POMED Notes: “Preserving Progress” in Iraq

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia held a hearing entitled “Preserving Progress: Transitioning Authority and Implementing the Strategic Framework in Iraq, Part 1.” In attendance were Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Gerald Connolly (D-VA). Witnesses included Patricia M. Haslach, Iraq Transition Coordinator, Department of State, Christopher Crowley, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Middle East, and Colin Kahl, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Middle East, Department of Defense.

For full notes, continue below. For pdf version, click here.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) expressed concern over the timing of the scheduled transition, questioning Iraq’s readiness and citing the vital role the U.S. forces continue to play in providing security. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) also made opening remarks, stating that while a strategic partnership and successful transition are within reach, there is a “total disconnect” between the long-term vision of cooperation and investment espoused by the administration and the lack of public or political support for this commitment. He conveyed concern that the U.S. is repeating the mistakes of Afghanistan, and recommended that the administration increase its effort to sell the transition plan to the public.

Patricia M. Haslach testified that Iraq is poised to become a leading democracy in the region, and the timing is right for the transition. She noted that the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) will continue to be implemented by the State Department as the foundation of strengthening bilateral relations between the United States and Iraq. Haslach concluded that success in building a strong relationship with a “stable, sovereign, and self-reliant Iraq” is crucial, and that the United States “cannot fail.”

Colin Kahl focused on the security situation in his testimony, arguing that while the threat of terrorist attacks still exists, U.S. forces are no longer necessary for maintaining security in Iraq. He cited the successful withdrawal of troops from 144,000 in January 2009 to the current level of 47,000, and argued that the security situation in Iraq is strong even with this withdrawal. Kahl emphasized that U.S. strategic goals in Iraq are within reach, and that the recent turmoil in the Middle East has made success in Iraq even more important.

Christopher Crowley testified last, and focused on the role of USAID in the transition. He argued that the decrease in violence has provided an opportunity to build democracy in Iraq, and emphasized the importance of continued U.S. support for democracy in the country.

During the question and answer time, Chabot noted that Iraqi forces remain reliant on U.S. support and questioned the viability of the pullout of troops and transition to State Department leadership. Kahl responded that “significant challenges” will remain for Iraqi security and military forces, but the U.S. cannot provide additional support after December 2011 without the request of the Iraqi government. Rep. Chabot noted later that Iraqi politicians are passing the buck on the issue requesting continued U.S. military support, and need to “step up to the plate.”

Ackerman asked if the administration had designated a spokesperson responsible for selling the plans for a long-term commitment to Iraq to the American public. Haslach said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for doing so at the State Department, and Kahl also emphasized the advocacy efforts of the State Department and Vice President Joe Biden. Haslach reiterated that the State Department has no intention of leaving Iraq in the near future, and will continue to build financial partnerships with Iraq and other countries in the region. Rep. Ackerman responded that the lack of public and Congressional support for continued efforts in Iraq is a “key problem” and a “disaster.”

In response to Rep. Ackerman’s question on whether or not the U.S. could ever afford to leave a war or withdraw support from a country in the region, Kahl noted that the U.S. has profound interests in the Middle East, and will remain heavily invested in the future. He argued that President Barack Obama’s recent speech emphasized the importance of a strong, stable Iraq in the context of the Arab Spring. And in response to a question from Rep. Chabot regarding the reasons for U.S. interest in a democratic Iraq, Haslach argued that the U.S. has “a lot to lose,” and that a stable, democratic Iraq will benefit U.S. security and the global economy. Kahl said that with the country’s history of sectarianism, only a democratic system can keep Iraq stable. The Arab Spring only magnifies the arguments for supporting democracy in Iraq, especially as the U.S. advocates for democracy in Egypt and elsewhere.

Rep. Chabot expressed concern that a premature withdrawal could squander U.S. gains in Iraq, and that Iran could continue to expand its influence in Iraq. Haslach reiterated that the U.S. is not abandoning Iraq, citing the allocation of billions of dollars in the FY 2012 budget for assistance programs in Iraq. And Kahl noted that Iraq is fiercely nationalistic, and a strong Iraq will not be the puppet of Iran.

Finally, Rep. Connolly (D-VA) questioned the oversight and accountability mechanisms surrounding the rising costs of the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq and Afghanistan. He asked Kahl if he shared concerns regarding oversight of CERP spending, and Kahl responded that mechanisms are in place for accountability.

Rep. Connolly also suggested that a permanent office of restabilization be created to streamline U.S. rebuilding efforts in Iraq and elsewhere, and Crowley and Haslach responded by emphasizing the work of the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, and the support of USAID for this purpose.