asked: ``So this is
liberation?''
The Iraqi people have suffered a generation of tyranny and
deserve better. To succeed in Iraq, and be constructive
elsewhere in the world, the Bush administration must listen
to all voices, not just those that are ideologically
compatible. Liberation cannot be imposed.
____
[From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2003]
Iraq Council Head Shifts to Position at Odds With U.S.
(By Patrick E. Tyler and Felicity Barringer)
Baghdad, Iraq, Sept. 22.--Ahmad Chalabi, the president of
Iraq's interim government,
[[Page H8903]]
is in New York this week to press alternatives to the Bush
administration's occupation policy in postwar Iraq, he and
his aides say. In the process, he may complete a personal
transformation from protege of Pentagon conservatives to
Iraqi nationalist with a loud, independent voice.
In an interview today in New York, Mr. Chalabi professed
gratitude to the Bush administration for toppling Saddam
Hussein's government, but his specific proposals were
directly at odds with the policies Washington is pursuing in
Baghdad and at the United Nations. He demanded that the Iraqi
Governing Council be given at least partial control of the
powerful finance and security ministries, and rejected the
idea of more foreign troops coming to Iraq.
Mr. Chalabi's strategy, he says, is to get from the United
Nations General Assembly sovereign status for the unelected
25-member Governing Council. This move to lobby other nations
for a swift transfer of some sovereignty is going down poorly
in Washington, according to the Iraqi leader's aides.
Mr. Chalabi has sent representatives to France and Germany
to discuss putting Iraqis back in charge under a new United
Nations mandate that would end American control of the
occupation, even if American troops remain in Iraq. His aides
say he also plans to tell the Senate that the United Nations
could save billions of dollars on Iraqs reconstruction by
allowing an Iraqi administration to handle it.
``People in D.C. are accusing us of `conspiring with
America's enemies,' '' one aide said, describing the reports
of his advance men on the mood in Washington.
Mr. Chalabi insists that he is not changing diplomatic
sides. ``The last thing we are going to do is fall into the
trap of France,'' he said this weekend. He said that he was
looking forward to seeing the president at a reception Mr.
Bush is giving for visiting government leaders on Tuesday
evening, and that his strategy was intended to make it easier
to maintain the American presence in Iraq.
``I am fighting to keep Americans in Iraq,'' Mr. Chalabi
said before leaving Baghdad. ``We are afraid that they will
lose their resolve and go home if the current situation
continues.''
Yet Mr. Chalabi's arrival in New York with a delegation
determined to advance the clock on sovereignty puts him and
the interim government he heads in direct confrontation with
Mr. Bush.
``We want to claim Iraq's seat at the United Nations,'' Mr.
Chalabi said today.
He also declared that ``we are not at cross purposes'' with
the Americans, but his words seemed so.
The United States is seeking a new United Nations
resolution that would help bring foreign troops into Iraq in
a newly constituted multinational force. At lease one major
potential troop donor, Pakistan, says it wants an invitation
from the Governing Council first.
``We cannot be expected to solicit foreign troops in
Iraq,'' Mr. Chalabi said. ``We cannot be expected to do
that.''
He said some aspects of governance should be handed over
immediately.
``They can start by putting Iraqis to be in joint control,
with the coalition, of Iraqi finances,'' he said. ``All of
these are measures that would demonstrate increasing
sovereignty in Iraq.'' Asked when, he replied, ``Right
away.''
He also sought an immediate role in commanding security
forces, saying, ``We think that internal security in Iraq
cannot be maintained unless Iraqis are far more involved than
they are now.''
A senior Bush administration official reiterated over the
weekend that ``we'll stay on the same schedule'' of keeping
Iraq under a strong American-British occupation while
proceeding with drafting a new Iraqi constitution, to be
followed by national elections sometime next year.
That extended debate over sovereignty and the end of the
occupation is part of a political struggle that neither side
feels it can afford to lose.
____________________