STATEMENT BY
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
PAUL WOLFOWITZ
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2003
Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee: One of the things that is
most important for troops facing danger on
the front lines is the knowledge that their
dedication and sacrifice is appreciated by
the people of America. On behalf of the men
and women who serve our country so
faithfully and so well, let me begin by
expressing gratitude to you, the Congress,
for the support that you have given our
Armed Forces.
The young men and women who
gave the ultimate sacrifice to liberate Iraq
are heroes, and we and the Iraqi people will
remember them as the heroes that they were
with profound gratitude. The best thing we
can do to honor their memory is to finish
the job they began and give the Iraqi people
the opportunity to build a free and
democratic country—a country that will be
forever indebted to the brave Americans who
liberated it.
I’ve traveled to Afghanistan
and Iraq, as have some of you, and I think
you’ll agree, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee, that the men and women of
America’s Armed Forces support this national
endeavor with the greatest pride, their very
best efforts, a clear understanding of their
mission, and the strongest possible
determination to win.
America: a Nation at War
Just two years removed from
the most brutal attack on our nation’s soil
since Pearl Harbor, we remain a nation at
war. Like World War II and the Cold War,
this war is fought on a global stage. And
like those previous conflicts, the stakes
are enormous and our very freedom is
threatened. However, we also need to
realize that this war is different from any
previous war.
When the time came to make a
choice, America took the fight to those who
would rob us and others of our freedom. We
acted decisively to keep gathering threats
from becoming even more deadly attacks on
the American people—because sitting back and
hoping we don’t get hit again is not a
strategy.
It will take more than
killing and capturing terrorists and
dismantling terrorist networks—as important
as that is. It will also require winning on
what could be called the second front of the
war on terror, what the President called
“building a just and peaceful world beyond
the war on terror,” particularly in the
Muslim world.
In the two years since
September 11th, there has been
measurable progress in the global arena in
rounding up terrorists, dismantling their
networks, and denying them the support and
sanctuary so important to their efforts. As
a result of active cooperation among some 90
countries, hundreds of terrorists have been
killed or captured and dozens of plots have
been broken up—some aimed at us here in the
United States, others aimed at our allies in
Europe or elsewhere around the world. As
the CIA has reported, although al Qaeda
retains many middle managers and foot
soldiers, its group of senior planners—those
who have bin Laden’s trust and the requisite
skills to organize and lead sophisticated
attacks, especially in an increasingly
hostile climate—are being whittled away.
The successes to date should not lull us
into a false sense of security or a belief
that the terrorist threat has been
defeated. We have made significant
progress, but we have a long way to go.
Just six months after the war
began in Iraq, there has also been
measurable progress on that front: We have
removed a sadistic tyrant, and liberated 23
million Iraqis from a republic of fear. The
killing fields and execution chambers are no
longer slaughtering innocents and the
genocide of the Marsh Arabs has been halted
while a remnant of that ancient people still
survives. And we have captured or killed
many of those who so brutally enforced the
regime’s oppression of the Iraqi people and
who made Iraq a sanctuary for terrorists.
This is not a war that’s
going to be won on defense. We need to kill
and capture terrorists on the streets of
Iraq just as we need to do it here in the
United States, just as we need to do it in
London and Paris and Jakarta and Riyadh, and
all over the globe.
During my trip to Iraq,
General Abizaid placed into larger
perspective the battle in Iraq, saying, "The
whole difficulty in the global war on
terrorism is that this is a phenomenon
without borders. And the heart of the
problem is in this particular region, and
the heart of the region happens to be Iraq.
If we can't be successful here, we won't be
successful in the global war on terrorism."
Success in Iraq, said the general, offers “a
chance, when you combine it with initiatives
in the Arab/Israeli theater and initiatives
elsewhere, to make life better, to bring
peace to an area where people are very, very
talented and resources are abundant,
especially here in Iraq."
We need to measure progress
in Iraq not by a standard of perfection but
by what is reasonable to expect five months
after the demise of an extraordinarily
sadistic dictatorship that tortured and
abused Iraq and its people for 35 years. We
should not compare Iraq today to what we
have achieved in this country after more
than two centuries. A more reasonable
standard would be to look to what the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe have
achieved in the 14 years since the Berlin
Wall came down. By that measure, Iraq has
come an extraordinary distance in just five
months—progress all the more remarkable
since a low-level war continues by people
who attack success in Iraq in order to
defeat us and bring back tyranny to Iraq.
As the President said on the
same day that he announced the end of major
combat operations, “We have difficult work
to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts
of that country that remain dangerous. We're
pursuing and finding leaders of the old
regime, who will be held to account for
their crimes.” And he added, “The
transition from dictatorship to democracy
will take time, but it is worth every
effort.”
In a relatively short time,
there have been strides in Iraq’s transition
to representative government. But we won’t
know for some time the full extent of what
we’ve achieved in Iraq. We won’t know,
among other things, the degree of democracy
that will develop in Iraq, the effects this
will have on the region as a whole, or the
final costs of removing the threat of the
Hussein regime.
These costs will be
substantial, as we have said from the
start. While none of us could predict the
future, no one ever claimed that waging the
war on terrorism would be easy or bloodless,
quick or cheap. No one ever suggested that
we should go it alone. No one should have
thought that winning the peace in Iraq would
be quick or easy. In fact, for some time,
we have been stressing just the opposite.
Fortunately, our planning
helped avert much damage to oil fields and
infrastructure. However, we still have to
face the damage done to Iraq’s
infrastructure—not mainly from war, but from
years of neglect and often deliberate
abuse. As Secretary Rumsfeld put it
recently: “Iraq was damaged by 30 years of
Saddam Hussein, with a Stalinist-like
economy, denying the people of that country
the money and the funds and the resources
and the investments that they could have
had.”
We embarked on this front of
the war on terror recognizing that the costs
and commitment would be considerable. But,
we also recognized that the risks and costs
of inaction far outweighed the costs of
action. Certainly two years removed from
9/11 is not so long a time for us to forget
that estimates of the economic cost of the
September 11th attacks on New
York City alone over a space of three years
would likely reach $100 billion. The cost
to the national economy in terms of lost
productivity, sales, jobs, airline revenue,
and countless other areas were estimated to
be hundreds of billions of dollars beyond
that. And, of course, the cost in human
lives, and the pain and suffering of so many
thousands of Americans who lost loved ones
that day can never be calculated.
In that context, we estimated
that the costs of inaction included:
-
The risk of
another disaster on the scale of 9/11 or
perhaps 10 or 100 times greater;
-
Continuation
of a status quo in the Middle East that
has bred terrorism over the last decades;
-
Continued
costs of containing Iraq, measured in
lives and dollars, and also in the
propaganda it provided Usama bin Laden and
the strain it placed on key regional
countries.
We knew
there were risks. But, on balance, we
considered that the risks of inaction were
much greater than the risks and costs of
action, even though the President recognized
the significant risks of action. These
included:
-
The
potential of a large war, with very heavy
American casualties;
-
The
potential for massive destruction of Iraqi
oil fields and accompanying environmental
catastrophe;
-
The
possibility of a large-scale humanitarian
crisis;
-
The
possibility of military intervention by
neighboring countries;
-
The
possibility of ethnic violence
particularly among Arabs, Kurds and
Turkoman in Northern Iraq;
-
The
possibility of anti-American religious
extremism particularly among the large
Shia population of Southern Iraq;
-
The
possibility of bloody and protracted urban
warfare in Baghdad or elsewhere;
-
The
possibility of Israel being drawn into the
war;
-
The possible
threats to friendly Arab governments;and
-
The possible
use of chemical or biological weapons.
Most of these terrible
outcomes were avoided, in part because of
the way we dealt with them. But no amount
of planning can make war predictable, much
less risk-free. We repeatedly said that
making accurate estimates of major combat
and recovery costs would be extremely
difficult—as difficult as estimating the
risks of continuing to treat terrorism as a
manageable international evil.
As the President said in his
recent address to the nation: “Our strategy
in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the
terrorists, enlisting the support of other
nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis
assume responsibility for their own defense
and their own future.
“First, we are taking direct
action against the terrorists in the Iraqi
theater, which is the surest way to prevent
future attacks on coalition forces and the
Iraqi people….
“Second, we are committed to
expanding international cooperation in the
recovery and security of Iraq, just as we
are in Afghanistan….
“Third, we are encouraging
the orderly transfer of sovereignty and
authority to the Iraqi people. Our
coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we
will depart as liberators.”
Helping
Win the War on Terror
To help
this nation finish what it has begun and
continue to victory in the war on terror,
I’m here today to ask for help in three
critical areas:
1. Obtaining
the appropriation and the authority to train
and equip foreign military forces; and,
2. Giving
us the flexibility to reduce the stress on
active duty end strength by making it easier
to convert military jobs to civilian jobs.
3. Supporting
the President’s request for adequate
resources to wage and win this war and
sending the message to friend and foe that
we have the will to finish the job.
Training and equipping foreign military
forces: In the Authorization Bill, we
asked the Congress to provide us with $200
million in authority to train and equip
foreign forces that are fighting alongside
our forces—and often in place of our forces.
Both the House and Senate deleted that
provision from the bill.
We need flexibility to
respond quickly to operational needs so we
can benefit from contributions that foreign
military forces could make—most critically
those in Iraq and Afghanistan and friendly
nations nearby. In some cases, however,
these forces are unable, or are limited in
their ability, to provide effective
assistance without additional equipment,
training, or funding. Currently, when we
try to assist these countries, we operate
with a patchwork of authorities whose gaps
constrain our overall efforts—gaps such as
dollar limitations, the ability to pay for
salaries of foreign military trainees, and
the pending expiration of authorities. The
language we are requesting would cover these
gaps, and would apply to Iraq, Afghanistan
and other countries in those regions.
General Abizaid and his
commanders have said repeatedly that not
only don’t they need more American troops,
they don’t want more
American troops. What they
do want is more international troops to
share the burden of providing stability
forces and to reduce the political liability
of a US-only occupation. What they need
most of all are Iraqi police and security
forces who are prepared to fight and die in
defense of a free Iraq.
Former New York City police
chief Bernard Kerik, who just completed four
months helping Iraqis rebuild their police
force, also favors empowering Iraqis over
sending in more American troops. He said:
“If you triple the number of coalition
forces, you’ll probably triple the attacks
on the troops. The future is not in the
military but in getting control back in the
hands of the Iraqi people.”
Currently we have more than
60,000 Iraqis serving with us in providing
security for their country, making Iraqis
the single largest member of the coalition
after the United States. These Iraqis are
fighting with us and taking casualties with
us.
Their numbers are made up of
roughly 40,000 members of the Iraqi police,
as well as members of the new Facility
Protection Service, the new Iraqi Civil
Defense Corps, and the border guards. By
January, we plan to have 15,000 members of
the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, and 20,000
members of the Facility Protection Service.
With additional resources,
those numbers could be expanded further,
because there is no shortage of Iraqis
willing to serve. We also have plans to
field 66,000 police and 3 divisions of the
new Iraqi Army which could be speeded up
substantially with the additional resources
the President has called for.
We should not find that we
are held back by a shortage of money or
authority to give those willing and able to
fight on our side the proper training and
equipment to do the job.
Converting military jobs to
civilian jobs:
As long as we have to continue deploying
large numbers of ground forces in Iraq, the
stress on the force, both active and
reserve, will be considerable. We are
working to reduce that stress by
accelerating the pace at which Iraqis
assume responsibility for the security of
their own country, by seeking additional
contributions of coalition forces, and by
examining ways that contract and civilian
personnel may be able to provide some of the
support capabilities now provided by reserve
formations.
In this regard, it will also
help if Congress gives us the authority we
have requested to transform the management
of our civilian personnel, to facilitate the
rapid shaping of our civil work force to
meet immediate needs.
With
the flexibility requested in the FY 2004
National Defense Authorization Bill, the
Department plans to convert military in
functions such as Law Enforcement, Personnel
Support, Installation Management,
Administrative Support for Recruiters, and
Training Development. The converted
military would be used to provide Light
Infantry and additional high demand
capabilities such as Military Police.
The National Security
Personnel System we seek is essential to
managing the demands of the Global War on
Terrorism without increasing military end
strength. While estimates vary, it is
widely believed that tens of thousands of
military billets are today devoted to
activities and responsibilities that could
be assumed by civilian government
personnel. The use of military personnel
instead often reflects the great flexibility
that the statutes governing military
personnel provide, in sharp contrast to many
of the rules under which we must manage
civilian personnel.
We realize that achieving the
goal of reforming the Defense Department’s
civil service system requires some bold
moves to constitute real transformation. We
are asking you now to help us take such a
bold step and help us with our proposed
National Security Personnel System. That we
are fighting a tough and sustained war on
terrorism only makes the need to take that
step to reform our personnel system even
more pressing.
Providing the necessary
resources:
We fight this war to win. That is why, in
his recent address to the nation, President
Bush submitted a request to Congress for
additional funds to pay for military and
intelligence operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on
terror and to help pay for the recovery of
both nations.
The bulk of the President’s
request ($66 billion) will ensure that our
men and women in uniform have the resources
they need to complete their missions in the
war on terror. The rest ($21 billion)
provides for essential investments in
infrastructure and security for Iraq and
Afghanistan that can help bring the
stability our forces need.
The undertaking in Iraq, as
the President told the nation a couple weeks
ago, is “difficult and costly—yet worthy of
our country, and critical to our security.”
This undertaking is so critical because, as
the President said, “Iraq is now the central
front” in the war on terror. “Enemies of
freedom,” he said, “are making a desperate
stand there—and there they must be
defeated.”
There is no question that a
powerful signal will go out to the
terrorists and their allies that defeat in
Iraq will be theirs when Congress acts
quickly on the President’s request. Prompt
approval is especially vital for the
Coalition Provision Authority (CPA) to
continue recovery at a time when rapid
progress is essential to a stable and
peaceful Iraq. Accelerating progress now
can hold down long-term recovery costs and
hasten a scaling back of U.S. operations and
troops levels. Adequate funding now is also
critical to getting the Iraqi economy
moving, which will improve security and
strengthen the Iraqi people’s resolve to
defeat those seeking to sabotage success.
The costs are large, but it
is a battle that we can win and we must win,
because victory in this battle will be a
major victory in the war on terrorism and a
major defeat for the global terrorist
networks. As large as these costs are, they
are still small compared to just the
economic price that the attacks of September
11 have inflicted, to say nothing of the
terrible loss of priceless human life.
America is behind the
troops: By
those actions and what Congress says, you
can help
us send the message to the world, and
particularly to our enemies, that
America is behind her troops,
and has the staying power to fight this war
on terrorism to victory.
The Baathist bitter enders
and their foreign terrorist allies believe
that if they inflict casualties on us, like
in Beirut and Somalia, we will give up and
go home.
The sooner these terrorists
understand clearly that our will can’t be
broken and that the Iraqi people, despite
hardship and difficulty, will persevere in
building their new society—the sooner the
terrorists will come to terms with their
defeat.
That is why we urge the
Congress to expedite passage of this
supplemental request to cover ongoing
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
to ensure our troops have the resources they
need to complete their mission.
Indivisibility of Recovery
and Security: The request for
supplemental funds for Iraq addresses the
situation there as a whole—it recognizes
that the issues of security, recovery of the
infrastructure, invigoration of the economy,
and the creation of a new political reality
are all of a piece. Progress in one area
depends on, and contributes to, progress in
the others.
It would be a mistake to
argue that, while the military portion
demands quick passage – to “support the
troops” – it would be safe to delay the
civilian part, and perhaps condition it on a
host of factors, some of which involve
secondary matters, and others which we
simply do not control. This approach
misunderstands the situation. Standing up
Iraqi police and security forces will hasten
the day when our troops can step back.
Progress in recovery—especially on items
that affect people’s daily lives, such as
electric power production and transmission
and employment—will strengthen the sense
among the Iraqi population that the
transition that began with the overthrow of
Saddam’s regime can and will result in a
prosperous and free Iraq.
Delaying funds for the
acceleration of the recovery effort doesn’t
“support the troops” – it makes their job
that much harder and more dangerous.
A speedy bipartisan passage
of the entire supplemental request would
send a strong message to our friends and our
enemies—and to our troops, who are giving us
100 percent. They need to know we are
behind them 100 percent.
View of the Military
Front: Afghanistan:
The United States remains strongly committed
to success in Afghanistan, which entails the
establishment of a moderate and democratic
political order that is fully representative
of the Afghan people. Afghanistan has
suffered a great deal over the last quarter
century and it has come a long way since the
fall of the Taliban regime in 2001. The
United States shares and supports President
Karzai’s and the Afghan people’s hopes for a
peaceful, democratic, and prosperous country
that can serve as a partner in the region
and as a model for other Muslim states.
As part of our ongoing
commitment to success in Afghanistan, we
seek to accelerate the progress the United
States, our Coalition partners, and our
allies in the Afghan government have been
making to bring lasting peace to the war
torn country.
We have accomplished a great
deal and we recognize that much more remains
to be done to ensure success in
Afghanistan. The war on terror is one
aspect of our involvement in Afghanistan.
The other is our commitment to promoting a
functioning moderate and democratic
political order that can serve as the
foundation for lasting peace in the
country. Realizing this vision will
require increased commitment on the part of
the United States and the international
community.
Iraq: There are still
many challenges remaining for our troops in
Iraq. And, as our commanders consider
military operations in Iraq, there are at
least two things they tell us they would
like more of. Number one is Iraqis fighting
to secure their own liberty, which I
mentioned earlier.
Their number two critical
item is forces from other countries, and
we’re making substantial progress there. So
far, 31 nations have sent over 23,000
personnel to Iraq.
So far, 60 nations have made pledges or
contributions totaling about $1.5 billion.
In southern Iraq, Polish forces have
assumed command of an international
division, and we are hoping to add another
division above and beyond that. The
President’s request will provide financial
support for the troops of our coalition
partners with limited resources who are
interested in providing support.
In that same multinational
division, the Spanish brigade has taken
charge of the other major holy Shia city,
Najaf. Further south, under the British
multinational division, an Italian infantry
brigade of 2,300—including some 400
carabinieri—is performing security and
stability operations.
To facilitate more
international assistance, we are
actively pursuing the option of a UN
resolution, which would lead other
countries, whose laws or domestic politics
require such a resolution, to contribute
more.
Before the war began, we
consistently voiced our support for another
UN resolution, because there are some
countries for whom that is necessary for
them to commit troops. For example, I said
in March that “it would be nice to get
another resolution because there are some
countries for whom that’s crucial.” We are
encouraged in the efforts to finally bring
that about.
Before the war, there was
also a unified, interagency policy to appeal
for international troops. We sought
international participation in this effort
from the beginning. In December, I went to
NATO to seek support from out Allies in the
event of war and in post-war operations. In
March, Secretary Rumsfeld told members of
the SAC and HAC that the enormity of the
challenge in tackling the recovery of Iraq
“will require a significant international
effort.”
From the outset, our
diplomatic effort that began last November
included identifying and engaging countries
that might be prepared to contribute assets
for an Iraqi stabilization effort in the
eventuality of a conflict. Not
surprisingly, it was only after the conflict
itself had begun that detailed discussions
on this question began with most of the
interested countries. In planning for the
post-conflict phase, we repeatedly engaged
those interested countries bilaterally and
repeatedly solicited additional countries
for potential contributions. We continue to
do so.
The decision-making process
for countries contributing to the
stabilization effort has taken the time
necessary to address and resolve legal,
financial, transportation, equipment, and
sustainment issues. Arrangements for most
of the 31 countries and the 23,000 troops
that are now deployed were completed late in
the spring. From the start, our planning
effort has taken into account this necessary
time lag from decision to deployment and we
have acted to expedite deployment by other
countries wherever possible. We continue to
plan in advance in this way with the
approximately 14 countries with which we are
in ongoing dialogues about possible future
contributions.
In addition, we went to the
UN before and after the conflict and
Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1500
are evidence of broad international
understanding and support for what we are
doing.
Specifically, Resolution 1483
appeals to member states to contribute to
security in Iraq, among other things. The
Administration regarded this as a sufficient
mandate for foreign forces. However, some
others did not. Therefore, in July we began
working with our colleagues in the State
Department on the outlines of a new
resolution that would go beyond 1483 and
1500 and more explicitly endorse
international participation in the security
of Iraq. Our current efforts at the UN are
a direct result of those efforts.
Our efforts to attract
international help for the post-war phase
have already been successful. Thirty-one
nations have sent military forces to Iraq,
and they are augmenting and in some
instances replacing U.S. troops. We believe
that the recovery of Iraq is a global
security task in which the international
community should be involved, and we expect
additional foreign force contributions.
This interagency effort to
give our commanders more international
support will continue.
Iraqi People are With Us
The Zogby Group conducted a
poll in August—the most scientific poll yet
conducted of Iraqi public opinion—that gives
some sense of how Iraqis felt four months
after the fall of Saddam’s tyranny. The
results are generally heartening. For
example:
-
70% said they expect their
country and their personal lives to be
better five years from now.
-
60% opposed Islamic
government; 33% were in favor. Despite
what one might gather from the press,
Shi’a were less receptive to Islamic
government than Sunnis.
-
By a heavy margin of 74% to
18%, Iraqis favored punishing Baath party
leaders who had committed crimes.
Finally, more than two-thirds
of those who expressed an opinion wanted
Coalition troops to remain in Iraq for at
least another year.
These numbers offer some
encouragement, especially as we continue the
difficult work we have left to do. Even
though the enemy targets our success, we
will win the peace. But, we won’t win it
alone. We don’t need American troops to
guard every mile of electrical cable. The
real center of gravity will come from the
Iraqi people themselves—they know who and
where the criminals are. And they have the
most at stake—their future.
When inevitable challenges
and controversies arise, we should remind
ourselves that most of the people of Iraq
are deeply grateful for what our incredibly
brave American and coalition forces have
done to liberate them from Saddam’s republic
of fear.
When we’ve shown Iraqis we
mean to stay until the old regime is
crushed, and its criminals punished – and
that we are equally determined to give their
country back to them – they will know they
can truly begin to build a society and
government of, by and for the Iraqi people.
Planning: It seems to
have become fashionable for some to say that
there were no plans for post-war Iraq.
These suggestions somehow ignore the fact
that, without a plan, it we could not have
gone from no Iraqis helping us the day
Baghdad fell to where more than 60,000
Iraqis are helping us today, as police and
other security forces in the field.
A military or
political-military plan is not like a
blueprint and detailed schedule for the
building of a skyscraper, that is, a
statement of exactly where every I-beam,
window, pipe or electric circuit is supposed
to go, and in what order it is to be
installed.
In truth, the first principle
of military planning is that no plan
survives first contact with the enemy.
Unlike the Stalinist planning system favored
by Saddam Hussein, we know that we cannot
prescribe every detail from Washington or
Centcom. Instead, we strive to create a
construct, engage good people, give them the
resources to do the job, and support them as
they make adjustments to reality on the
ground. In the course of several months,
this approach has succeeded. In fact, our
commanders in Iraq who have served in the
Balkans tell us that we have moved
substantially faster in Iraq than we moved
in Bosnia or Kosovo. One particularly
important achievement is the standup of the
Iraqi security force.
* * *
America's troops and those of
our coalition partners—among whom we would
emphasize are the Iraqis themselves—are
determined to win. And they will win, if we
continue to give them the moral and material
support they need to do the job. As the
President said recently, our forces are “on
the offensive.” And as Army Vice Chief of
Staff Gen. John Keane said in congressional
testimony, "They bring the values of the
American people to this conflict. They
understand firmness, they understand
determination. But they also understand
compassion. Those values are on display
every day as they switch from dealing with
an enemy to taking care of a family."
I’ve seen the troops in Iraq,
as have many of you here. And I think
you’ll agree that Gen. Keane is absolutely
right.
America’s armed forces will
not be deterred from their mission by
desperate acts of a dying regime or
ideology. And there is no question that
America’s commitment to secure a peaceful
Iraq, back home, must be at least equal to
the commitment of our troops and to the
stakes, for it is related to nothing less
than our security and that of our children
and grandchildren.
We look forward to doing our
part to work with the members of Congress to
help support our Armed Forces throughout the
world who are doing their part to make
America and her people more secure. We
thank you for your support.
