At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) questioned Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus about what the Administration’s strategy for Iraq will be following the troop surge that began in January 2007. 

“The recent outbreak of fighting between Iraqi Security Forces and Shiite militias, and the tenuous ceasefire that has followed, is a clear indication that Iraq has far to go before it can be considered a stable, secure and self-sustaining state,” said Dodd. “The most important question we must ask today is not ‘where did the surge get us,’ but rather ‘where do we go from here?’  All too often, this Administration has shown an aversion to answering this all important question.” 

The full text of Senator Dodd’s opening statement as prepared is below:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on the administration’s strategy for Iraq following the troop surge.  Iraq remains one of the most important components of American foreign policy, and I deeply appreciate the opportunity to reexamine U.S. strategy in Iraq.  I would also like to take a moment to thank General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for their service, and express my deep gratitude for the thousands of Americans serving in uniform in Iraq as we speak.

The recent outbreak of fighting between Iraqi Security Forces and Shiite militias, and the tenuous ceasefire that has followed, is a clear indication that Iraq has far to go before it can be considered a stable, secure and self-sustaining state.  The most important question we must ask today is not “where did the surge get us,” but rather “where do we go from here?”  All too often, this Administration has shown an aversion to answering this all important question.  Our strategy in Iraq, it seems, is predicated on planning for tomorrow rather than next year, on short-term marriages of convenience rather than long-term plans for sustainability.    

Mr. Chairman, the so-called “breathing space” provided by the troop surge does not appear to have achieved the most important goal of the troop surge, that of long-term sustainable political reconciliation, or even the outlines of one.  General Petraeus himself has suggested that Iraqi political leaders have failed to take advantage of the relative calm provided by the troop surge to bring about political reconciliation.  The few pieces of reconciliation legislation that have been passed by the Iraqi parliament, such as the de-Ba’athification laws and the Provincial Powers Law were both passed by razor thin margins along highly polarized sectarian lines. 

Perhaps more troubling, at the same time that the Maliki government has sought to wrest control from Iraq’s sectarian militias, the Administration has seen fit to employ Sunni militias, many made up of former insurgents, to combat Al-Qaida in Iraq.  While this strategy may be advantageous in the short run, and certainly the decline of al-Qaida is a positive development, it raises serious questions about the long-term ability of Iraq’s central government to provide for the security of its people, particularly as it has become clear that the Maliki government has made little progress in integrating these sectarian militias into the Iraqi Security Forces.

The cost of this war, Mr. Chairman, is another matter that this Administration has shown little interest in addressing.  Estimates have suggested that the United States will have spent $720 million a day in Iraq, and Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has suggested that the ultimate cost of this war, including the cost to the United States economy, including fully rebuilding our military and caring for our veterans in the long-term, may be as high as $3 trillion.  The citizens of New Britain, Connecticut, alone, have paid some $204 million in tax dollars for this war, a number that falls just below the town’s $211 million dollar yearly budget.  

Meanwhile, the United States has spent well over $20 billion on reconstruction costs alone.  All of this is being spent despite the fact the Maliki government holds close to $40 billion in reserves and development funds in banks from New York to Switzerland and has reported budget surpluses one  numerous occasions.  Once again, we must ask, “where do we go from here,” how much longer must the United States foot the bill for Iraq’s reconstruction?

Mr. Chairman, taken all together, we seem to be no better or worse off than we were in the autumn of 2005, both in regards to the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and the level of violence.  Despite this Administration’s predictions of the surge’s success, we seem to be right where we started.   And despite all of this, the American people have yet to hear about what are our strategy is going forward?  Where will Iraq be in the next six months, or the next year, and equally important, where will the United States be?  How many soldiers will we have on the ground in Iraq?  I hope that during today’s hearing we will finally start hearing answers to these important questions, questions that have frankly never been answered during the nearly six years of this disastrous war.

General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, I thank you for your testimony today, and I look forward to a frank and direct answer to this all important question.

-30-