[Senate Hearing 108-219]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-219
IRAQ: STATUS AND PROSPECTS FOR RECONSTRUCTION--NEXT STEPS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-883 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
American Association of Engineering Societies, Paul J. Kostek,
chairman, statement submitted for the record................... 67
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, opening
statement...................................................... 22
Letter from Anthony Borden with additional responses on Iraq
Media and Information Strategies........................... 60
Borden, Anthony, executive director, Institute for War & Peace
Reporting, London, United Kingdom.............................. 26
Prepared statement........................................... 29
``A New Voice in the Middle East: A Provisional Needs
Assessment for the Iraq Media''............................ 29
Hamre, Dr. John, president and CEO, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Washington, DC; accompanied by:
Frederick Barton, co-director, Post-Conflict Reconstruction
Project, CSIS; Bathsheba Crocker, Council on Foreign Relations
Fellow at CSIS; Dr. Johanna Mendelson-Forman, senior program
officer, United Nations Foundation; Dr. Robert Orr, vice
president and director of the Washington Program, Council on
Foreign Relations.............................................. 6
Prepared joint statement..................................... 8
``Iraq Reconstruction Assessment Mission--June 27-July 7,
2003''..................................................... 10
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 4
``How Peace in Iraq Became so Continued--Violence and Chaos
not Only Jeopardize Troops but Also the Future of U.S.
Foreign Policy in the Middle East,'' article from USA
TODAY, July 22, 2003, submitted for the record............. 64
(iii)
IRAQ: STATUS AND PROSPECTS FOR RECONSTRUCTION--NEXT STEPS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 3:53 p.m., in room SH-216, Hart Senate
Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar (chairman of the
committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Brownback,
Alexander, Coleman, Sununu, Biden, Sarbanes, Feingold, Boxer,
Bill Nelson, and Corzine.
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order.
We thank the witnesses for their promptness, and we regret
that Senators were called to the floor for a rollcall vote that
is still in progress, but we will be joined by our colleagues
as they complete their duties and come to the hearing.
Let me just say at the outset that we may at some point,
providence willing, have a quorum of the committee present, and
I want to seize that opportunity when it comes to ratify five
treaties, advance the Foreign Service list, and other purposes,
which should be unanimously received.
Let me simply say the Committee on Foreign Relations
welcomes Dr. John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and
currently the president of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Accompanying Dr. Hamre is his team from
the Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Dr. Robert Orr,
Mr. Frederick Barton, Dr. Johanna Mendelson-Forman, and Ms.
Bathsheba Crocker. Also with us today is Anthony Borden,
executive director of the Institute for War and Peace
Reporting, and we welcome Mr. Borden's insights on the media
situation in Iraq.
Dr. Hamre, we are pleased especially to have you to be able
to discuss with you the excellent report you and your
colleagues have prepared on Iraq reconstruction.\1\ I commend
Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer for commissioning your
mission to Iraq. The resulting report, entitled ``Field Review
and Recommendations on Iraq's Post Conflict Reconstruction,''
was published last week by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. It carefully outlines the difficult
challenges our country faces in Iraq and makes 32 urgent
recommendations for improving conditions in that country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report referred to is included with Dr. Hamre's submitted
statement and can be found on page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this hearing
provides a marker with which to measure both our hopefulness
and our frustration. We are hopeful because the recommendations
of your report are being taken very seriously. Since the report
was released last week, Defense Department officials have
praised its conclusions and emphasized the work that is already
underway to implement many of them. It is frustrating, however,
because many of the issues you raise, particularly those
concerning the need for improved application of resources, for
better planning, for broader international involvement, are the
same issues we have been raising here in the committee for
months.
I would like to read two paragraphs of a letter that
Senator Biden and I wrote to President Bush before the war in
Iraq, and I quote from our letter. ``The United States should
pursue a policy in Iraq that has broad international support.
Such support is desirable for both substantive and political
reasons. Our allies around the world and our friends in the
region have important, and possibly even necessary
contributions to make to the effort to disarm Iraq. We may need
their support for any initiatives we take at the United
Nations. Should we pursue military action, we will want them
with us and, at a minimum, require basing and over-flight
rights from several countries. If, in the course of disarming
Iraq, we end Saddam Hussein's regime, a massive rebuilding
effort will be required that the United States will not want to
shoulder alone. We also depend on the active and continued
cooperation of many allies in the unfinished war against
terrorism. In short, building international support for our
Iraq policy must be a priority.''
End of quote from that portion of the letter, but we
continue. ``We must be candid with the American people that
Iraq represents a long-term commitment by the United States. We
urge you to formulate and express a vision for a democratic,
unified, post-Saddam Iraq, living in peace with its neighbors.
The American people must know the military, financial and human
capital the United States would be prepared to commit to help
realize that vision. The Iraqi people and their neighbors must
be confident that chaos will not follow Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, you would help assuage international concerns that
the current unsettled situation in Afghanistan may be
replicated in Iraq, and if so with far greater strategic
consequences.''
Now, that is the end of the passage from our letter.
Senator Biden and I sent that letter to President Bush more
than 10 months ago on September 10, 2002. I share this historic
footnote not to prove the prescience of the committee, but
rather to underscore that the basic questions and problems
surrounding post-war Iraq have been known and were discussed
mercifully by many expert witnesses before this committee in
many hearings for a long time. We must answer those questions
and implement solutions to the problems now. The report before
us is a very good place to begin a review of what will be
necessary to achieve our objectives.
We know that the planning for post-war Iraq was inadequate.
But we must move beyond simply second-guessing the
administration. None of us should pretend that a few
adjustments to our reconstruction strategy or an extra month of
planning could have prevented all the challenges we now face.
Even in the best circumstances, reconstructing an unpredictable
country after the overthrow of an entrenched and brutal regime
is going to stretch our capabilities, resources, and patience
to the limit. Moreover, Congress as an institution has not
fully lived up to its own responsibilities in foreign affairs.
We lament that nation-building in Iraq has not progressed as
quickly as hoped, but many Members of Congress considered that
term ``nation-building'' to be pejorative just a few months
ago. We worry about the urgency of administration initiatives
in Iraq while we allow unrelated domestic obstacles to delay
even the Senate passage of our foreign relations authorization
bill.
The findings of Dr. Hamre's group confirm that we must act
with both urgency and patience in Iraq. America must take
critical steps now to give nation-building a chance to succeed.
We must be prepared to stay the course in Iraq for years. The
report states, ``The potential for chaos is becoming more real
every day,'' and the Coalition Provisional Authority ``lacks
the personnel, money and flexibility needed to be fully
effective.'' The report describes the resistance in Iraq as
``well-trained, well-financed, and well-organized irregular
forces throughout the country.''
We need to ensure that there are adequate resources and the
right type of resources to respond to the attacks that are
occurring. There must be enough military forces, police, and
civilian personnel, and we must not marginalize non-military
agencies with expertise in post-conflict reconstruction.
I am particularly interested in the recommendation that we
mobilize a ``new reconstruction coalition.'' The broader
international community remains the one untapped resource for
the potential for completely changing the dynamics on the
ground in Iraq. The coalition that won the war is not the same
one that can win the peace, and the United States needs to
involve the international community in Iraq to reassure the
Iraqi people that the results of our nation-building efforts
are legitimate and accepted by the international community.
Building an effective coalition that reduces U.S. burdens and
expands the legitimacy of our efforts must be the top priority
of American diplomacy with respect to Iraq.
I look forward to your suggestions on how the United States
can internationalize the effort. We need to overcome our
disagreements with allies over pre-war strategy and move
forward on the common objective of ensuring that Iraq emerges
as a peaceful and stable nation. The pledging conference in
October is an opportunity for all nations to exhibit leadership
and engage in stabilizing and rebuilding the country.
Having recently visited Iraq with my colleague, Senator
Hagel, and the ranking member, Senator Biden, who will join us
in due course, I am confident that officials and troops in Iraq
understand what is at stake and the urgency of their task. They
know that United States national security depends on what they
do in the coming months. We cannot afford to let Iraq become a
failed state that could be an incubator of terrorism and anti-
Americanism throughout the Muslim world. Today, the Foreign
Relations Committee should focus on how we can help the
administration and our troops and officials in the field to
succeed. How can our committee and this Congress expand the
tools available to the Coalition Provisional Authority? How can
we support efforts to broaden the international coalition
engaged in Iraq? How can we strengthen the resolve and
understanding of the American people with regard to the
realities of this mission?
The situation in Iraq is changing quickly. The next few
months may well determine, as you pointed out, the type of
nation that emerges. With this in mind, we are very thankful
for the work that our witnesses have done today, namely
yourselves, and we look forward to your testimony.
When Senator Biden arrives, of course, he will have an
opportunity to offer an opening statement and will be
recognized.
For the moment, I want to recognize Dr. Hamre for his
opening statement and we will then give the other four members
of the commission, beginning on the left with Ms. Crocker, an
opportunity to add any personal observations that they may
have. Finally, we will recognize Mr. Borden for his statement
concerning the media situation in Iraq.
Let me say at the outset that your full statements will be
made a part of the record, so you need not ask for permission
to have them included. They will be a part of the record, and
you may proceed as you wish with as full a discussion as you
choose. This is an important hearing. You have done important
work and we really want to hear from all of you. Dr. Hamre.
[The opening statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar
The Committee on Foreign Relations welcomes today Dr. John Hamre,
former Deputy Secretary of Defense and currently the president of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accompanying Dr. Hamre
is his team from the Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, Dr.
Robert Orr, Mr. Frederick D. Barton, Dr. Johanna Mendelson-Forman, and
Ms. Bathsheba Crocker. Also with us today is Anthony Borden, executive
director of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. We welcome Mr.
Borden's insights on the media situation in Iraq.
Dr. Hamre, we are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with
you the excellent report that you have prepared on Iraqi
reconstruction. I commend Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer for
commissioning your mission to Iraq. The resulting report entitled,
``Field Review and Recommendations on Iraq's Post Conflict
Reconstruction,'' was published last week by the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. It carefully outlines the difficult
challenges our country faces in Iraq and makes 32 urgent
recommendations for improving conditions in that country.
For the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this hearing provides a
marker with which to measure both our hopefulness and our frustration.
We are hopeful because the recommendations of your report are being
taken seriously. Since the report was released last week, Defense
Department officials have praised its conclusions and emphasized that
work is already underway to implement many of them. It is a frustrating
occasion, however, because many of the issues you raise--particularly
those concerning the need for improved application of resources, for
better planning, and for broader international involvement--are the
same issues that we have been raising for months.
I would like to read two paragraphs of a letter that Senator Biden
and I wrote to President Bush before the war in Iraq:
The United States should pursue a policy [in Iraq] that has
broad international support. Such support is desirable for both
substantive and political reasons. Our allies around the world
and our friends in the region have important, and possibly even
necessary contributions to make to the effort to disarm Iraq.
We may need their support for any initiatives we take at the
United Nations. Should we pursue military action, we will want
them with us and, at a minimum, require basing and over-flight
rights from several countries. If, in the course of disarming
Iraq, we end Saddam Hussein's regime, a massive rebuilding
effort will be required that the United States will not want to
shoulder alone. We also depend on the active and continued
cooperation of many allies in the unfinished war against
terrorism. In short, building international support for our
Iraq policy must be a priority.
Later in the letter, we continue:
We must be candid with the American people that Iraq
represents a long-term commitment by the United States. We urge
you to formulate and express a vision for a democratic,
unified, post-Saddam Iraq, living in peace with its neighbors.
The American people must know the military, financial and human
capital the United States would be prepared to commit to help
realize that vision. The Iraqi people and their neighbors must
be confident that chaos will not follow Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, you would help assuage international concerns that
the current unsettled situation in Afghanistan may be
replicated in Iraq, with far greater strategic consequences.
Senator Biden and I sent that letter to the President more than 10
months ago on September 10, 2002. I share this historic footnote, not
to prove the prescience of this committee, but rather to underscore
that the basic questions and problems surrounding postwar Iraq have
been known and discussed for a long time. We must answer those
questions and implement solutions to those problems now. The report
before us is a good place to begin a review of what will be necessary
to achieve our objectives.
We know that the planning for postwar Iraq was inadequate. But we
must move beyond simply second-guessing the administration. None of us
should pretend that a few adjustments to our reconstruction strategy or
an extra month of planning could have prevented all the challenges we
now face in Iraq. Even in the best circumstances, reconstructing an
unpredictable country after the overthrow of an entrenched and brutal
regime was going to stretch our capabilities, resources, and patience
to the limit. Moreover, Congress, as an institution, has not fully
lived up to its own responsibilities in foreign affairs. We lament that
nation-building in Iraq has not progressed as quickly as hoped, but
many members of Congress considered that term to be pejorative just a
few months ago. We worry about the urgency of administration
initiatives in Iraq, while we allow unrelated domestic obstacles to
delay Senate passage of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill.
The findings of Dr. Hamre's group confirm that we must act with
both urgency and patience in Iraq. America must take critical steps now
to give nation-building a chance to succeed, and we must be prepared to
stay the course in Iraq for years. The report states that ``The
potential for chaos is becoming more real every day,'' and the
Coalition Provisional Authority ``lacks the personnel, money and
flexibility needed to be fully effective.'' The report describes the
resistance in Iraq as ``well-trained, well-financed, and well-organized
irregular forces throughout the country.''
We need to ensure that there are adequate resources and the right
type of resources to respond to the attacks that are occurring. There
must be enough military forces, police, and civilian personnel, and we
must not marginalize non-military agencies with expertise in post
conflict reconstruction.
I am particularly interested in the recommendation that we mobilize
a ``new reconstruction coalition.'' The broader international community
remains the one untapped resource with the potential for completely
changing the dynamics on the ground in Iraq. The coalition that won the
war is not the same one that can win the peace. The U.S. needs to
involve the international community in Iraq to reassure the Iraqi
people that the results of our nation-building efforts are legitimate
and accepted by the international community. Building an effective
coalition that reduces U.S. burdens and expands the legitimacy of our
efforts must by the top priority of American diplomacy with respect to
Iraq.
I look forward to your suggestions on how the United States can
internationalize this effort. We need to overcome our disagreements
with allies over pre-war strategy and move forward on the common
objective of ensuring that Iraq emerges as a peaceful and stable
nation. The pledging conference in October is an opportunity for all
nations to exhibit leadership and engage in stabilizing and rebuilding
Iraq.
Having recently visited Iraq with Senator Biden and Senator Hagel,
I am confident that the officials and the troops in Iraq understand
what is at stake and the urgency of their task. They know that U.S.
national security depends on what they do in the coming months. We
cannot afford to let Iraq become a failed state that could be an
incubator of terrorism and anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim
world. Today, the Foreign Relations Committee should focus on how we
can help this administration and our troops and officials in the field
succeed. How can our committee and this Congress expand the tools
available to the Coalition Provisional Authority? How can we support
efforts to broaden the international coalition engaged in Iraq? How can
we strengthen the resolve and understanding of the American people with
regard to the realities of this mission?
The situation in Iraq is changing quickly, and the next few months
may well determine what type of nation emerges in Iraq. With this in
mind, we are thankful for the work that our witnesses have done, and we
look forward to their testimony.
After Senator Biden has delivered his opening remarks, we will
recognize Dr. Hamre for his opening statement. We will then give the
other four members of the Commission, beginning on the committee's left
with Ms. Crocker, an opportunity to add any personal observations they
may have. Finally, we will recognize Mr. Borden for his statement
concerning the media situation in Iraq.
STATEMENTS OF DR. JOHN HAMRE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC;
ACCOMPANIED BY: FREDERICK BARTON, CO-DIRECTOR, POST-CONFLICT
RECONSTRUCTION PRO-
JECT, CSIS; BATHSHEBA CROCKER, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
FELLOW AT CSIS; DR. JOHANNA MENDELSON-FORMAN, SENIOR PROGRAM
OFFICER, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION; DR. ROBERT ORR, DIRECTOR,
WASHINGTON OFFICE, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Dr. Hamre. Chairman Lugar, to you and your colleagues, it
is a real privilege to come here. These are enormously
important issues. I was very careful to take notes. Your
statement has laid out I think a very challenging agenda for
the Senate to take on this shared task of making sure we are
successful in Iraq. We have to be successful in Iraq and I
think it means listening carefully and wisely to the issues you
put out in front us, and we will try to be responsive and
helpful to you today. Thank you for this privilege.
I was the weakest member of the team on this delegation, so
they are going to let me go first with the clear instructions
that I quickly get out of the way. And I will do that.
First, let me just say we were invited by Secretary
Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer to go. They initiated it with us
and we said we will if we can be helpful. And I must say they
were completely open. The very morning that we arrived--we
arrived in the evening. In the next morning, when we arrived,
Ambassador Bremer invited me into his staff meeting and he went
around the room. He listened to everybody with their normal
report, and then he said, by the way, that is Hamre. He has
been sent over here by Secretary Rumsfeld. Anything he needs,
make sure you give it to him because he is here to help us. It
is that kind of approach. Very open. I think my colleagues
would agree. Nothing was kept from us, and there was a
tremendous sense of openness and willingness to hear both our
experiences and our reaction to their ideas.
Second, when we returned, we have experienced nothing but
complete openness to our ideas. We have met extensively with
members of the administration. That does not say that they
agree with everything we have recommended. They do not, but
they have been completely open and interactive with us. Well,
why do you think that? What led you to that conclusion? Who did
you talk to? How solid is that judgment in your view? That has
been the total tenor of the conversations we have had with
them, and it has been very good, very constructive.
Third, I would say I think they have already tried to
implement things that we brought back. As I said, they have
been extremely open to working on the problems, those that we
identified, frankly ideas that they had of their own that
preceded our return. So it has been a very constructive
perspective.
I would like to speak about two issues and then I would
like to turn to my colleagues.
First, the issue of security. Iraq is currently insecure
and we have a complex problem that goes beyond the Saddam
loyalists that we see in the paper. There are a good number of
just flat-out criminals. Remember, Saddam opened all the
prisons right before the war. He let out 100,000 criminals,
people that are living among Iraqis today creating great
personal threat and violence in the society. So that is a
problem.
There are, of course, the Saddam loyalists that are out
trying to rekindle an affection with the past with these
mindless acts against our own troops.
And then there are large, organized mafia-style, black
market gangs, gangs that were created during the years of
sanctions, the years of oil for peace. Those gangs are
plundering the countryside, and that is a very big problem, in
some sense a bigger, longer-term problem to deal with. That is
all part of the security picture.
It is bigger than just saying we need more American
soldiers on the ground. That is a judgment that the military
has to render. I am worried about our troops. I think they are
pretty tired, but the security picture is bigger than just
that. And we have to do, as the Secretary has recently done,
bring more Iraqis to the business of defending their own
country, and he has made some very important, constructive
steps and developments in the last couple of weeks. And I think
we really need to support him with that and take other steps to
make it possible.
Second, let me just say a word about finances. I was
surprised. You know I used to be the Comptroller at the Defense
Department, so I know how budgets are put together. I sat down
and spent probably a half a day with the budgeting people over
there, and I was surprised to find a fairly good, relatively
simple, right now, but relatively good, budget process for
building the next budget for the next 18 months in Iraq.
Ambassador Bremer has $5.9 billion right now he can count
on to work with. Remember, this is an economy that was before
the war probably a $25 billion to $30 billion gross domestic
product, and he has got about $6 billion to last for 18 months.
That is not going to be enough.
Now, obviously, we are hoping that we can get oil moving
quickly. Frankly, I think they have conservative assumptions
for oil, but they need to be. I think it is very hard to get
the oil moving in Iraq. And they are only counting on a fairly
modest amount of revenue coming from oil over the next, say, 9
months, and then the following 9 months, it is still pretty
conservative, which I think it ought to be. It is not nearly
enough. It is probably only 40 percent of what the gross
domestic product would require.
Obviously, we are hoping for a good donors' conference.
There are a lot of questions about the donors' conference. The
donors themselves are going to be skeptical until we resolve
the issue of prior debt. That is a big issue. The other big
issue for the donors' conference is, is there a legitimate
government that we can make an agreement with? Right now they
do not feel they want to make a deal with the Coalition
Provisional Authority. They want to have an Iraqi Government
and the question that you should be asking is: will the
governing council that Ambassador Bremer has created be strong
enough to become the basis for donor countries to make
contributions to in the October timeframe? A very important
issue.
But I also just have to say you really need to start
thinking we are probably going to require another supplemental.
I leave it to the administration to decide what that is going
to have to be and when it is going to be, but there is not
going to be enough money in my personal view to carry us
through the next 18 months until you get significant oil
revenues. And that should just be on the table in your thinking
right now.
One last statement, 30 seconds. Ambassador Bremer needs to
have more flexibility on how he spends his money and how he
makes contract actions than he has. I am afraid we are doing
too much business as usual for him. He needs to be given much
more authority to be able to do his job in theater, and I would
ask you and your very capable staff to look into that issue as
well.
Let me now turn to my colleagues, and I think, Sheba, you
were going to be the next person.
[The prepared joint statement of Dr. Hamre, Mr. Barton, Ms.
Crocker, Dr. Mendelson-Forman, and Dr. Orr follows:]
Joint Statement by John Hamre, Frederick Barton, and Bathsheba Crocker,
CSIS; Johanna Mendelson-Forman, United Nations Foundation and Robert
Orr, Council on Foreign Relations
Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, distinguished members of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, it is an honor to testify before you
today on the subject of Iraq's post-conflict reconstruction. Together
we recently visited Iraq and spent nearly two weeks in comprehensive
interviews on the progress in post-conflict reconstruction. We went to
Iraq at the invitation of the Secretary of Defense and the
Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Ambassador
Bremer.
We were invited to undertake this trip because of the extensive
research we have completed over the past two years on the post-conflict
reconstruction challenges that the world has faced during the past
fifty years, and how the lessons from that analysis might be applied to
the situation in Iraq. This work was undertaken by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the United
States Army, with support provided by the United Nations Foundation,
and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Let me state that we were given complete cooperation and support by
Administrator Bremer and his team in Baghdad. We have shared our
findings with Administrator Bremer and with Secretary Rumsfeld. We have
provided to the Committee a copy of our report and would ask that it be
included in the formal record of these proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, we know that you, your colleagues, and staff have
recently visited Iraq, and we know that our trip report has been
reviewed. Therefore, permit me to summarize briefly a few key points so
that we might quickly turn to your questions.
Despite the difficulties that we confront in Iraq at this time, we
cannot fail in our mission to create a new government in Iraq, a
government that represents the people of Iraq, embraces a constructive
agenda of economic and social development and establishes a set of
positive security policies and programs in the region. While we cannot
fail in this task, success is far from certain. Indeed, the next 3-6
months are crucial.
There are seven points we would like to reinforce.
First, the security environment today is impeding all other aspects
of the reconstruction of Iraq. There are insufficient security forces
in Iraq. That does not necessarily mean that we need more troops in
Iraq. It does mean, however, that we need to dramatically expand the
role of indigenous Iraqi security forces and tailor U.S. and allied
contributions to most effectively meet the composite security needs of
the country.
Second, Iraqis need to take control of the future of their country.
Administrator Bremer took the crucial first step by establishing the
Iraqi Governing Council and local and provincial political councils
throughout the country. It is essential that these councils succeed. We
believe this requires a careful balance of mentoring and challenging
the Governing Council to address increasingly complex issues, but at a
pace where it can succeed.
Equally important, we need to start knitting together the growing
governance institutions at the national, provincial, and local levels.
Our military forces and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) officials
have done an excellent job of creating the local political councils. It
is now critical to link these councils to the Iraqi Governing Council,
and to give the local and provincial councils the resources to meet
needs that have been identified through local priority-setting
processes.
Third, we must grow the economy. The crucial first step is to
secure the countryside so that reliable electricity can be delivered to
the cities and to the oil fields and refineries. Iraq has been blessed
with excellent natural resources. We cannot ensure that those resources
are fully applied to Iraq's reconstruction until we make it safe and
are able to deliver reliable power.
This is not by itself enough, however. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq
developed a deeply flawed, corruption-ridden economy that needs
complete reform. This task cannot be met overnight. Indeed, we must
proceed with structural reform carefully, since there is already
excessive unemployment.
Fourth, the Coalition Provisional Authority needs to extend its
representation into the country. Specifically, the CPA needs to
establish offices in Iraq's 18 provinces, and to provide these
provincial officers with adequate staffing and resources. Currently the
CPA depends on military commanders in the field to undertake civil
reconstruction efforts. These military commanders have done an
excellent job, but they are at the edge of what they are trained to do
as we start the most complex governance, economic, and social tasks.
Field CPA offices will serve to help link the local provincial
governing structures with the Iraq Governing Council, provide a much
better ongoing assessment of conditions in the country, enhance
operational speed and effectiveness, and allow maximum empowerment of
Iraqis.
We also believe that these field offices represent an opportunity
to broaden international participation in the civil reconstruction
effort. These provincial CPA offices do not have to be--indeed should
not be--exclusively staffed by American and British officials. This is
an opportunity to widen the basis of international cooperation in the
rebuilding of Iraq.
Fifth, our information campaign must be more aggressive. We have
failed to communicate our vision for a new Iraq to the Iraqi people. We
need an enhanced public outreach program, complete with radio,
television, and print media, and Iraqi word of mouth. We should also
explore unconventional communication channels such as the Internet and
school programs. This cannot be overstated. In a society where rumors
dominate and trust has not existed, two-way communications need to be
dynamic and ever-present.
Sixth, we have an international coalition that is helping us build
a new Iraq, but we need to broaden that coalition even further. We need
to find ways to invite other countries in to help with the rebuilding.
The creation of the Iraqi Governing Council represents an important
opening in that regard.
Finally, Administrator Bremer and his team need greater flexibility
and funding to deal with the daunting challenges they face. The CPA
needs more money. There are several ways to fix this problem. We need
to harvest what resources we can from the old ``oil for food'' program.
We need to hold a successful donors conference in October. And--
although this is not a popular thing to say in the face of record
deficits--we are likely to need additional supplemental appropriations
this fall or winter. Finally, we need to ensure that all potential
revenue for the reconstruction is unencumbered, which will require
addressing the question of Iraq's outstanding debt and reparations,
relieving funding from internal U.S. government constraints, and
avoiding encumbering future oil revenues to generate immediate income.
The more we cheat the present, the longer the reconstruction
stretches into the future. Saving now is a false economy.
There are many individuals who question whether or not we should
have undertaken the war against Iraq. This is a perfectly legitimate
line of inquiry, but it is not the situation we face. We did defeat an
evil regime. We do have a responsibility to rebuild Iraq. We cannot
fail in this task.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, we can go into each
of these areas in extensive detail. We are pleased to answer your
questions and to help the committee in any way as you participate in
this national responsibility. Let me again state that for this mission,
we cannot fail.
Iraq's Post-Conflict Construction
a field review and recommendations--july 17, 2003
Foreword
At the request of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, I led a team of experts in the field of
post-conflict reconstruction to Iraq from June 26 to July 7, 2003 to
assess the reconstruction efforts there. The other members of my team
were Frederick D. Barton, Co-Director of the Post-Conflict
Reconstruction Project at CSIS; Dr. Robert C. Orr, the Director of the
Washington Office of the Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. Johanna
Mendelson-Forman, a Senior Program Officer at the United Nations
Foundation; and Bathsheba N. Crocker, a Council on Foreign Relations
Fellow at CSIS. The attached report synthesizes the issues we focused
on during our 11 days in Iraq.
The team traveled throughout the country, visiting 11 major cities
and two ports, including nine of Iraq's 18 governorates (provinces). We
met with over 250 people, including Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) officials and staff, coalition military officers, international
organization representatives, non-governmental organization (NGO)
staff, bilateral donor representatives, and Iraqis from all walks of
life (including Iraqi political leaders, ministry and local government
officials, police officers, professionals, NGO representatives, and
ordinary citizens). We saw significant progress everywhere we went, but
the enormity of this undertaking cannot be overstated; there are huge
challenges ahead. We hope the recommendations in the attached report
will assist in shaping a successful reconstruction in Iraq. We are
deeply committed to that success.
We owe everyone involved our deepest thanks. Without the strong
support of the Department of Defense, this trip would not have been
possible. Ambassador Bremer and the entire CPA team gave us incredible
access and support in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. We thank Justin
Lemmon, Matthew Fuller, Dennis Sabal, Paul Hughes, Bill Krause, and
Ambassador Hume Horan in particular. We extend special thanks to Daniel
Werbel-Sanborn, Milan Vaishnav, Caroline Maloney, Lena Hagelstein, and
Vinca LaFleur for their invaluable assistance and support.
John Hamre, President, CSIS.
Executive Summary
Rebuilding Iraq is an enormous task. Iraq is a large country with
historic divisions, exacerbated by a brutal and corrupt regime. The
country's 24 million people and its infrastructure and service delivery
mechanisms have suffered decades of severe degradation and under-
investment. Elements of the old regime engage in a campaign of sabotage
and ongoing resistance, greatly magnifying the ``natural'' challenges
of rebuilding Iraq. Given the daunting array of needs and challenges,
and the national security imperative for the United States to succeed
in this endeavor, the United States needs to be prepared to stay the
course in Iraq for several years.
The next 12 months will be decisive; the next three months are
crucial to turning around the security situation, which is volatile in
key parts of the country. All players are watching closely to see how
resolutely the coalition will handle this challenge. The Iraqi
population has exceedingly high expectations, and the window for
cooperation may close rapidly if they do not see progress on delivering
security, basic services, opportunities for broad political
involvement, and economic opportunity. The ``hearts and minds'' of key
segments of the Sunni and Shi'a communities are in play and can be won,
but only if the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and new Iraqi
authorities deliver in tort order. To do so, the CPA will have to
dramatically and expeditiously augment its operational capacity
throughout the country, so that civilian-led rebuilding can proceed
while there are still significant numbers of coalition forces in Iraq
to provide maximum leverage over those who seek to thwart the process.
To succeed, the United States and its allies will need to pursue a
strategy over the next twelve months that: recognizes the unique
challenges in different parts of the country; consolidates gains in
those areas where things are going well; and wins hearts and minds even
as it decisively confronts spoilers.
Seven major areas need immediate attention.
1. The coalition must establish public safety in all parts of
the country. In addition to ongoing efforts, this will involve:
reviewing force composition and structure, as well as composite
force levels (U.S., coalition, and Iraqi) so as to be able to
address the need for increased street-level presence in key
conflictive areas; quickly hiring private security to help
stand up and supervise a rapid expansion of the Iraqi Facility
Protection Service, thereby freeing thousands of U.S. troops
from this duty; ratcheting up efforts to recruit sufficient
levels of international civilian police through all available
channels; and, launching a major initiative to reintegrate
``self-demobilized'' Iraqi soldiers and local militias.
2. Iraqi ownership of the rebuilding process must be expanded
at national, provincial, and local levels. At the national
level ensuring success of the newly formed Iraqi Governing
Council is crucial. This will require avoiding overloading it
with too many controversial issues too soon. The natural desire
to draw anger away from the coalition by putting an Iraqi face
on the most difficult decisions must be balanced with a
realistic assessment of what the council can successfully
manage. At the provincial and local levels, coalition forces
and the CPA have made great progress in establishing political
councils throughout the country, but they need direction and
the ability to respond to local needs and demands. To achieve
this, local and provincial political councils need to have
access to resources and be linked to the national Iraqi
Governing Council and the constitutional process.
3. Idle hands must be put to work and basic economic and
social services provided immediately to avoid exacerbating
political and security problems. A model economy will not be
created overnight out of Iraq's failed statist economic
structures. Short-term public works projects are needed on a
large scale to soak up sizable amounts of the available labor
pool. Simultaneously, the CPA must get a large number of
formerly state-owned enterprises up and running. Even if many
of them are not competitive and may need to be privatized and
downsized eventually, now is the time to get as many people
back to work as possible. A massive micro-credit program in all
provinces would help to spur wide-ranging economic activity,
and help to empower key agents of change such as women. The CPA
must also do whatever is necessary to immediately refurbish
basic services, especially electricity, water, and sanitation.
4. Decentralization is essential. The job facing occupation
and Iraqi authorities is too big to be handled exclusively by
the central occupying authority and national Iraqi Governing
Council. Implementation is lagging far behind needs and
expectations in key areas, at least to some extent because of
severely constrained CPA human resources at the provincial and
local levels. This situation must be addressed immediately by
decentralizing key functions of the CPA to the provincial
level, thereby enhancing operational speed and effectiveness
and allowing maximum empowerment of Iraqis. The CPA must
rapidly recruit and field a much greater number of civilian
experts to guide key governance, economic, social, justice, and
also some security components of the occupation.
5. The coalition must facilitate a profound change in the
Iraqi national frame of mind--from centralized authority to
significant freedoms, from suspicion to trust, from skepticism
to hope. This will require an intense and effective
communications and marketing campaign, not the status quo. The
CPA needs to win the confidence and support of the Iraqi
people. Communication--between the CPA and the Iraqi people,
and within the CPA itself--is insufficient so far. Drastic
changes must be made to immediately improve the daily flow of
practical information to the Iraqi people, principally through
enhanced radio and TV programming. Iraqis need to hear about
difficulties and successes from authoritative sources.
Secondly, the CPA needs to gather information from Iraqis much
more effectively--through a more robust civilian ground
presence, ``walk-in'' centers for Iraqis staffed by Iraqis, and
hiring a large number of Iraqi ``animators'' to carry and
receive messages. Thirdly, information flow must be improved
within the CPA itself through an integrated operations center
that would extend across both the civilian and military sides
of the CPA, and by enhancing cell-phone coverage and a system-
wide email system that could ease the timely dissemination of
information to all CPA personnel.
6. The United States needs to quickly mobilize a new
reconstruction coalition that is significantly broader than the
coalition that successfully waged the war. The scope of the
challenges, the financial requirements, and rising anti-
Americanism in parts of the country make necessary a new
coalition that involves various international actors (including
from countries and organizations that took no part in the
original war coalition). The Council for International
Cooperation at the CPA is a welcome innovation, but it must be
dramatically expanded and supercharged if a new and inclusive
coalition is to be built.
7. Money must be significantly more forthcoming and more
flexible. Iraq will require significant outside support over
the short to medium term. In addition to broadening the
financial coalition to include a wider range of international
actors, this means the President and Congress will need to
budget and fully fund reconstruction costs through 2004. The
CPA must be given rapid and flexible funding. ``Business as
usual'' is not an option for operations in Iraq, nor can it be
for their funding.
The enormity of the task ahead must not be underestimated. It
requires that the entire effort be immediately turbo-charged--by making
it more agile and flexible, and providing it with greater funding and
personnel.
Iraq Reconstruction Assessment Mission--June 27-July 7, 2003
introduction
The next 12 months will be critical to the success or failure of
the Iraq reconstruction effort. The potential for chaos is becoming
more real every day, given the unclear status of the old guard--former
Republican Guard members and Ba'ath party loyalists; the small
irregular militias throughout Iraq that could wreak havoc in the
absence of a strong coalition military presence; the beginnings of
attacks on Iraqis labeled as ``collaborators'' with the United States;
and continuing attacks on U.S. military forces and soft targets--such
as power plants and civilians (including NGO workers)--that are
undermining the CPA's ability to provide basic service and
reverberating into decreased popular support for the mission in the
United States and the United Kingdom.
There are real threats to the CPA's efforts:
the potential use of force (or at least intimidation) by
multiple internal and external players;
serious security breaches that could challenge U.S.
confidence and undermine U.S. credibility;
rising economic insecurity, combined with the entrenchment
of pre- existing black-market economic networks;
a lessening of support for the occupying authority within
Iraq;
suspicions about U.S. intentions with respect to oil
production and use of Iraq's oil revenue, and the hand-off of
the UN oil-for-food program, which has fed large parts of the
Iraqi population for years;
the prospect of internal fighting between factions;
the expansion of guerrilla-like warfare.
In our travels throughout the country, Iraqis uniformly expressed
the view that the window of opportunity for the CPA to turn things
around in Iraq is closing rapidly. The following factors coalesce to
make the next few months particularly crucial.
The coalition has not addressed the heightened sense of
expectation among the Iraqis as to how quickly the coalition
can produce results, and frustration levels are growing.
There is a general sense of steady deterioration in the
security situation, in Baghdad, Mosul, and elsewhere.
There are several key impending changes of the guard--new
coalition military forces are rotating in; the overall lead is
shifting from military to civilian; and Iraqis are assuming
greater responsibility for key security and governance tasks.
The national Iraqi Governing Council came together in mid-
July. Thousands of Iraqis are now engaged in local political
councils, but their function needs better definition in order
to link them with the national political scene and take full
advantage of theft current level of energy and expectation.
The coalition forces and the CPA have set up a skeleton
infrastructure under extremely difficult circumstances. The CPA
must now become increasingly operational, but it lacks the
resources, personnel, and flexibility to move into the next
stage of the mission.
The coalition currently has two critical pieces of leverage
that must be taken advantage of: significant military forces
are still in theater, capable of carrying out priority tasks
and handling spoilers and the CPA and the military have some
liquidity (due largely to seized assets of the former regime).
A series of upcoming external deadlines will drive policy
decisions with respect to Iraq: (I) the U.S. budget process in
September; (2) the October/November donors' conference; and (3)
the oil-for-food transition in November.
The coalition has made significant progress in just sixty days.\1\
This is due in large part to the exceptional work of the coalition
military forces in carrying out tasks far removed from their combat
duties. Civil affairs contingents have been key to their efforts,
although much more civil affairs capacity was needed in the early
stages of the reconstruction. The energy and enthusiasm of the CPA
staff is remarkable, as is their sense of mission and dedication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, in the area of security, the CPA reports that
35,000 Iraqi police officers are back out on the streets, conducting
sensitive raids and arrests; a facilities protection service is being
trained to guard static sites, with some promise in the south with the
Basra River Service. In the area of governance, the CPA reports that 85
percent of Iraq's towns have town councils up and running. The new Iraq
Governing Council was established on July 13, 2003 and includes
representatives of all of Iraq's major political parties, religions,
and ethnicities, as well as three women. In the justice realm, de-
Ba'athification of Iraq's judges is proceeding; courts are being
reestablished and have started to hear cases; and Iraq's laws have been
stripped of Saddam-era decrees. On the economic front, quick impact
projects have begun repairing schools and government buildings
throughout the country; civil servant and army salaries are being paid;
low level economic activity (street markets) is burgeoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the enormity of this undertaking cannot be overstated; there
are huge challenges ahead. Iraq is a large country with historic
divisions, exacerbated by a brutal and corrupt regime. The country's 24
million people, and its infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms
have suffered decades of severe degradation and under-investment. The
CPA lacks the personnel, money, and flexibility needed to be fully
effective. Military officers and civilians are carrying out post-
conflict reconstruction efforts in a war zone. Every small step of
progress is counterbalanced by fundamental problems that must be
addressed before the CPA can capitalize on the advances seen in
particular towns or provinces throughout Iraq.
In order to succeed, the United States and a broadened
international coalition will need to pursue a strategy over the next 12
months that: recognizes the unique challenges in different parts of the
country; consolidates gains in those areas where things are going well;
and advances the national mindset of the Iraqi people while decisively
confronting spoilers. To put Iraq on a successful path over the next
year, seven major areas need immediate attention.
Seven Priority Areas
1. establishing public safety
Virtually every Iraqi and most CPA and coalition military officials
as well as most contractors we spoke to cited the lack of public safety
as their number one concern. The war continues, but it has entered a
new phase of active resistance to the coalition's efforts, involving
attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi ``collaborators'' as well as sabotage
of vital infrastructure. Even outside the ``Sunni triangle'' (the area
from Ramadi in the west, north to Tikrit, and east to Baghdad), there
have been attacks on civilians, including NGO workers: their vehicles
have been shot at in Mosul, and aid workers in Basra have had stones
thrown at them at reconstruction sites. Iraqis (particularly in
Baghdad) remain afraid to be out on the streets after dark, and Iraqi
women do not attend school or run basic errands without escorts.
Although the coalition military presence is large, it is not
visible enough at the street level--particularly in Baghdad--nor is it
sufficiently agile,\2\ implying the need to reassess the force
composition, size, and structure. The current configuration of
composite security forces (U.S., coalition, and Iraqi) does not
adequately support the reconstruction mission; and attacks on coalition
forces and civilians and the sabotage and plundering of infrastructure
continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A significant number of U.S. troops are engaged in static
support rather than patrolling and policing. 5,000 troops are being
used to guard static sites in Baghdad alone, and two and a half
battalions are being used to guard the CPA headquarters in Baghdad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, Iraqis will have to take responsibility for addressing
these types of problems, but it is unrealistic to expect them to have
the competence to do so in the near term. The new Iraqi security forces
will face well-trained, well-financed, and well-organized irregular
forces throughout the country, in addition to the Republican Guard
forces that may be awaiting a return. The new Iraqi security forces
(whether paramilitary, the new Iraqi army, the Facility Protection
Service, or the Iraqi police) will not be capable of handling security
matters without significant international oversight and rapid response
capacity for at least two to five years. Joint patrols with coalition
forces and Iraqis should be initiated immediately. International police
trainers and monitors are also needed during this time to conduct joint
patrols with Iraqis, and train, oversee, and monitor the Iraqi police
force.
Finally, battalion commanders and Iraqis throughout the country
were uniform in their assessment that without an overwhelming presence
of coalition forces or international police, potential spoilers will
move in, whether in the form of ``self-demobilized'' soldiers or local
militia members (e.g., the Iranian-backed Bad'r Corps, the Kurdish
Peshmerga, and smaller regional militias such as that operating in the
Maysan province). The CPA has not adequately addressed the need for
demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration (DDR) of Iraq's armed
forces, in part because of an assumption that the ``self-
demobilization'' of the Iraqi army during and after the conflict means
that they are fully demobilized in actual fact. The CPA must launch a
major initiative to reintegrate these soldiers and militia members, in
order to minimize the opportunity for them to pose security threats in
the future.
Recommendations
The coalition should reassess force composition and
structure and troop levels, commensurate with immediate needs,
including that of improving street-level visibility of
coalition troops, particularly in Baghdad.
The United States could use contract private security forces
to help rapidly expand security at low-risk installations,
freeing up some coalition troops for other security tasks. A
standardized policy on uniforms and identification could help
alleviate concerns about the proliferation of private militias
throughout Iraq.
The United States must recalibrate its expectations of how
quickly Iraqis can be expected to address the serious and
growing security problems and must plan for U.S. and UK forces
to be available in a rapid response capacity wherever Iraqi
forces are being asked to take over security tasks. The CPA
must also raise and rationalize the salary structure of the
Iraqi forces.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, most CPA and coalition military officials we spoke
to in the field thought that the current police salary of $60/month was
far too low to ensure a professional, corruption-free police force.
The CPA should decentralize the process of training and
equipping the Iraqi police force and Facilities Protection
Service to allow for faster and more enduring progress than the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
centralized training of thousands of police officers.
The CPA must begin serious efforts to recruit international
civilian police (CIVPOL) and should open all possible spigots
for such recruitment, including the United Nations, the OSCE,
and any potential bilateral contributors.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The United Nations has considerable experience in fielding
CIVPOL forces. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) alone does not have the experience or recruiting capability to
manage a CIVPOL effort along the order envisioned for Iraq.
The CPA must develop and implement a reintegration program
that provides opportunities for demobilized soldiers to gain
counseling and placement, either in the new Iraqi security
forces or major public works projects or other jobs.
Reintegration programs must include all the different militias
throughout the country in order to protect against future
problems these well-organized forces could pose.
2. iraqi ownership
Iraqi responsibility for their own future must be firmly
established at the national, provincial, and local levels. At the
national level, ensuring the success of the newly formed Iraqi
Governing Council is crucial. The CPA runs the risk of overloading the
new council by pushing too many controversial issues to it, which would
undermine this otherwise positive development.\5\ The natural desire to
draw anger away from the coalition by putting an Iraqi face on the most
difficult decisions must be balanced by a realistic assessment of what
the council can successfully manage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These issues include: appointing a new cabinet; approving the
national budget; initial preparations and plans for a national
constitutional process; food subsidies after the oil-for-food program
phases out in November 2003; salary levels; agricultural price
supports; the size of the new Iraqi army; de-Ba'athification follow-
through; and currency problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPA has made great progress in establishing municipal and
provincial political councils throughout the country, but those
councils need direction as to their purpose and the ability to respond
to local needs and demands. If not properly resourced and hooked into
the national governing council and constitutional process, these
councils could result in heightened expectations and dangerous levels
of frustration, rather than positively harnessing demands for change.
Recommendations
The CPA must give the Iraqi Governing Council time to build
on a series of initial successes. The CPA itself should make
more progress on some of the immediate, sensitive issues--such
as the handling of the remaining escrowed oil-for-food money
that supported myriad development projects in the north,
retraining and stipends for former soldiers and militia
members, and food and agricultural subsidies--before handing
them over to a fragile new governing structure.
The CPA should provide local and provincial councils with
funds to address priority local infrastructure needs. Local CPA
overseers could sign-off on use of funds.
The CPA should formulate plans to link the local and
provincial councils to the central political and constitutional
processes. The CPA should convene a national conference of town
and provincial councils from all over Iraq to launch a process
of defining their relationship to the national government and
creating fresh channels of cooperation.
3. putting people to work and providing basic services
Rebuilding a functioning Iraqi economy out of failed statist
economic structures is a daunting task. A host of thorny challenges
persist: difficulty in restarting vital public services, particularly
power and water; out-of-work civil servants and former soldiers; Iraq's
crushing international debt burden; a plethora of state-owned
industries that are not market competitive; a literacy rate that has
been falling for decades; infrastructure in need of serious investment;
shortages of gas (for cars and cooking) and other key supplies; and a
population that is predominantly young.
The immediate needs will be providing short-term employment
opportunities to keep people off the streets and refurbishing basic
services such as electricity, water, and sanitation, to avoid
exacerbating political and security problems. Low level economic
activity is returning to normal, and markets are filling up. But there
are long lines of Iraqis waiting for work wherever it is announced.
Many old state-owned enterprises are not competitive, but they are a
major source of employment and should not be closed during this most
unstable time. Moreover, a new civil and commercial code will be needed
to attract regional and international investment in Iraq's industries.
Recommendations
Develop a series of work initiatives to keep Iraqis from
being idle, with a particular emphasis on young, urban
populations.
Get and keep state-owned enterprises up and running in the
short-term to provide employment, while developing a clear
medium and long-term plan for privatizing those enterprises.
Start micro-credit programs in all provinces immediately,
placing a special emphasis on lending to women.
The CPA should do whatever is necessary to improve provision
of basic services, such as electricity, water, and sanitation.
Begin developing follow-on for the oil-for-food program, as
a food shortage caused by any disruption will cause a national
protest. This must include the transparent handling of
obligated resources under the program.
The CPA should involve Iraqis personally in the success of
Iraq's oil industry. Personal bank accounts or trust funds
funded by oil revenues should be developed, to catalyze the
banking system and get cash to the public.
4. decentralization
The job facing occupation and Iraqi authorities is too big to be
handled by the center. Implementation is lagging far behind needs and
expectations in key areas, at least to some extent because of severely
constrained CPA human resources at the provincial and local levels.
There is a disconnect between on-the-ground realities and policy
formulation at CPA headquarters. Decentralization of key CPA functions
will enhance operational speed and effectiveness and allow maximum
empowerment of Iraqis. Placing significantly more CPA civilians in the
field would help deliver more of what is needed on the ground and
improve the general understanding of the reconstruction.
Recommendations
The CPA must be given adequate resources and personnel to
immediately establish 18 provincial CPA offices, including 18
provincial civil administrators with clear authorities and
appropriately staffed offices of 20-30 people.\6\ Attaching one
political adviser to each battalion command will not be
sufficient. Each CPA provincial office will need funds for
operational support and flexible funding and authority for
quick impact projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Based on our informal survey of governorates we visited, there
is general consensus that each provincial CPA office will need between
20-30 people in order to ensure an effective hand-off from military to
civilian lead and give the CPA the operational capacity it needs to
address priorities.
The Department of Defense should establish a headhunting
capacity in the United States to help identify, recruit, and
retain a steady pool of civilian talent to fill the CPA's
needs. Given the broad nature of the tasks, this office should
have strong interagency support, from State, USAID, Treasury,
Justice, Agriculture, and other relevant departments. At the
same time, the United States must internationalize the
recruiting effort for CPA civilians. Potential talent within
other foreign governments and international organization
officials with experience in Iraq and the region should be
identified. This effort must break through the lingering pre-
war differences with logical partners on the civilian front.
5. changing the iraqi national mindset
The CPA must facilitate a profound change in the Iraqi national
frame of mind--from centralized authority to significant freedoms, from
suspicion to trust, from skepticism to hope. The CPA needs to
effectively communicate its strategy and vision--what will success look
like, what does the United States intend to provide, and how long will
it stay. This will require an intense and effective communications and
marketing campaign, not the status quo. Communication--between the CPA
and the Iraqi people and within the CPA itself--is insufficient so far.
The CPA message is not getting out, either to the Iraqi people or
within the CPA. All potential constituencies are not being adequately
exploited; every CPA interaction with Iraqis should be considered a
communications opportunity. Radio and television programming are the
most critical means to getting the message out.\7\ Without seeing or
hearing Bremer and others, disinformation will continue to prevail over
truth on key policy issues, such as U.S. intentions about Iraq's oil
money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Based on our interviews, Iraqis are dismissive of the Iraqi
Media Network--the CPA-funded indigenous media outlet--noting that it
does not have good programming and is only on the air during certain
limited times of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current set-up, the CPA is isolated and cut off from
Iraqis. Most CPA officials we interviewed confirmed that the CPA does
not know even close to what it needs to know about the Iraqi people.
(This problem is worst in Baghdad; in other areas, CPA and military
officers are in more regular contact with Iraqis.) The CPA does receive
information from Iraqis at the local, regional, and national levels,
but it does not have the organizational tools to assess that
information adequately.
Finally, there is a need for enhanced communications flow within
the CPA structure--both to provide updated, real information to CPA
staff about Iraq news and to enhance communication on policy matters
between the CPA front office and the rest of the organization,
especially the regional and provincial offices. Serious time is also
being lost because of the absence of reliable telephone communications
nationwide, which inhibits the transmission of timely information.
Recommendations
The CPA should engage in blanket marketing in every venue it
can access, including using advertising on every channel that
feeds into Iraq and public service messages. Every interaction
with Iraqis should be seen as a message dissemination
opportunity, including salary distribution centers, oil-for-
food distributions, and town meetings.
All day programming is needed on a revamped and upgraded
Iraqi Media Network, with a focus on television programming.
The CPA also should encourage the establishment of more local
TV stations, which have proved more successful in getting out
CPA's messages in areas such as Karbala and the north. Creating
a ``headline news'' type of program would address Iraqis'
desire to hear both the CPA global messages and very practical
information about such pressing issues as power outages,
sensitive arrests, sabotaged infrastructure, and dismissals of
former Ba'ath party officials.
The CPA should establish walk-in centers staffed by Iraqis
and use Iraqi ``animators'' to give average Iraqis ways to make
their views known to coalition authorities. The CPA should
utilize international players--particularly the UN specialized
agencies--that have been on the ground in Iraq for years to
boost its capacity to collect information and views from
Iraqis.
The CPA must create an effective fusion mechanism into which
all information collected at headquarters and in the field can
be fed, to ensure it is being used to the fullest extent.
The CPA headquarters should focus on engaging and building a
community among all CPA employees. Regular town meetings
featuring Ambassador Bremer and other senior officials would
help. Daily email briefs containing real, hard information--
including information on the latest attacks and about basic
services--should be provided to all CPA employees.
The CPA should convene regular interactive meetings with its
regional and provincial offices, whether in person or by video
conference.
The CPA should expand current contractor capacity to
encourage the provision of regular nationwide telephone service
immediately.
6. mobilizing a new reconstruction coalition
Relying on the war coalition will not produce sufficient resources
or capacity. The scope of the challenges, the financial requirements,
and rising anti-Americanism in parts of Iraq argue for a new coalition
that includes countries and organizations beyond the original war
fighting coalition. The recent donor discussions at the United States
in late June reflected low projections for donor financial support,
further highlighting this need. The Council for International
Cooperation (CIC) at the CPA is a welcome innovation, but it must be
dramatically expanded and supercharged if a new and inclusive coalition
is to be built.
Recommendations
The United States, working with the G7 and the World Bank,
should oversee the donor coordination process, including by
keeping a central databank of resource needs and donor
fulfillment of those needs. Donor coordination efforts should
be broadened beyond the 15 states that are currently members of
the CIC, and those efforts should be bolstered by providing the
CIC support staff in Europe and the United States.
The CPA should reach out broadly to other countries in its
efforts to recruit civilians to fill its staffing needs, as the
U.S. government will not be able to fill those needs on its
own.
The CPA should take advantage of the UN's unique capacities
in support for constitution drafting, access to regional and
Iraqi legal expertise, and gender and education issues. The CPA
should utilize the UN's systems, including the oil-for-food
network, as a valuable means of connecting with Iraqis.
The CPA should draw on valuable international expertise to
assist the Iraqis in dealing with war crimes and the legacy of
Saddam Hussein.
7. money and flexibility
The CPA currently has four sources of revenue: appropriated funds,
oil revenue, vested assets in the United States, and assets that have
been seized in Iraq. Of these, seized regime assets are the most
flexible and readily available, but these are finite--and in any case,
the overall resources available are inadequate to the challenges at
hand. It is highly likely that the CPA will need supplemental
appropriations to get through fiscal year 2004. Oil revenue projections
for the next few years are low--the CPA expects production to reach 1.5
million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of 2003 and 2.5 million bpd by
the end of 2004. It is currently at around 600,000 bpd. The CPA expects
to earn $5 billion in oil revenue by the end of 2003, but this
projection may decrease if security problems persist and oil
infrastructure continues to be targeted. Power shortages are also
hampering efforts to restart oil production.
The CPA is badly handicapped by a ``business as usual'' approach to
the mechanics of government, such as getting permission to spend money
or enter into contracts. This approach is not reasonable given the
urgency of the situation in Iraq. There also appear to be unnecessary
limitations in the area of contracts.
Recommendations
The CPA should be given complete flexibility to spend
money--even appropriated funds and vested assets--as it views
necessary without project-by-project oversight by Washington. A
process should be established to ensure appropriate
accountability for all spending, through regular reports from
the CPA back to Washington. Any funds appropriated in the
future for Iraq reconstruction needs should not require prior
notification of Congress. Congress could request quarterly
reports detailing how appropriated funds have been spent on
reconstruction activities in Iraq.
The United States needs to ensure that Iraq's revenues are
not encumbered by past or future obligations. This will require
resolving the debt issue within the U.S. government, and
pushing Iraq's creditors to forgive or significantly reduce
Iraq's outstanding debt burden. The United States should also
avoid encumbering future oil revenues to generate immediate
income.\8\
The relevant United States government agencies should deploy
military and civilian contracting officers to the theater to
streamline the contracting processes.
The Department of Defense should create a strong office in
Washington to support the CPA's needs, including recruiting of
appropriate civilian personnel.
conclusion
Eleven days in Iraq left indelible images in our minds. Fathers
escorting young girls to school; young men waiting in long lines
everywhere jobs are announced; young kids flashing the thumbs-up sign
(and swarming around us asking for money); a rebuilt prison with a
newly installed manager; retrained Iraqi police officers directing
traffic; snaking lines of cars at gas stations; a festive 4th of July
party thrown by the Kurds in the north (and celebrating 4th of July at
Saddam's palace in Baghdad); racing through small towns in heavily
armed convoys; 19-year old American soldiers standing out in 120 degree
heat to guard Iraqi sites, and chatting on street corners with Iraqi
children; the blackness and heat of the night with power shortages; the
pleasure of a shower after days without running water; the energy,
commitment, and intensity of Iraqis as they discussed their country's
future; the natural beauty of the mountains in the north and Iraq's
fertile crescent; the pride and professionalism of Iraqi members of
newly established town councils; the palpable fear of Iraqis out in the
street after the sun wes down, and the security bubble U.S. officials
work in; the high expectations of Iraqis as to what the United States
can provide, and their frustration and anger over intermittent
electricity and water service; the resourcefulness of U.S. and British
troops as they restart civil society; the sincere efforts of civilians
to forge ahead despite the looming insecurity; devastated university
buildings in Basra, completely ravaged by looters; the opulence of
Saddam's palaces; and Iraq's ancient history and cultural richness.
As we traveled throughout the country, it was impossible not to be
impressed by the character and drive of the coalition forces, the
dedication and enthusiasm of the CPA, the wearied endurance of the
Iraqi people, and the enormity of the opportunities, challenges, and
risks before them all.
The U.S. government has chosen to use a different model for post-
conflict reconstruction in Iraq. Not only is it being led by the United
States, but it is being led by an institution--the Department of
Defense--with relatively untested capacities. There has been progress
to date, but using a new model heightens the challenges and requires a
new definition of relations and responsibilities.
The United States will need significant international assistance--
from the United Nations, other international organizations, and
bilateral donors. Security forces, CIVPOL, information flows, and
ensuring a ready supply of CPA personnel with relevant capabilities are
just four such areas.
The U.S. government--both the executive branch and the Congress--
must change certain business as usual practices in order to maximize
the CPA's opportunities to be successful. The CPA needs more resources,
personnel, and flexibility. We owe it to our people in the field, and
to Iraqis, to provide everything necessary to get this right. U.S.
credibility and national interest depend upon it.
------------
\8\ It will be critical that the CPA handle oil revenues as
transparently as possible. Iraqis we met with spoke of continuing
suspicions about U.S. intentions with respect to their oil industry.
The Chairman. If I may interrupt now for just a moment. We
are going to have our magic moment of business, with consent of
the group. If members will bear with us for just a second, we
will be able to ratify five treaties, a Foreign Service officer
list, and other important issues.
[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the committee proceeded to a
business meeting, and resumed the hearing at 3:15 p.m., this
same day.]
The Chairman. I thank the witnesses for their patience for
this intervention.
I will call now upon the distinguished ranking member for
his opening statement and then we will proceed to Ms. Crocker
for her comments. Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize to the witnesses for being a few minutes late.
I am going to begin by saying, Mr. Hamre, I think your
report and that of your colleagues is first-rate, absolutely
first-rate. And I compliment the Secretary on asking you to
undertake this. Coincidentally, the three of us in the middle
here were on the ground almost in the same timeframe that you
were, and it will not surprise you, speaking for myself, but I
think for my colleagues as well, that the conclusions we
reached were very similar to the ones that you have reached.
The committee report \2\ is forthcoming. I think you will find
it mirrors your report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Committee Print report referred to is entitled ``Iraq:
Meeting the Challenge, Sharing the Burden, Staying the Course,'' July
2003, S. Prt. 108-31. It is available from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee or can be accessed on the Government Printing Office Web site
at www.gpo.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to note that, with the chairman's
permission, we ``left behind'' for 8 days two senior staff
members, the senior Republican staff member handling this area,
as well as the senior Democratic staff member. Again, after 8
days on the ground and extensive interviews--and they went back
on their own back into the country and had wide-ranging freedom
to move about, although they were in peril like all of you were
and everyone is who wanders around that country right now,
particularly Baghdad--they reached the same conclusions
basically.
We have, in my view, a very first-rate team in Iraq. People
like Ambassador Crocker, who I think is one of the finest
people we have in our Foreign Service; Walt Slocombe, a serious
player from the Defense Department; and a truly professional
team working with them, including a former police commissioner
from New York City and a number of people who I have dealt with
at length in my dozen visits, literally, into Bosnia and Kosovo
over the previous 6 or 8 years. We have a considerable learning
curve that we have already turned on in terms of police forces.
So we have some very, very serious people there.
Unfortunately, it seems to me it is painfully obvious that
their job is made all that much harder by the fact that the
planning for the aftermath of the war started much too late and
was based on some deeply flawed assumptions. I think unless we
examine some of the assumptions that the rebuilding of Iraq was
based upon that we now know were inaccurate, it is going to be
kind of hard to figure out exactly what we should be doing.
We were told that Iraq would inherit a fully functioning
government, that the ministries would be fully operational in a
short time after they had been decapitated of Ba'ath
leadership, that the military would be basically intact after
being decapitated at the general level of Ba'athist Party
members, and that the police forces remain on the job. Well, in
fact, none of that occurred for whatever reasons. None of that
is in place. We were also told that we would have a quick ramp-
up of oil production, and then the impression was we could pack
up and go home because all this would be up and running.
Now, a number of people, led by the chairman of the
committee and by very different folks from uniformed military,
General Shinseki to a whole range of other people, thought--and
this committee held extensive hearings--it would be a lot more
difficult and that many of those assumptions were not based
upon what a lot of the experts we were talking to were telling
us on both sides of the aisle. There was a pretty consistent
message we kept getting in this committee that things would be
different.
And there are some things none of us anticipated in my
view. At least I did not. I did not anticipate just how badly
broken the Iraqi infrastructure was. I did not realize how
badly treated and/or maintained the oil fields were, separate
and apart from the fact that we miraculously worked our
military so that they were not destroyed. They were already in
many ways destroyed in ways that we did not anticipate.
My purpose today is not to dwell on the past, but focus our
attention on the realities which I think is what your report
did. Law and order, especially in Baghdad, has collapsed.
Electricity, water, fuel supplies remain unreliable in
temperatures as high as 120 degrees. It is not like having the
same thing happen occur in an area where the mean temperature
is 80 degrees.
And on top of it all, we lack in my view a public
information strategy to communicate with the Iraqis. I would
note, Mr. Chairman, I found it fascinating today and tried to
call the Secretary that we were in demand on the part of the
Iraqi people to be shown that Saddam's sons were killed and
were talking about disseminating photographs. Why in Lord's
name would we not let Al Jazeera television or anybody come in
and look at this? I do not know whether people over there do
not seem to understand. We are not believed. We are not
believed when we lay out these things in our own terms. So
there is an awful lot to do in stabilization of that country in
order to be able to begin to do what every American wants to do
which is share the costs and bring our troops home, bring them
home more rapidly than we otherwise would have to.
Two, which I predict will happen if we do not start to get
things in order pretty quickly, decide that we are going to put
an Iraqi provisional government in power. We are going to
basically try to turn it over to the U.N. We are going to try
to bring folks home and get out of there and leave, which I
think would be a prescription for absolute, total chaos.
We have, it seems to me, three choices. One, we continue to
bear the burden ourselves, deploy additional forces that are
needed, spend the tens of billions of dollars for
reconstruction out of our own treasury, and maintain again the
carrying of 90-plus percent of the cost. We can do that.
We have a third option. We can figure out a way to
internationalize this to get other people to take on part of
the burden, take on part of the cost. I remind everyone what
this committee reminded everyone for the last year and more,
that for the first gulf war, we only paid about 20 percent of
the total cost of that war. We only paid about 20 percent.
Everyone from the Japanese to the EU to the Arab states came in
and picked up the bill. We are paying it all now virtually. And
there seems to be a lack of a game plan or a will to figure out
how to internationalize this and get everybody in on the deal.
As you point out, folks are going to want to know, Mr.
Hamre, what this provisional government is going to look like.
How legitimate is it before they decide at this donors'
conference they are prepared to jump in? Well, part of that is
I have never found people being very receptive to being able to
pick up the check without having to at least have some say in
what is on the menu and having some say about what is going on
in the country. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think
that that is going to happen.
So the thing that I most welcome about your report is the
stark assertion--and I am paraphrasing--that we have a
relatively narrow window. I want to make sure that I
characterize it correctly from reading your report. The narrow
window is not whether we can get anything done. The narrow
window is the period of time in which to convince the Iraqi
people that we, in fact, are part of their salvation and not
their problem. In my view if 60 to 90 days from now conditions
have not markedly changed on the ground, as it relates to
security, as it relates to basic services, particularly
electricity, as it relates to police forces on the ground, then
I think we are going to find ourselves in a tough spot.
Serious polling has been done showing that the Iraqi people
are prepared to give us--the vast majority--between 6 months
and 2 years to begin to get this right. They want us to stay.
They want us to stay. And some good things are happening. Some
good things are happening on the ground over there. But I think
we have a fairly narrow window.
The last point I want to make is this, and I am going to
want to talk to you about this. You mentioned oil. One thing
the chairman spoke about last July, August, September, October,
November in his straightforward traditional, conservative,
insightful way was how are we going to set up an economy.
Remember you kept saying that? What is going to be the economy?
As my grandfather would say, what horse is going to carry the
sleigh? What is the horse that is going to carry the sleigh?
And we keep being told--or implied--not to worry. Iraq has the
second-largest oil reserves in the world. That can do the job.
I want to make it clear to everybody what we were told in
Baghdad by our persons on the ground--and I cannot remember the
man's name.
Senator Hagel. Phil Carroll.
Senator Biden. Phil Carroll is a serious oil man, appointed
to get that oil industry up and running. My recollection is
that he said if everything goes as planned without any serious
interruption of oil flow through sabotage and investments in
the fields continue, then over the next 18 months we may
generate up to $16 billion to $18 billion in revenues.
Now, one little thing. Our folks over there who are going
to train an Iraqi police force are telling us that they need
now a minimum of 5,000 trained police officers from Europe or
other parts of the world on the ground now to allow them to
maintain order and train. A 1-year budget for that operation is
$725,023,000. So almost three-quarters of a billion dollars
just for 1 year to maintain a total of roughly 6,000 trainers
and police officers on the ground. And we are paying $4 billion
a month just to maintain U.S. forces on the ground. That is
just to get some sense of proportion.
So if anybody thinks that we are going to be able to
rebuild Iraq, not pay for any of our stuff, rebuild Iraq with
Iraqi resources over the next 18 months, they are kidding
themselves because you laid out we have got $6 billion that is
on hand now. We are going to have max $14 billion to $16
billion the next 18 months in oil based on everything we have
been told and we are hoping for the donors' conference. That
requires us to focus on the thing the chairman talked about
last October and that is what to do about Iraqi debt.
So the point I want to make is that I hope we start to get
rational and reasonable about how urgent this is, how badly we
need others in on the deal to help carry a lot of this burden,
and how much that requires us to have a patina of legitimacy
that I think can only come through the United Nations, NATO,
the EU and the Arab nations as to the government that we are
helping put in place, to be chosen by the Iraqi people
ultimately.
I think your report is a first-rate contribution to
alerting us to, A, we are going to need more money; B, the
window is pretty narrow; C, it is going to take a long time;
and D, we better get underway. So I have specific questions
when we get to that, but again, I want to compliment you. I
think it is a first-rate report and it is one heck of a
starting point. I heard you say, as I came in, your statement
that you are being listened to, and I hope that in your
weighing in, you will help settle the ongoing debate within
this administration about which way to go in terms of what we
do from this point on. Again, I thank you.
I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman, and I will wait
till we get to questions to pursue some of the things I would
like to talk about.
[The opening statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
I welcome our witnesses who have recently spent time in Iraq and
produced first-rate assessments of conditions there.
I commend you for doing a fine job in your reports. Your
conclusions track with what the chairman, Senator Hagel, and I found in
Baghdad and what my staff and Senator Hagel's staff have reported based
on an additional eight days on the ground.
We have a first-rate team in the Coalition Provisional Authority.
They're doing their level best under the most difficult circumstances
to bring a semblance of stability to Iraq. We met with several of them
during our visit--Ambassador Bremer, Ambassador Crocker, Walt Slocombe,
and a truly professional team working on police training. And of course
we spent time with our men and women in uniform who are bearing the
brunt of the heavy lifting in Iraq.
Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that their job has been made
all that much harder by the fact that planning for the aftermath of the
war started too late and was based upon deeply flawed assumptions.
We were told that the Iraq we would inherit would have a fully-
functioning government. That the ministries would be fully operational,
the military would remain intact, and police forces would remain on the
job. We could come in, remove the top few layers of Ba'athists in each
of these organizations, put our favorite exiles in power, quickly ramp-
up oil production, then pack up and go home.
The reality is starkly different. Iraq is a broken country. It has
been devastated by 35 years of mismanagement and misrule, over 12 years
of sanctions, and extensive looting after the most recent conflict.
My purpose today is not to dwell on the past. Instead, I want to
focus our attention on the realities of a dangerous situation on the
ground that we have to fix.
Law and order, especially in Baghdad, has collapsed. Electricity,
water, and fuel supplies remain unreliable as temperatures approach 120
degrees. Unemployment is estimated at over 60%. And on top of it all,
we lack an effective public information strategy to communicate with
Iraqis.
The longer this situation persists the more frustration will grow
and the more difficult it will be to achieve our two objectives in
Iraq: first, to stabilize the country, and second to bring our troops
home.
We have three options before us.
One is to continue to bear the burden ourselves, deploy the
additional forces that are needed, and spend the tens of billions of
dollars for reconstruction out of our own treasury. Well, it's beyond
me why we would continue to treat Iraq as if it is some sort of prize.
It is not. It is an enormous burden that we need not and should not
bear alone.
The second option is to cut and run. Capture or kill Saddam, turn
things over to an Iraqi political body, and get our forces out. This,
in my judgment, would be a disaster. It would leave Iraq in chaos,
invite neighbors such as Iran to intervene, and damage our credibility
badly.
The final option is to bring in our friends and allies. To ask NATO
to take command and send roughly 25,000 troops to Iraq. To ask the
European Union and others to contribute 5,500 police forces and the
tens of billions of dollars that will be needed for reconstruction. And
to seek a United Nations resolution giving the world body a greater
role if that will give other countries the political cover to provide
troops and dollars.
In my judgment, the third option is the only option. It is one we
could have achieved before we went to war, one we should have pursued
immediately after the war in the flush of success, and one we must set
our sights on now.
Again, I welcome our witnesses. I would urge you to focus your
remarks not only on what went wrong, but on how, specifically, we can
get things right.
We want to hear any concrete recommendations you have for restoring
security, reviving the economy, putting Iraqis to work, empowering them
politically, communicating more effectively and getting more help from
our friends and allies. I look forward to your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Biden.
Ms. Crocker, would you proceed with your testimony?
Ms. Crocker. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will
pick up on one of Senator Biden's important points about how we
need to remember that there are some good things happening on
the ground here.
One of the areas where we saw that was the area of the
setting up of local and provincial political councils and the
recent establishment of the Iraqi Governing Council, all of
which are very important steps going forward.
What we were concerned about and have highlighted in our
report is the need to make sure that we give these councils all
of the tools they need to succeed so that we can sort of
maximize what we have started in the way of progress in this
area.
In thinking about the local councils, what we noticed when
we went out in the field was that there is a bit of a
disconnect still between what is happening out in the field,
very excellent work being done by our military commanders and
the civilians in the field to set up local councils and
provincial level councils. But they are not, as of yet, really
connected in any way to what is going on in the national
political front, and we will need to make sure that we find a
way to make that link.
One piece of that may also be making sure that we engage in
some revenue sharing so that we get some resources out to the
localities, that we decentralize this effort a little bit so
they can start responding to the local needs in their
communities.
Just a second point on the Iraqi Governing Council itself.
One thing that also concerned us was that the Coalition
Provisional Authority, of course, has a natural and
understandable inclination to want to put an Iraqi face on some
of the very difficult issues that they are facing. Although I
think we all agree that that is the right direction to be going
in, we will also have to be careful to make sure that we do not
overload that council too early by sort of dumping off all of
the very controversial issues that will be coming up.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Orr.
Dr. Orr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In your initial remarks, you said that you would be looking
for tools that you might use to move this process forward. I
would like to call your attention to one very powerful tool
that we heard calls for from different parts of the country and
that is decentralization. Iraq is a huge country, as all of you
who have visited it know. It is a very diverse country. If you
go north, go south, go to south central, Baghdad, it looks very
different. The problems look very different, and I would argue
the solutions look very different or need to look very
different.
We need to pursue a strategy where we consolidate gains in
those places where things are going well, even as we naturally
are going to focus on the places where there are problems. To
do that, we need to get authority and resources out to our own
people in the field at the provincial level. There are 18
provinces in Iraq. I think on paper we do have at least one
person in every one of those provinces, but we cannot kid
ourselves here. We are not up to the task out in the field.
Most of our resources, human and otherwise, are concentrated in
Baghdad and the area around Baghdad.
I think what is interesting about this is the model we have
been thus far through the military is a decentralized model. It
is these amazing majors and captains that are standing up town
councils, that are getting economies going, that are starting
quick impact projects. But by their own accounts out in the
field, they said in numerous conversations in all parts of the
country, we have done what we can, but sir, I just do not know
what to do with this town council now. Can you please get some
civilian out here who has served on a city council or has at
least seen one before? I think our military has done an amazing
job. What we need to do now is get the civilians into the field
to follow through on their good startup work.
In order to do that, we have to get mechanisms in place to
recruit civilians aggressively and get them out to the field. I
think there is a recognition that some of the bureaucratic
problems here in Washington have held up a lot of these
civilians that we need to get into the field. It is time to get
past our bureaucratic problems in Washington.
Under Secretary Feith the other day at the Pentagon noted
that he was planning to take one of the recommendations and, in
fact, had started to set up a backstopping office for
Ambassador Bremer here in Washington. One of the key functions
of that office would be to collect an interagency group of
people--he said someone from all of the agencies that are on
the ground in Iraq--and to use that office for one very
important purpose, among others, and that is to recruit the
right civilians. Get the Agriculture Department employee who
knows all the right people in this area to identify the five
agricultural engineers that we have to get to specific
provinces. Have the Justice Department play their role, the
State Department play theirs. Only by having that office up and
running are we going to see the right people getting out into
the field.
As you and Senator Biden noted, this window is closing. I
think the key here is to go from the talking about the
decentralization stage to the implementation stage immediately.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Orr.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I wanted to talk about what I think is probably something
that both of you have referenced in your statements, and that
is, in order to restore the economy, we need to get the power
running, the oil pumping, and the water flowing. But we also
need the Iraqi people employed back again in the jobs that they
once held. Even if, in the short term, that is not the key to
privatization, they need to be off the streets with a
meaningful existence and some money in their pockets so they
can buy the food that they need, and the way to survive in this
critical window is to make them feel they are part of this
operation.
My colleagues like to talk about an iron triangle of water,
oil, and power. I think it is clear that we all know that we
were uninformed about the gravity of the power situation, but
we now know what to do to solve it. I think the faster we get
every generator available and every kind of technical capacity
available into the field, the sooner Iraqis will feel a greater
sense of progress because they will feel the air conditioning,
they will feel the power on more than 2 hours a day. I spoke to
women whose children had to study by lantern light in Baghdad
because there was no power and there was a continuing blackout.
So these are emergencies.
On the jobs' end, many people in industries have to be
reemployed in the status industries right now. It is a
recurring cost. It is going to add to the budget that Mr. Biden
made reference to, but in the long run, this will provide the
stability and the security that we need.
And finally, I think we are moving ahead on some of the
credit areas, but the provisional council, while it is not the
actual government, has to provide some kind of a legal
framework so that investors and people who want to start
business in Iraq can move forward and understand that there is
going to be reliability of the economic system. We were at a
meeting yesterday. Nobody wants to invest when there is no
regular regard for a contract. But if these three areas are
taken care of in the short run--and I think they can be--we
certainly could move forward.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Mendelson-Forman.
Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you very much. It is a pleasure to
be here. My father was a member of the staff 30 years ago and
had the chance to work with you. For those staff members who
wonder what might be happening to them, may your children grow
up to testify before this committee. It is a pleasure to be
here.
In the midst of enormous challenges that we are looking at
here in Iraq, perhaps one of the greatest is moving the Iraqi
mind set. In a society that is dominated by rumor-mongering and
a complete lack of trust, the availability of constantly
reliable information and of constant communication is
absolutely essential. We believe that this is an area that
still needs a tremendous amount of attention. Other than the
$25 million reward for bringing in Saddam Hussein, in our
travels we found very little understanding of what was going on
in their country, where it might be heading, and what their
individual roles might be.
So what we have suggested is that what is clearly needed
here is a national marketing campaign in the best sense. We
felt that there are really three large voids. We do not know
what the Iraqis are thinking still. Despite our presence in the
community, we are living in something of a bubble.
Second, we are quite clear that the Iraqis do not know what
we are thinking.
And then the third area is we are not sure that we know
what we are communicating among ourselves.
So the national marketing campaign obviously needs to be,
first and foremost, built on a fully informed sense of what the
Iraqi public is thinking and what it wants. And this will not
be able to be done in sort of the traditional ways. We are
going to have to get way beyond our occasional polling or some
of the other methods that we have seen here.
The second part of that is that we have to get the full
contact with the people of Iraq. And we have a lot of
opportunities that we think are being missed. We are paying
salaries to tens of thousands of Iraqis and we are not using
those opportunities. We have some TV programming that we put
into place, but again it is nowhere near the 24/7 appetite that
we saw there on the ground. We have the oil-for-food program,
which essentially still is reaching the vast majority of the
people of the country. These are channels that can be used and
they need to be used if we are going to really get the kind of
well-informed participation from the Iraqi public that we think
is necessary.
So this is something that is not typically within the
working strengths of our government. We have joked among
ourselves. We have said there is probably only one person in
the U.S. Government who really is prepared to run this kind of
an effort, and it may well be Karl Rove. But that is the sort
of focus and attention and seriousness of effort that we
believe is absolutely necessary.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton.
Let me now call upon Mr. Anthony Borden who is executive
director of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in
London, United Kingdom, for his comments. Mr. Borden.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY BORDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR
WAR AND PEACE REPORTING, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Borden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators, ladies and
gentlemen, and my esteemed colleagues on the panel. It is a
particular pleasure for me to be here, especially coat-tailing
on their excellent report. As the executive director of the
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, I have been working in
post-conflict and conflict areas seeking to strengthen local
journalism for more than 12 years. This is in many cases
working in training, reporting, research programs, and local
capacity-building. Our organization works in the Balkans, the
Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq, and we have
a long-term program supporting information flow from the War
Crimes Tribunal in the Hague on the former Yugoslavia.
Personally I traveled to Iraq just before the war to get
some sense of what one could of the regime and also the
information system there, and with a number of other
organizations, I traveled to Baghdad and throughout the country
in the preceding month. My remarks now are based on an
assessment report \3\ which we produced and which has been
disseminated but slightly updated since that report was
finished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The assessment report referred to serves as Mr. Borden's
prepared statement and can be found on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, efforts by the U.S.-led authority in Iraq to
establish responsible media are in crisis. Poor planning and
implementation are undermining efforts to inform the Iraqi
population and to lay out a framework for media development.
The stakes are very high. A prerequisite for any kind of
emerging democracy is a trusted and professional media to
convey facts, support responsible debate, and represent the
diversity of communities and views within the country. But the
absence of reliable Iraqi media exacerbates the frustration and
growing anger felt because of the absence of Iraqi governance
and the continuing lack of basic security and services.
Powerless and uncertain, Iraqis need a voice.
There has been a dramatic post-war boom in local media,
with the launch of up to 150 newspapers and many radio
stations. Indeed, there is a bewildering, even exciting,
diversity of new media for a changed Iraq emerging from decades
of dictatorship.
But the majority of these media are highly partisan
operations established by rival political interests jockeying
for position and could be destabilizing in a fragile post-
conflict environment. Many are directly produced by political
parties or by former senior Ba'athists or other figures with a
political, rather than a journalistic, orientation. Media
beamed in from other countries in the region with very
different agendas have far outpaced any U.S.-launched
initiatives. Informed media with balanced reporting is largely
absent.
Most disappointing, the United States, through the
Coalition Provisional Authority, has failed in the core task of
communicating with the Iraqi people. With a weak and poorly
executed information and media strategy, the U.S. has spent
around $20 million, yet failed either to provide basic
information about its actions and intentions or to lay a
meaningful groundwork for a future responsible Iraqi media.
The central problem is a conceptual one: the U.S.
administration has not firmly separated its policies for media
from its agenda for public diplomacy. Both are very important
objectives. The occupying authority has a responsibility to
communicate with the population to allay fears, provide basic
information, and explain the purpose and potential of its
intervention. But independent and reliable reporting is
entirely different and must be structurally separate.
In particular, the Iraqi Media Network, which is the
authority media team, has been tasked both with broadcasting
and with regulatory authority, with producing media and with
providing information for the CPA. Overall, IMN has simply not
demonstrated the vision and professional capacity to meet the
major challenge it faces.
Compounding the problem, interagency rivalry has
contributed to an absence of strategy, bad hiring and
purchasing practices, and debilitating internal dispute. TV
programming, as my colleagues mentioned, has in particular been
poor. As a result the IMN television news neither provides
credible information to the population nor serves as the
flagship fresh face of a new and democratic Iraq.
An urgent step change is required in the structure and
ambition of U.S. media and information strategy, focusing on
three main points.
One, the CPA must create a professional and substantial
information operation to communicate basic facts to the
population. Treat Iraqi people with respect by speaking to them
honestly, regularly, and in their own languages about the
challenges and prospects for their country, and they will give
their support. Keep them in the dark or communicate through
spin and half-truths, and frustration and anger will grow.
Two, establish an independent Iraqi media commission to
create the legal framework and regulatory and other
institutions necessary for a free media environment.
Superseding the existing Iraqi Media Network, the new
commission must include incubating an Iraqi public broadcaster
which itself would gain early independence.
Through an initiative of USAID and the U.S. organization
Internews, a framework for just such an approach has been
drafted and consensus at a senior level appears to be emerging.
Yet, it is important to emphasize that, as with IMN, the effort
will falter if right from the start it is not granted full
independence from direct CPA control or if ambitious multi-year
resources are not reliably pledged. The challenge of winning
buy-in from Iraqis also remains.
Third and finally, empower Iraqi democrats. Draw on
existing professional talent, urgently launch training to
develop new capacity, and provide meaningful positions of
responsibility for Iraqis in all new institutions. It is their
country and the only effective approach will be one that makes
them direct stakeholders.
This should include a new Iraqi media institute as a
coordinating body for training and media development and for
strengthening the ties between emerging independent media and
the broader Iraqi civil society which must sustain and be
sustained by it. This is the area of focus of my organization,
the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which with British
support will be launching a significant journalist training and
humanitarian reporting project in the coming weeks.
No one should under-estimate the extreme difficulties
facing Iraq, a civil society destroyed, an economy in ruins,
communications nonexistent, continuing uncertainty and
violence. It will not be easy to overcome years of censorship
and brutal repression of dissent.
Yet, Iraqis are confronting this huge challenge with
considerable energy and initiative. A proud people, they are
highly educated and have shown enduring desire, even through
the stultifying decades of Ba'athist rule, to be informed. The
possibility for a responsible press and a sophisticated
audience is evident, a potential revolution in open media for
the whole region.
This would only make the loss of such an opportunity all
the more disappointing. The information chaos in Iraq
undermines both Iraq's interests and America's, and urgent
steps to chart a fresh course for a clear new democratic media
voice in the region must not be missed.
Thank you.
[The following media assessment report was submitted by Mr.
Borden:]
A New Voice in the Middle East:
A Provisional Needs Assessment for the Iraqi Media
1. executive summary
Stabilisation and development in post-war Iraq depend on the
creation of new forms of representative government in a country that
has suffered decades of war and brutal dictatorship. A prerequisite for
success is the emergence of a professional and independent media, to
convey reliable facts, support responsible debate and represent the
diversity of communities and views within Iraq.
Iraqis are confronting this huge challenge with considerable
energy, but face serious obstacles. In the weeks since the end of
hostilities, dozens of new newspapers and magazines have been launched
in the capital, Baghdad, while the busy media culture in Iraqi
Kurdistan--established during the decade of self-rule--has continued.
Much of this output is due to the entrepreneurial and professional
skill of Iraqis from within the country, and returning exiles bringing
technical ability and mobilising financial and other outside resources.
Meantime, the United States, through the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA, formerly ORHA) has launched radio and television
programming and two newspapers.
Yet the difficulties are extreme. Iraqi civil society has been
destroyed, the economy is in ruins and security is poor. Rival
political interests jockeying for position are establishing highly
partisan media which could be destabilising in a fragile post-conflict
environment. Infrastructure for effective production, distribution and
broadcast are inadequate and in many cases destroyed through bombing
and looting. Reliable communications systems--essential for effective
media--are non-existent.
The majority of media professionals have politicised backgrounds,
either with the opposition or government media, or the Ba'ath Party
itself: there are few experienced journalists, editors and managers to
operate truly independent media. The absence of the rule of law, and of
a broader democratic culture, impede the free flow of information and
debate essential to open media. Poor planning and bureaucratic in-
fighting within the international authority responsible for
reconstruction have inhibited efficient and effective media
development. Practical local reporting on humanitarian issues is
absent. The lack of an Iraqi authority, the lack of basic security and
services, and the absence of a reliable Iraqi voice are all
contributing to a sense of powerlessness and, among some, anger.
The key is a coordinated and strategic approach that will encourage
media diversity while seeking to ensure a balancing core of independent
reporting and responsible debate. This cannot be delivered by any
single body, but will require transparency and consultation, and a
willingness by coalition authorities to engage Iraqi media
organisations and media professionals, and draw on the expertise of
multilateral bodies and international media development organisations
and associations.
This independent snapshot of the media environment in post-war Iraq
reviews existing and known new media in planning, and suggests areas
for further monitoring and research.
Meantime the report identifies priorities for the emergence of a
truly independent media culture. The prerequisite is for the US to
clarify and firmly separate its public diplomacy agenda from any media
development strategies. Confusion on this fundamental issue has
contributed to the failure of both. More broadly, competent Iraqis must
be given greater control over media projects for Iraq. In specific:
Transparent and Inclusive Media Policy: The CPA should
publish a consultative paper on media policy and law and engage
in open debate with Iraqi and international media experts
through meetings, public discussion and a major conference in
Iraq. It should draw on extensive NGO contributions to draft
policy and regulatory frameworks.
Rule of law: The occupying powers, and emerging Iraqi
authorities, should expedite the promulgation of regulatory
frameworks for broadcast frequencies, and laws guaranteeing the
legal rights and responsibilities of Iraqi media. This must
include a substantial consultative process within Iraq,
involving coalition authorities, international organisations,
Iraqi independent institutions and political parties, and Iraqi
media professionals.
Independence for Iraqi Media Authorities: Regulatory
responsibility for frequency licensing should be removed from
the CPA and be given to an independent body, which should also
be separated from any public broadcasting agency. An
independent professional body should be established for
monitoring broadcast and print output.
Independence for the Iraqi Media Network: The CPA's Iraqi
Media Network should be dismantled and the constituent parts
all located within independent institutions. A clear policy for
handing over its TV and radio to an independent broadcaster,
outside direct control of any new ministry, should be
confirmed. Newspapers should be given formal independence and
senior staff removed from the payroll of government
contractors.
Media Professionalisation: Steps to professionalise the
output and clarify a strategy for the public broadcaster should
be implemented immediately. This should including reviewing all
consultants and staff and establishing appropriate management,
editorial production and staff training.
Iraqi Professional Bodies: Early support should be provided
to assist in the formation of new independent Iraqi journalist
associations, to strengthen Iraqi voices in the policy debate
and provide a base for Iraqi efforts to defend freedom of
expression and security for journalists.
Official information: The CPA should urgently improve
communications and the dissemination of official information,
especially to the Iraqi press. This should include
communicating in Arabic and Kurdish and establishing accessible
contact points outside militarily protected compounds and
former regime presidential palaces so local journalists can
readily contact officials.
Training: Training programmes for journalists, editors and
media managers should be initiated as a priority, ideally
through a coordinated strategy in partnership with local
institutions to improve professional levels and build long-term
training capacity.
Regional Media: International donors should reserve
development funds for incubating regional media, especially in
southern Iraq, and national media which can improve the flow of
reliable information from and to regions outside the capital.
De-Ba'athification: International policy on removing ex-
members of the former ruling party should be clarified, and
vetting procedures agreed for media projects operated or funded
internationally, to clarify current staffing and remove
uncertainty for those who remain.
In addition, the importance of broader issues outside the remit of
this report should be recognized for the critical impact they have on
the media and any civil society efforts. Lack of security remains a
serious concern for all civilians, inhibiting movement by anyone,
including journalists, especially after dusk. The lack of
telecommunications systems seriously impedes all communications--a
particular obstacle for working journalists.
2. mission background
This independent report has been undertaken as a joint mission by
the Baltic Media Center (BMC), Index on Censorship and the Institute
for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR). Financial assistance and project
conceptualisation has been provided by International Media Support,
Denmark, with additional support from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth
Office via Index on Censorship, and the Dutch government and the Open
Society Institute via IWPR, which provided overall project
coordination.
The mission was undertaken May 15 to June 15 by Antti Kuusi (BMC),
Rohan Jayasekera (Index) and Anthony Borden, Julie Flint and Duncan
Furey (IWPR). Research support was provided by Jaafar El-Ahmar. Mission
members visited Baghdad, Basra, Erbil, Karbala, Najaf and Suleimaniya.
Meetings were held with Iraqi editors, publishers, producers and
journalists, CPA representatives, advisors and other contractors with
the US Department of Defense, donor representatives, as well as Iraqi,
US and British political officials. The mission was developed at a
coordinating meeting of international media development organisations
held in London April 24. The mission benefited from several media and
NGO reports on the media sector, including a recent report by the BBC
World Service Trust.
The views expressed in this report reflect those of the mission
members alone. It is a provisional snapshot at an early stage of a
dynamic situation. As such it is presented as a discussion document, to
be supplemented by further research and assessment.
3. ba'athist media
Media under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein were under total
government control, fully instrumentalised for the purposes of
supporting the regime and glorifying the president. As a primary tool
of official power, the media were under the authority of Saddam's
widely feared son Uday, and thoroughly infiltrated by the security
services.
Journalism at most levels was the domain of trusted party
loyalists. Dissent was out of question--even in private circles, where
individuals could be reported on for making critical remarks and suffer
physical punishment, prison terms or both. In effect, the entire
country was turned into a population of potential reporters--filing
secret reports on each other in service of the regime. Satellite dishes
were banned. The Ministry of Information controlled all media and
served as official censor, requiring prior approval of all copy and
programming. A student in the journalism faculty claimed he had been
jailed for three years for an article published in the student
newspaper. Mission members heard another story of a graphic designer
being severely beaten for publishing a line drawing which entirely
unintentionally contained an image which could be taken to resemble
Israel's Star of David.
As in other dictatorships, the media served to promote the image of
the president. Especially in periods of conflict with the United
States--as observed by mission members who visited the country before
the war--state television presented a noxious mix of Arab
victimisation, glorious Iraqi struggle and anti-western propaganda.
Shortly before the onset of fighting, the foreign editor of the Iraqi
News Agency boasted that his agency had never experienced conflict with
the government over any of its reporting in his several decades as a
journalist. The primary state newspapers, representing the party and
the army, competed to reproduce the largest front-page photograph of
the president (often therefore looking nearly identical). In the run-up
to war they took painstaking effort to present every western voice
against the looming US-led attack as a declaration of support for
Saddam Hussein.
Uday Hussein was proprietor of the main ``non-state'' newspaper,
Babel, the country's most widely read publication. Boasting high
production values, including full colour photographs and a sharper
writing style, it was spared the requirement to lead with every day's
new image of the leader. It also contained selected (and largely
incoherent) foreign news and advertisements for unachievable modern
goods such as computers and the latest audio equipment. Entirely
unreported in the media was any real information about life within
Iraq, particularly the rule of fear which dominated the country for
more than three decades.
Up to 4 million Iraqis, out of a total population of 24 million,
went into exile. Among these, a number continued or entered journalism,
taking up senior positions in leading Arab media, such as the London-
based newspaper al-Hayat. One Iraqi journalist boasted that there are
more Iraqi editors and reporters working for Middle Eastern media than
from any other Arab nation.
Many Iraqis engaged in ill-starred exile productions: many of these
were highly propagandistic anti-Saddam vehicles promoting various
opposition factions, and controlled by Egyptian, Saudi Arabian or other
local intelligence agencies. The most ambitious enterprise was a TV and
newspaper operation run by the Iraqi National Congress from London,
supported by the US State Department until political differences and
alleged misappropriation of money (never proven) led to the revocation
of funding and the closure of the operation.
Following the first Gulf war of 1991, and the establishment of
self-rule in Iraqi Kurdistan under US and UK protection, Kurdish media
flourished. Countless television channels, radio stations, newspapers
and magazines emerged throughout the territory, joined later by dynamic
Web sites featuring reporting from the ground and analysis and comment
from Kurdish, Arabic and international experts around the world.
Nevertheless, Kurdish media was riven by the deep political divide
between the two main parties, and in a close-knit traditional society
unaccustomed to internal criticism (much less leadership change),
meaningful independent journalism failed to emerge.
While media in government-controlled Iraq languished, many within a
highly motivated and educated population followed reliable ex-
territorial broadcasting services such as the BBC World Service, and
the US-funded Radio Sawa and Radio Free Iraq. Iraqi journalists like to
boast of the country's history of innovation in Arab media, especially
the supposed golden years before the 1950s. Iraqis have shown an
enduring desire, even through the stultifying decades of Ba'athist
rule, to be informed. Despite the problems, the potential for a
responsible media, and sophisticated audience, is evident.
4. us media operations
Planning for media policy and media development has been poor. As
part of its constitution-drafting effort, the US State Department's
Future of Iraq project sketched basic concepts of independent media,
but did note elaborate detailed policy. The Iraqi Media Network (IMN)
was established in January 2003, led by Bob Reilly, a former director
of the Voice of America, and Mike Furlong, a long-time Defense
Department contractor who had worked on broadcasting issues in post-war
Kosovo. A budget of $15 million was confirmed in February, a month
before fighting began.
The US assembled a diverse team of exile Iraqi consultants, to
serve as an editorial group to establish a TV station, a radio station
and a newspaper, and to act as a policy unit, to advise on media
strategy. Several westerners were employed, to provide journalism,
technical and logistical support. Consultants were hired through
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), an employee-
owned services company with a long record as a Defense Department
subcontractor. By mid-April, the overall media team comprised more than
two dozen people, largely based in Kuwait. Contracts were set to
expire, and the entire operation due for review by the coalition
authority, on June 10.
During the war the US adopted a ``psyops'' strategy, broadcasting
Towards Freedom, predominantly military information, from a converted
cargo plane overflying the country. Leaflets instructing Iraqis to
remain at home were dropped on the territory. An anti-regime station
Radio Tikrit, named after Saddam's home town, was initiated.
The IMN team began radio broadcasts from Um Qasr on mid-March
(later moved moved to Basra to improve country-wide coverage). With the
collapse of the regime, IMN's TV output was launched on May 13, from
Baghdad. Al-Sabah, a CPA sponsored newspaper produced in Baghdad by a
SAIC employed Iraqi exile, was launched May 15. On May 28, the first
issue of a second CPA sponsored newspaper, Sumer, produced in Kuwait,
was distributed in Baghdad.
In late May, IMN was considering options for the dispensation of a
regulatory authority, the licensing of newspapers and the establishment
of the IMN as a public service broadcaster. Plans were discussed for
closing all non-US authorised broadcasters (excluding Iraqi Kurdistan)
and holding a frequency competition, with proposals due in June and
decisions for 90-day allocations to be taken in July. The Iraqi
Ministry of Information was abolished on late May, sacking its nearly
7,000 staff and handing its assets over to IMN.
The Authority's ruling giving the IMN responsibility for both
overseeing regulation and operations is problematic. It creates an
unavoidable conflict of interest that could spark considerable
controversy. Recognising that ultimate decisions such as the status and
funding of the state broadcaster will be taken by a future Iraqi
government, debate within IMN focused on whether to transfer
responsibility for broadcasting to an independent board outside of
ministerial control, as with the BBC, or to fold broadcasting within
one of the emerging ministries, such as a ministry for communications.
Meantime, the confusion over its role as media and as a tool of public
diplomacy are enshrined in apparently contradictory requirements to
``promote . . . excellence'' in journalism and to ``provide an
information service to the CPA''.
From the start, the media project was beset by problems. Bitter
disputes erupted between senior US representatives on the IMN, leading
to chaotic and at times directly competitive decision-making. Hiring
was ad-hoc, and although consultant salaries were high, posts and
experience levels were often not well matched. Equipment purchases were
poorly planned, Internet access was not established. Fierce internal
rivalries emerged between projects with the network itself. Budgets
were undefined and not devolved, restricting the ability of staff to
get on with the job. No serious professional training was offered, and
programme planning was non-existent. Hiring of local staff in Baghdad
was not systematic, with very little pre-vetting for political links or
professional capacity. Of the approximately 130 staff, of which around
25 are journalists, IMN officials estimated that more than 90 per cent
were former employees of the Ministry of Information.
The plan for TV was for two hours of output, from 18:00 to 20:00,
and then repeated, comprising 30 minutes of news and 90 minutes of
children's programming, old documentaries and files. Controversy arose
immediately over supposed ``censorship'': the IMN broadcast team
refused demands to prescreen the output, and Iraqi staff insisted on
starting the day's broadcasting with a standard reading from the Koran,
against objections.
Yet the real issue was quality, particularly TV. With a skeleton
staff of around a dozen, the Voice of New Iraq, broadcasting via AM
from the south and not properly audible in Baghdad, still achieved a
basic quality news service, mixed with extended interviews, talk shows
and music over a six hour output. But the TV news was very weak. In the
period under assessment, information during the 30-minute news
programme was primarily conveyed via public service announcements, with
occasional news shorts. The presentation was confusing and often just
dull. There was no coverage of the core political issues facing the
country and no systematic reporting on the humanitarian effort.
The dramatic absence of any quality programming was highlighted by
the delight of IMN staff in locating 300 old VCR tapes from one of Uday
Hussein's palaces, a typical scattering of Hollywood capers, romance
and comedy--with, intriguingly, a copy of a book by one of Uday's body
doubles in the pile. But still, tapes without legal rights negotiated
to broadcast could only remain on the basement floor, unused.
As a result, the authorities lost a critical opportunity to present
a fresh and dynamic face for a new Iraq, and failed in its duty to
provide basic information to a frightened and traumatised population.
Experienced professionals have no doubt that a well-prepared team could
have been parachuted in to launch reasonable broadcasting quickly.
Alternatively, it would have been more effective to present simple
informational announcements until an effective media operation could
have been put in place. Many Iraqis complained about the coalition's
fundamental lack of communication, and expressed bewilderment that an
occupying army would not exploit the airwaves for this obvious purpose.
As this report was being completed, at least one senior US member
of the IMN team had been transferred from his position and one
experienced exile media professional resigned citing ``nepotism and
incompetence''. Reilly, the head of IMN, opted to discontinue with the
project, and at least one other senior Iraqi team member declined to
renew his contract. But plans to approve a further $34 million on the
project appeared on course. In a continuing sign of the Defense-State
Department rivalry, the contract for SAIC with the Defense Department
to employ the IMN staff was renewed, but only for one month. Further
turmoil seems likely.
5. media explosion
Outside the confines of the presidential palaces from which the
international authority operates, Iraq is experiencing a media boom. In
the weeks since the end of fighting, up to 150 new publications have
been launched in central and southern Iraq. Radio stations have also
begun to proliferate. Each morning, newspaper sellers on the commercial
Al-Saadoon Street and outside major hotels mark out broad swathes of
sidewalk on which to lay out the latest titles on offer.
For those who can afford it, satellite dishes offering access to
international TV stations are on sale for around $200, well more than
an average annual salary. The BBC has established FM re-broadcasting,
while the Iranian TV station Al-Alam broadcasts slick 24-hour
programming from across the border, 150 kilometres from Baghdad.
Yet amid this media chaos, and evident explosion of open speech,
the provision of balanced reporting, especially about local issues and
humanitarian concerns, remains scant.
Baghdad Media
In Baghdad, the content of most of the newspapers is essentially
the same: politics and current affairs, domestic issues, features,
entertainment and sports. A few publications address culture or non-
political topics. With Internet only beginning to appear, and no
telephones, there is a distinct lack of international news,
dispassionate analysis of the Iraqi situation or detailed local
reporting. The first issues of most newspapers appeared rushed out,
with poor design and editing, but for those that continued beyond that
first step, the appearance improved.
Yet in the absence of a functioning economy and trained reporters,
truly independent and reliable journalism is almost impossible. Outside
business and political interests are all seeking a foothold in the
country via the media. The publications can roughly be divided into
party organs run by various religious, ethnic or political factions;
relatively professional appearing titles mostly produced by veterans of
the Ba'athists press, many of whom were senior figures in the party;
and likely fly-bynight productions by local printers, even a sweet-
seller--apparently anyone with a bit of funds wanting to put their name
out into the fray.
Among the first new papers to start publishing in Baghdad was
Azzaman (``Time''), owned by Sa'ad al-Bazzaz, former editor-in-chief of
the state-owned Al-Jumhuriya who defected in the mid-1990s. It is run
as a slip edition, with the bulk of the pages produced in London, and
locally produced front and inside pages inserted in Baghdad before
printing. Its production values are high, and it is widely seen as the
most popular newspaper. Yet the proprietor has made no secret of his
own political ambitions. ``To spend all this money, to make all this
investment, to take all this risk, it is because I am a politician,''
Bazzaz told The New York Times in May. ``And to be a politician, you
have to use the media as a channel.'' The articles often bear an anti-
Shia tone.
Al-Saah (``The Hour'') is published by Sheik Ahmed al-Kubeisy, a
Sunni Muslim cleric who voluntarily left Iraq a few years ago to work
as an advisor for a senior sheikh from the United Arab Emirates. He had
a weekly religious program on Abu Dhabi TV. Al-Saah is regarded as a
platform for an Iraqi Sunni agenda. The paper's editor-in-chief is
Adeeb Shaaban, a former special secretary to Uday Hussein who fell foul
of his boss a few months before the last Gulf war. His appointment has
angered some Iraqis and his name has been removed from its masthead,
though he continues in his post.
Fajr Baghdad (``Baghdad Dawn'') bills itself as ``Iraq's first
democratic and independent newspaper.'' Its front-page generally
focuses on daily worries such as the lack of gasoline and electricity,
and the looting and lawlessness that have swept the nation since
Saddam's ouster.
The most influential Islamist papers are likely to be Al-Da'wa, the
organ of the Al-Da'wa party that was the first to fight against the
Ba'ath; Sadr, the organ of radical Shias who seek an Islamic Republic
of Iraq; and Al-Adallah, the organ of the Supreme Council of the
Islamic Republic in Iraq of Ayatollah Hakim. For the moment, neither
Al-Da'wa nor Al-Adallah criticise either other parties or the
occupation forces. An anti-occupation agenda is apparent in Sadr.
Kurdish parties have established several newspapers, as well as radio
stations.
Al-Sabah, one of two US-sponsored newspapers, is an unremarkable
news review, providing extensive space to official statements and
steering shy of critical analysis of the CPA and the US. Sumer, the
second US-sponsored newspaper, could present greater competition for
Azzaman. It is edited by Hassan Allawi, a former spokesman for Saddam
Hussein in the 1970s who has been in exile for many years and edited
the Iraqi opposition newspaper Al-Mutamar. Sumer has attracted leading
Iraqi and Arab writers with wide-ranging debate and analysis. But
produced in Kuwait, early issues were short on news and information
from Iraq. As this report was completed, discussions within IMN arose,
subject to the usual rivalries, about merging the two US-funded titles,
and the future was unclear.
The Shia South
Outside of the Baghdad newspaper hot-house, there is still
considerable activity. Media in the Shia south of Iraq will play a
critical role in the coming years. The Shia, Iraq's most oppressed and
neglected community, form a majority of the Iraqi population and will
be a key to stability in post-war Iraq. In the absence of any post-war
government, sections of the Shia community who have not been permitted
a voice for 35 years are already emerging as a radical, destabilising
force, backed by a flood of new publications in Baghdad and the south.
There is also a wealth of initiative and raw talent outside the
capital--a result, one teacher-turned-journalist said, of intellectuals
fleeing the centre in the days of the Ba'ath hoping to escape the worst
excesses of the regime.
Like Baghdad, the south has seen a flood of indigenous publications
since the disappearance of the Ba'ath. Almost all are in the hands of
religious groups or small collectives of intellectuals--or even single
individuals--keen to capitalise on the new freedom of expression. The
assessment team visited four cities--Basra, Amara, Najaf and Hilla. It
found two local television stations and several dozen publications, the
vast majority of them in the holy city of Najaf. long a centre of
learning and a meeting point for Shias from many countries and
cultures.
Few of those working in the new media have had any experience of
journalism. Most publications observe an Islamic tone, and highlight
the speeches and declarations of various senior clerics, with large
photographs of the religious leaders dotting the front and inside
pages. News--especially balanced reporting from throughout the
country--was essentially absent. Indeed, most proprietors or
journalists seemed to be publishing/broadcasting simply because they
could at last have a voice. Profit was not the main motive. Everyone
was losing money and did not appear overly concerned. Those who lacked
the resources to sustain these losses were walled out, notably in
Basra, where efforts to open local newspapers have been stymied by the
number of Baghdad and Kuwait produced papers given away free in the
city, including Bazzaz's Azza man. A rainbow-coloured tabloid sports
paper was launched in the city at the end of May.
Basra boasts the main radio station which was operating in the
South at the time of the assessment mission besides the IMN operation
in Um Qasr. The 24-hour Radio Nahreen (``Two Rivers Radio'') appeared
to have gained a considerable audience, and affection, for its lively
mix of Arab and European music, military messages and public service
announcements, and twice hourly news gleaned from the web and news
wires. Produced by a British Army Psychological Operations unit and run
by reserve Col. Colin Mason, a former BBC broadcaster now working in
commercial radio, it launched on the eve of the war, broadcasting
towards the Fao peninsula from the Iraqi desert, and moved steadily
north until it arrived in Basra at the end of March. It broadcasts 24
hours a day--live only in daylight hours--with news gleaned from the
web and wires on the hour and local news gathered largely from the
military, ``because most of the initiatives in Basra are military'', on
the half-hour.
A dozen local restaurants and businesses get free advertising in
return for advertising the radio on their premises. The hope is that
advertising revenue will make the radio self-sustaining when it is
eventually handed over to Iraqis. Its five energetic young Iraqi
broadcasters each received three days' training, having been selected
for their youth and lack of baggage--i.e., without experience of the
Ba'athist media. On May 27, Radio Nahreen began to be re-broadcast by
the CPA radio that had moved a few days earlier into Basra from Um
Qasr. It was expected that the station will be handed over to the CPA
as the British wind down their military presence in Basra.
Directed by Ali Qashif el-Ghita, son of a prominent clerical
family, the heavily-Islamist Najaf Television broadcasts from a relay
station appropriated from the former regime. It can only be received in
Najaf and environs and pumps out a combination of religious material,
children's cartoons and pirated news programmes from Al-Jazeera and
Manar, the television station of Lebanon's Hezbollah party, for
approximately 10 hours a day.
On May 19, the US-backed civil administration in Najaf ordered
Najaf Television to put itself under US control. El-Ghita refused, even
though it would have meant salaries for his staff. He declines to
broadcast tapes given him by the administration. However the station is
not popular in Najaf, where most people dislike its heavy diet of
Islamic lectures, many by Iranian-based clerics. El-Ghita says he has
no financial backers, but many in Najaf question this. The general view
in Najaf is that a takeover of Najaf Television by the occupation
forces will be regretted only by the religious hard core, but only if
the station retains a minimum of religious content. If religious
content is scrapped altogether, the occupation forces' claim to be
creating an independent media network will be discredited and the move
will be seen as anti-Shia.
The station's main competition presently comes from the city of
Hillah. Hillah Television uses a relay transmitter seized locally from
the Ba'ath and can be received in Najaf, where it is more popular than
Najaf Television. Manager Sabah el-Taee owned a video shop under the
Ba'ath and says his aim is ``to change the old philosophy: from
concentrating on one person, to cover all people and all problems''.
The station broadcasts for 6-7 hours each day, from early evening until
midnight, with two local news bulletins each day and pirated national
and international news. There is very little religion. ``People want
entertainment, not just religion,'' el-Taee says.
Among the many publications that have sprung up since the war
ended, the range extended from newspapers and tabloid-sized colour
magazines that purport/attempt to be independent to religious pamphlets
masquerading as newspapers. Those behind the secular publications in
Najaf and Amarah tend to be intellectual opponents of the Ba'ath--
translators/poets/novelists. The technical quality of their papers is
poor, but the content is often informative and non-partisan. Only one
newspaper was identified in Hillah--El-Fahya, financed by a local
businessman, which gives prominence to local politics and the US
occupation forces.
Iraqi Kurdistan
Long-established during the past decade of autonomy from Baghdad,
Kurdish media is sharply divided between pro-Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP) operations centred around Erbil, and pro-Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan (PUK) efforts, in Suleimaniya. The media environment is
extremely active, but also bound by the lack of training and resources,
uncertain legislation and heavy party political and other traditional
influence.
According to the best estimates available during the assessment
mission, there are 344 media outlets registered in Iraqi Kurdistan.
These are split between 132 print media and 24 TV and radio stations in
Erbil, and 110 print and 78 TV and radio station in Suleimaniya.
The vast majority are supported by political parties or specialist
organisations contained within or directly associated to these parties.
(In Suleimaniya, a Council of Independent Media has been established to
support independent media efforts, though its council is strongly PUK-
led.) There is little advertising. All political parties have at least
one print publication, often more. The faces of Massoud Barzani and
Jalal Talabani, the KDP and PUK leaders, respectively, dominate the
front pages of the publications in their respective power-base cities.
In recent years a small number of less partisan print publications
have begun to appear, while the broadcast scene, both radio and TV,
remains entirely politically dominated. In addition to financial
support, sometimes the political connections are more direct: the wife
of Jalal Talabani plays a senior managerial role in the satellite
channel KurdSat, the ``private'' terrestrial TV station Khak TV, and
Media House, with three print publications.
Much of the publications are made up of political comment, social
issues and sports as well as a high percentage of letters from readers.
Few have any international news and few have correspondents outside
Iraqi Kurdistan. Many of the journalists spoken to saw their primary
role as agents for change and campaigning.
Both main Kurdish political parties sponsor a major satellite-
broadcasting channel, the PUK's KurdSat and the KDP's Kurdistan TV.
These are large operations: KurdSat boasts easily the most modern
equipment seen in Iraq on the mission. It has access to VOA TV and APTN
news feeds. The majority output is in Kurdish, with some Arabic and
English programming. Cultural programming and Kurdish folk music
dominate, along with extended interviews and live discussions on
political issues.
There are also a total of 62 terrestrial TV and radio broadcasters
registered with the two respective Ministries of Culture in Erbil and
Suleimaniya, with 24 in Erbil and 38 in Suleimaniya. While some, making
no claims of independence, overtly represent either political or
religious parties or movements, the editors of others claim
independence editorially, if not financially. These claims to
independence were disputed by other media professionals and some
officials in both cities.
Output is mixed between some news and extended political debate, a
Koranic section, cartoons and western films, all interspliced by live
Kurdish folk music. Some stations visited produced their own news
bulletins from correspondents within Iraqi Kurdistan. Others drew from
news on the BBC, Al-Jazeera and the Internet. Others simply recorded
and re-broadcast segments of Arabic news, mixed with news read by
presenters in Kurdish. Many of the radio stations are based in the same
premises as the TV broadcasters, and thus are similarly politically
dominated. Most equipment observed was very basic. Programming was a
combination of Kurdish and Arabic music usually played from cassettes,
and studio interviews either with important political personalities or
folk music singers.
The entire Kurdish media scene is complicated by lack of clarity
over the legal framework. Kurdish authorities in the autonomous region
established separate legislation over the past decade, some of it
covering the media. But it appears incomplete, with some legislation
from the Ba'athist period still in place. Despite official commitment
to freedom of speech, there is a sense that political and tribal habits
against public criticism of leaders remain strong, and that, in any
case involving the media, the judiciary are inclined to support the
political parties. The relationship between Iraqi Kurdistan and any new
legislation or regulatory system established by the coalition
authorities from the centre in Baghdad is also unclear, and leave the
entire Kurdish media scene in uncertainty.
Meantime, with the fall of the Ba'athist regime, the political
context in the Kurdish areas has shifted. Reacting to the new
environment, the fierce competition between the two parties is
formally, if slowly, being put aside, in favour of a more common
position to represent Kurdish interests vis-a-vis Baghdad. This could
reduce support for so many competing politically oriented media,
although whether it opens the space for a gradual de-politicisation of
Kurdish reporting remains to be seen.
7. journalism institutions
University of Baghdad Faculty of Mass Communications. Journalism
courses started at Baghdad University in 1964 and throughout have
relied on regime-adjusted interpretations of Soviet ideas on the role
of the media in society. Journalists say the department was heavily
infiltrated by security services. After the war, the university's media
department was completely stripped clean by looters and its remaining
staff is not better equipped to tackle a modern journalism training
programme. Courses restarted in May but it is not clear if anything can
be salvaged from the existing university setup. The faculty includes
courses in public relations and media studies as well as conventional
``journalism'' but not use of print technology or the Internet. Recent
changes within the department do not give confidence of an infusion of
fresh thinking. Given that the de facto state broadcasters at the Iraqi
Media Network will be required to set up or contract out for staff
training and that international NGOs are already beginning training
schemes for the rest of the media, some thought could be given to
running parallel journalism and media production courses for university
students as a separate module or a post-graduate course--but this would
have to be under entirely independent management and tutorial
jurisdiction from the university, until the university is completely
reformed.
Iraqi Journalists' Associations. With the collapse of Ba'athist
dominated media clubs and journalist unions, a wholly new national
journalists' association with a balanced management structure should be
created. This new body will be better equipped to provide an open and
effective forum for the defence of freedom of speech and freedom of
information, to reach consensus on key issues of editorial independence
and self-regulation of media, and to encourage debate about the ethics
of journalism, public service values in broadcasting and political/
commercial influence over the media. In Iraq, where community divisions
based on religious and ethnic differences threaten stability, its
journalists should work together to agree the rules and standards for
ethical conduct. As the International Federation of Journalists notes,
``unless Iraqi colleagues are fully involved in setting the standards
for journalism, a rush to regulate will hinder efforts to build a free
and independent media community. The priority must be to place
journalism firmly in the hands of media people themselves, not to
impose rules that will undermine an emerging democratic process.''
Individual journalists should not be required to be accredited by
either the authorities or a journalists' association in order to carry
out their duties.
Kurdistan Journalism Training. The Erbil Technical Institute offers
a two-year journalism course, and will graduate its third class of
students this year. Yet placement of students through a Central
Admissions Department results in very mixed classes, and the focus
appears to be on theory rather than practical training. The University
of Suleimaniya offers a new four-year course through a journalism
faculty, with a stronger emphasis on modern journalistic practices and
practical training. Nevertheless, lack of funding has limited equipment
and textbooks, and faculty themselves appear to have limited experience
in the media. Neither faculty have sufficient funds to operate a
student newspaper.
8. getting to grips
Despite chaos on the airwaves and at the news sellers, and turmoil
within the CPA's Iraqi Media Network, there were some positive signs.
There appeared to be some recognition that expertise in media
development and policy could usefully be drawn from professionals with
experience in other conflict areas. Despite the overriding obstacles,
efforts by the IMN crew were being made to improve and expand the
output, and as with the newspapers, gradual improvements could be
noted.
While the explosion of Iraqi media showed no sign of slowing, the
BBC World Service Trust developed plans for launching a new radio
station in Basra, and donors began to express interest in supporting
training and other development projects on the ground. Some of the
organisations represented on this mission launched their own training
efforts, and were developing other projects to support programming,
policy debate and the establishment of independent Iraqi media
institutions. These included plans for further assessment, especially
into training needs, research into the developing market and monitoring
of media content. Discussions have also continued towards a joint
conference in Baghdad to help bridge the gap between the international
debate over Iraqi media policy and Iraqi media professionals
themselves. (For further information, contact the organisations
involved in this assessment.)
Meantime, the US non-profit agency Internews, with funding from the
US Agency for International Development and the Greek government, has
completed a detailed media policy and law project, and produced
extended draft legislation and other proposals for the authorities.
The document, produced by a small working group of international,
Arab and exile Iraqi media experts, provides policy recommendations for
legal and regulatory measures. These include an official revocation of
all Ba'athist media laws and the adoption of an interim media law
providing for a press and broadcast council, an interim media
commission, an independent broadcast authority, a media appeals board,
and freedom of information, and the adoption of a clear public service
broadcast policy.
Concluded at a conference in Athens, with a wide number of
international, Arabic and Iraqi experts and media professionals, the
recommendations, if adopted, would provide an important framework for
forging democratic media in Iraq. But its compilation has so far
suffered from a lack of information from inside Iraq on the current
situation there; some of its proposals had already been superseded by
events by the time they were published. The document has yet to be
debated among the Iraqi population and media community, but its
conclusions--a standard international framework with lessons drawn from
other conflict areas--are available in Arabic. IMN director Reilly
attended the conference and agreed to take it back to the IMN for
consideration, but then departed the project.
In the last days of May, CPA senior administrator L. Paul Bremer
drafted and released strict new rules on the operation of the media.
All Iraqi media must now be registered. Licences will be revoked and
equipment confiscated from media sources that break the rules.
Individual offenders ``may be detained, arrested, prosecuted and, if
convicted, sentenced by relevant authorities to up to one year in
prison and a $1,000 fine''. Appeal is to Bremer only, and his decision
is final.
His nine point list of ``prohibited activities'' include incitement
to racial, ethnic or religious hatred, advocating support for the
banned Ba'ath Party, and publishing material that ``is patently false
and is calculated to provoke opposition to the CPA or undermine
legitimate processes towards self-government''. Officials say the order
is intended to stop ``hate speech''--the kind of language they say
could trigger violence between Iraqis and westerners, or Sunni and
Shi'a or Arab and Kurd. Appropriately used in fragile circumstances,
such mechanisms could be a necessary tool of last resort. But ham-
fisted efforts to impose a pro-western view would only backfire. So
major challenges remain, from within Washington as well as Iraq itself.
Baghdad, London, Copenhagen
May-June 2003
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Borden, for that
excellent statement.
I would like to suggest, because we have a number of
Senators present, that we start with a 7-minute limit and then
we may have a second round if Senators are not able to satisfy
their questions or get the answers they want on the first
opportunity.
Let me begin by picking up on a point that you made, Mr.
Hamre, that the economy of the country--and you described
this--is roughly a $25 billion to $30 billion economy pre-war.
It really calls for a multi-year budget estimate, at least in
my judgment. We heard from Mr. Bremer yesterday that he has
fashioned a budget for the final months of 2003, which is a
considerable advance, and has plugged in figures of oil
revenue, revenue from miscellaneous sources of impounded funds,
gifts, whatever activities that we are doing, and that other
countries might do. This somehow looks like a budget that might
fit for the remainder of 2003. But then comes January 2004.
We have been told by other witnesses, and we ourselves have
said, that other countries in the world there will be no
payments or servicing of the debt that Iraq owes on the
estimates of what it owes. What legitimate situation there is
certainly in dispute, but one could estimate billions of
dollars; some would say tens of billions, and some go into
hundreds of billions.
All that is like an 800-pound gorilla overhanging the
situation. Let us say on the ground we begin to deal with
figures like $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion for an
annual budget. People in foreign countries or sovereign states
are demanding to recognize someone in Iraq who has both
sovereignty and the legitimacy. It is not yet well established
as to who can assume the debt or who should pay it or who
should forgive it. This is a very big problem. It has been
there for a while, but it has not been addressed, and I think
it needs to be both by our government and by other governments
that we are able to pull together with us.
Second, on the matter of the budget itself--I have been
raising this issue, so it is not a new idea today, but I would
like for someone to fill in the blanks for 2004 and 2005 just
as starters. It could very well be that additional years are
required for this exercise to estimate how much money comes in.
Senator Biden has pointed out that Mr. Carroll said to us--and
my recollection is about the same as his--that we could
estimate $14 billion of oil revenue. Now, this is export oil
revenue over and above oil that would be needed by the Iraqi
people for their internal use. So there is $14 billion.
When we pressed Mr. Bremer for what the other sources of
revenue are, he kept saying, oil, oil, oil. There are not any
until there is an economy that perhaps somebody might be able
to tax or until some revenue comes from that, and in due course
that will happen. So he would fill in, at least hypothetically,
maybe 5 percent, maybe 10 percent from some other source on the
ground from Iraqis themselves.
Now, at that point, if we are dealing with the feeding of
the people, the security of the people, the infrastructure
repairs, leaving aside tough judgments, do you fix up the oil
wells in a way that they could pump more oil? If that is a
source of revenue, do you make an investment in the future of
that kind? How much money on the revenue side is required? And
what is going to be expended on the expenditure side?
Now, thus far no one in the administration has wanted to
deal with this issue. Each person would say you are dealing
with hypotheticals. You are dealing with a world we do not know
about. We are dealing with all sorts of things that we do not
want to talk about.
Yet you, Mr. Hamre, have mentioned this word
``supplemental.'' The reason it is so important that the
administration get into this is that it is obvious to me and I
think to many of our members that substantial United States
moneys are going to be required in one form or another,
hopefully not always in the form of an emergency supplemental
as a surprise, but rather in a straightforward way in which we
understand that for the next few years our budget is going to
have a component along with the budget of Iraq.
Now, to the extent that we are successful with pledging
conferences, with sharing the burden, with almost an
international United Way like the first President George Bush
brought about in of Desert Storm, then that figure, whatever it
is on the revenue side, may be shared in various ways. Our
burden may be substantially less, we hope. But it will be
there. The thing that is important about your report is not
just the next 3 to 6 months, which you say are critical, but
rather the trust of the American people that we are leveling
with now in what is a multi-year situation. Now, that is a
tough thing for all of us to do, whether it is the
administration or Congress.
As I mentioned in my first statement, nation-building has
had a pejorative connotation. People did not like that idea.
They said that we are not in that business and that we must not
slip into that situation. In fact, peace keeping is not very
popular, and we do not want to get into that situation.
Nonetheless, we are there and we are trying to keep peace and
establish order and build a nation. In fact, the objectives of
the war are often given. The success of the war will hinge on
how good a nation state emerges from this. We have made that
commitment.
I would just like some more thoughts from you, Mr. Hamre.
You have been a budgeteer for the Pentagon, so this is why it
is a fair statement or line of questioning. Is it reasonable to
try to fill in the blanks even hypothetically for the next 2 or
3 years so that there is some idea of how much money is
required, some idea of how much may be required from the
American people so that there will not be one supplementary
surprise after another? Because my fear is that during some
hearing some day, perhaps during this Congress or the next one,
many people are going to revolt and say we have been surprised
enough. We simply do not trust your figures. It was apparent to
all of you, as it is to everybody in this room today, that
there were expenditures that were going to be required unless
we decided to just bail out and say this was an unfortunate
experiment. It did not work.
You are saying that that would be unconscionable, and we
do, too. That is not the objective of the hearing. We seek to
build a sense of trust that somebody understands in a real
world, including you as a budgeteer and a fine person who has
brought together this report, as well as some of us who have
responsibility to vote for these things on behalf of
constituents who look to us to have some foresight and some
honesty as to how we foresee it.
Is the idea of a multi-year budget a good one? If so, who
begins to fill it in? Where is the expertise somewhere in our
government to fill in those figures?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I think you do have to take a multi-year
perspective on the budget because there are multi-year
investments that we are going to have to make, have to help the
Iraqis make so that they can get a sustainable economy. The oil
infrastructure needs serious renovation, serious renovation. It
has been badly maintained and, frankly, plundered for the last
8 years. The electric industry. There is probably only 60 to 70
percent of the generating capacity that the country needs, and
it is antiquated. So there is probably a $5 billion to $10
billion investment in electricity generation and distribution
that is required. These are all multi-year projects that need
to be undertaken.
I honestly think they really do have a good start on this.
They have put together a process for aligning what are the
obligations, when do we need to make them, how do we assign
priorities between oil, gas, et cetera. So they have got the
tools there, and I honestly think it has to be built up there
and it has to be built up with as many Iraqis as possible
because they need to feel we are not dictating their future,
turning them into a plantation. We are simply helping them get
started what they need to do.
But as I look at the resources that Ambassador Bremer has,
right now he has $6 billion of reliable money.
The Chairman. And that is it.
Dr. Hamre. That is it.
The Chairman. He runs through it this year.
Dr. Hamre. Well, sir, it actually has to carry for the next
18 months. Now, at some point he is going to get oil revenue.
It is coming more slowly than we had hoped. The original
expectations for getting oil production were probably too
optimistic, and we heard exactly the same thing that you did
when you were there. We will hope to get $12 billion to $14
billion a year for oil revenue over, say, the next 15 to 24
months. As I said, this is a $25 billion to $30 billion
economy. It was. It is not going to get there immediately, but
that is roughly the level of expectation for living standards,
et cetera.
So somehow we are going to have to fill the bucket up. This
needs to be done as much, I think, on an international basis.
But when you get right down to it, I think we are going to need
to acknowledge we will probably need supplemental funding, and
I think it is a lot better to tackle that problem right now
than it is to, all of a sudden, look at a supplemental next
March and April. The politics are different next March and
April. It would be a lot better to take on the issue of a
supplemental now in my view.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. I would like to follow up on that a little
bit. The thing that I found most striking about your report--
you know, we get a lot of reports filed, and half of the time
you get a staff summary of and half the time you read that. I
read your report. The central point you make and the absolutely
essential point that we all focus on is that we have this
window to convince the Iraqi people that it is a good idea for
us to be there and to help them get the job done. The moment
they change their mind about that en masse that is the moment
that everything become exponentially harder no matter what it
is we are going to do.
But the point the chairman is making here, if you will
forgive me for piling on, is that the American people are going
to get to that point pretty soon. The American people. The idea
that we are not factoring into our regular budget for next year
a considerable number for Iraq is shameless. The failure to do
that implies to the American people that we do not need to do
that. We are not going to sit here and not factor in what the
cost of our military is going to be overall. We are not going
to say we are not going to guess about what the military budget
should be, what Homeland Security should be, what other things
should be. A supplemental implies we have enough now, if we
need more, we will come back for it. We do not have enough now.
And I am telling you--I am telling you. That is the wrong
way to say this.
I believe that if we do not start to level with the
American people, we are going to lose them. My phrase. I am not
disassociating myself from the chairman or he will not want to
disassociate himself from me on this.
When the President finally comes to his senses and realizes
he has to go the American people and level with them, not what
the exact amount is, but that this is going to cost us tens of
billions of dollars in the near term and it is going to cost us
tens of thousands of American troops in place in the near term.
Until he says that to the American people, they wonder what we
are doing. They wonder what we are talking about because they
expected Johnny and Jane to come marching home.
So I want to pursue in the probably 4 minutes I have left
priorities here. The two gentlemen that the committee left
behind took what they found in Iraq, as well as what we
together found, and have drafted a report that is only in draft
form, the chairman has not seen it yet, and I have just seen,
and it is only a draft. But they lay out five or six things.
They say that the priorities are security, which is different
than law and order. Law and order is two. Reestablishing
services, getting the message out, which is half of Mr.
Borden's statement, generating employment, the part Dr.
Mendelson-Forman is talking about, and internationalization of
this effort.
Now, my question is very, very basic. Notwithstanding the
fact that we ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same
time, notwithstanding the fact, as Ms. Crocker said--we
attended those town meetings too. They are remarkable. I do not
know why they are not televised live on an Iraqi version of C-
SPAN with no commentary, just for all of Iraq to see it, just
to see that. It is remarkable, truly remarkable what we are
doing there.
But in the meantime, we are finding that a lot of those
folks are not prepared to participate in those councils because
they are afraid they may get shot dead. They are afraid. Women
are not willing to walk out of their homes. You passed schools
like we did. There are all these automobiles outside of
schools, and they sit there the whole day with a parent sitting
in a car. I wondered what that was all about. Mothers or
fathers will not let their daughters go into the school without
staying on guard outside the school because their daughter will
be abducted and/or raped.
So what do we have to do in your view in terms of
priorities? Should establishing order and infrastructure,
getting up and running the lighting and the air conditioning,
be the immediate priority, notwithstanding the fact we have got
to go out in the countryside, notwithstanding the fact we have
got to do a lot of other things? If you were able to wave a
wand and solve one of the many immediate dilemmas facing us--
unfair question, but it will at least focus us--what would it
be? What would the thing be that you think is the most urgent
immediate need in the next 4 weeks?
Dr. Hamre. Everybody at this table will say security. It
has to be put in place because without it, you do not get
reliable electricity. Without it, you do not get oil for long-
term health because you cannot pump oil without having----
Senator Biden. Now, what was your sense--and I realize even
being there a couple weeks like you were, you are not claiming
to be omniscient, that you do not think you know it all. But
what was your sense about our ability in the next 4 to 6 weeks
to really get a handle on security?
Dr. Hamre. Well, let me say a word first, and then my
colleagues. I think our focus, understandably, has been on the
Saddam loyalists, the spoilers that are out actively trying to
undermine our forces and the security of the emerging
government. That is not going to be adequate in the long run.
We have to deal with the broad criminality on the streets, and
we have to deal with the economic plundering. That has not been
the primary focus of our military. I understand that. It is at
the local level. They are trying to keep it safe at local
communities. But the big gangs that are operating throughout
the country and the basic security in the cities has got to be
fixed because, as you said, people are not willing to work with
us, and that means it is a broader security problem than just
military.
Senator Biden. Right.
Dr. Hamre. The Iraqis have to be brought to the process of
defending their own country.
Senator Biden. Now, having said that, my time is about to
be up. Let me tell you what we were told and you tell me if it
is different than what you were told. We were told that in
order to begin to stand up an Iraqi police force, just in
Baghdad, let alone other places, that it was going to have to
be from scratch because although there were 79,000 Iraqi
policemen, none of them were cops as we know them. None of them
were trained as cops as we know them.
They gave an example. If there was a murder in an apartment
building, everyone was expected in an apartment building to get
in a car, bus, or walk to the police station and come in for an
interview. Nobody went to the apartment building and
interviewed the folks there because it was very simple. If you
did not show up, you probably got shot or put in jail. It was a
real simple proposition. In a democracy that does not work.
So we are having to stand up a whole new police force. Even
though 30,000 have come back and say they want to participate
in a police force, some are not willing to go out to the police
stations because they are afraid they are going to get shot on
the way or shot when they are there, and even those we are
standing up need basic training. So we were told that we need
somewhere on the order, very quickly, of 5,000 trained police
officers, European preferably.
And this is my question. I have not gotten the impression
we have been actively, above Bremer's pay grade, seeking with a
sense of urgency contributions to such a force. What is your
assessment of what you think we need and what you think we are
doing? How high a priority is it at the moment with the CPA as
well as within the administration?
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. Let me just say one thing. I think
there is a recruitment beginning on a civilian police.
Senator Biden. There is.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. There is, and we were told that in
our briefing prior to our departure when we were----
Senator Biden. They told us that is going to take at least
6 months to be able to stand up anything of any consequence.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. That may be the case, but let me talk
about the creativity of our troops on the ground. They have
started patrolling using these recycled policemen with U.S.
MPs. Now, obviously, it is not going to solve the problem of an
absence of a legal system, but you have got to create short-
term interim solutions that will give people confidence.
Senator Biden. Most of those MPs are reservists and
National Guard, and most of those MPs have no way of being
extended, and they are going to come home or they are going to
be there for extended periods of time which is going to cause
another problem.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. But I would suggest that in the
internationalization issue, which you raised, Senator, there is
a critical need that could help draw the recruitment, and I
suspect through the European community, through NATO, through
other forces, we could get the number of people. It will not be
the exact number that we need right now, but I think Dr. Hamre,
in fact, had done a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how
many we might possibly get even from our coalition in Spain
where they are a member of the coalition, just to become
members on the street. In fact, I got a call from somebody in
Bridgetown from the CARACOM people saying, do you want us out
in Iraq? So I think if there were an internationalization, if
the U.N. were asked or other institutions were asked, people
would send policemen forward.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, may I just add to this that I think the
case you described where someone is murdered in the home and
you need to go investigate, those are fairly advanced police
skills. Police forensics are more advanced skills. It does not
take nearly so much effort to get a guy out there to stand in
front of a building and check an ID. It does not take nearly as
much to do that.
Senator Biden. I agree with that.
Dr. Hamre. So I think they are taking on the near-term
security challenge, and frankly, you could do rent-a-cops for
some facilities. We went to the tomb of the unknown soldier or
whatever it was called, and you could put a couple of rent-a-
cops up there who would be Iraqi citizens. They do not have to
be finely skilled police detectives who know good forensic
skills.
So I think if we parse out the problem, I think we can
advance the domestic security agenda much more quickly.
To your point, though, we clearly need more carbinieri type
elements, and I think the Europeans have those. We should be
asking them for them. I believe that the Italians are going to
contribute them. I think the Spanish intend to contribute some
or at least are prepared to be asked about it. We are going to
need more than 5,000 in my view until we get our arms around
the security environment, and we do not have them around it
yet, but they are working on it.
Senator Biden. Well, to paraphrase the chairman on another
matter, I am anxious to see what the plan is. I would like to
see the administration let us know what they are asking
because, as Mr. Borden knows, in Bosnia we had a lot of
experience in this and it took a long time and it took a lot of
effort.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Biden.
Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Dr. Hamre, thank you, your associates, all the
organizations that are represented here at the table today. We
know it is far and wide and it is very inclusive. So each of
you who represent different organizations, in addition to CSIS,
John, thank you very, very much.
Your statement, Dr. Hamre, focused on seven points that you
wanted to reinforce which summarized your study, and I wanted
to go to the sixth which has been alluded to generally here in
the opening statements of both the chairman and the ranking
member, and that is the international coalition. If I could
just read back to you a sentence or two, and then I have a
question based on that.
You mentioned the sixth priority. We have an international
coalition that is helping us build a new Iraq, but we need to
broaden that coalition even further. We need to find ways to
invite other countries in to help with the rebuilding.
How do we do that? Now, we have a donor conference, but
John, get specific, and I would obviously welcome the comments
of your associates. Let us start with the United Nations. What
should we be doing? Are you recommending that we go to the
United Nations with a resolution, go to NATO with a formal
request, go to where and who and when? Take us down a little
deeper into how we do that.
Dr. Hamre. I really will turn to my colleagues first and
then let me offer a comment at the very end. Rick and Johanna,
do you want to speak to this?
Mr. Barton. This is probably something that every one of us
would be happy to speak to, but I think that we feel that
probably another resolution would be helpful. Clearly, this is
a domestic political problem for many of our allies. It is not
at this moment a politically popular position to take within
their own body politic to really get involved with Iraq. The
U.N. would be helpful and we all believe that.
I think secondarily we have clearly come to the aid of our
allies as we did in Bosnia when the French and the British got
stuck. I think this is one of those opportunities that is
saying we would welcome your help rather than the more subtle,
the more private communications. This has gotten to such a
public stage that the word has to go out in a more public way.
Senator Hagel. So a resolution would be one way that you
all would recommend to broaden and deepen it.
Mr. Barton. A resolution and the more direct communication
that says we need your help. This is too big a task for any one
of us to succeed, and it is vitally important that we all
succeed. This is not the United States and Britain. This is a
global effort and it requires a global commitment.
Senator Hagel. In the interest of all nations.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman, you had a--we will come to you here,
Mr. Orr, in just a moment.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. Senator Hagel, I think your question
and also the chairman's opening statement and Mr. Biden's
statement point to internationalization specifically on the
United Nations. Yesterday, the Special Representative, Sergio
de Mello, gave his report. They gave very positive signs. I
visited, once with Dr. Orr and once by myself, the U.N.
headquarters. They are looking for a job. They want to help.
And I think that is what we have to send a signal that is
needed. Donors want to work with the U.N. There have been
issues in the past, but the legitimacy of 191 member states is
key at this moment, and if we are going to get the money that
is described in the deficit, they certainly need the fiduciary
agency of the U.N. to provide that in the absence of a
government. An Iraqi Government will come, we are sure of that.
But in the interim, even the donor regulations have the same
bureaucratic problems as we do. They need to give state to
state. There is no Iraqi state. There is an occupying power,
and that is the first step that a resolution could address.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Borden.
Mr. Borden. Yes. As the European resident at the table, I
would think two things might be important to stress. One,
Senator Biden referred to the problem of picking up the check
without having had any say in the selection of the menu. I
think that is a really strong, useful way of thinking and it
represents much of what the Europeans are feeling right now.
I think some very open speaking about the way we got into
the conflict and where we are now would be useful. In the
British presses, we know that American-allied Blair is getting
hammered every day about the WMD issue. These matters need to
be cleared up and moved on, and it may be worth addressing them
quite openly first.
Second, in the media field, just to give you an example,
one of the things that we in the community of the media
development groups are looking at are ways to create
independent institutions from the CPA. We do this, because as
journalists, we think media has to be independent of
government. We also do this somewhat strategically because we
think once we get these things carved out of the CPA, I can go
to Brussels or I can go to Stockholm or I can go in Europe to
raise matching money for this because they will be pleased to
do so. It is not that they do not want to give money to
America, but they want to give something to Iraqis. They want
to give something independent, and they do, frankly, feel sore
about the American dominance of the project. So find ways to
loosen the strings a little bit, and I think you will find more
contributions to the budget.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Dr. Orr
Dr. Orr. Senator, you can tell what an issue you have hit
on, that every one of us is leaning forward in our chair to try
to get in on this one.
There are a couple of key things that we can do in the
immediate run. The Center for International Cooperation, the
CIC, has been set up within the CPA. It is still somewhat
marginal. It is kind of sticking out there. It is headed by a
very able Polish gentleman, former Deputy Finance Minister. His
deputy is an Australian. So far that body has been charged with
going out and rounding up funds. They are very clear that they
cannot round up funds unless they are brought into the
decisionmaking process. Within the CPA, there needs to be
progress toward getting the international voices in the
councils making decisions on how the CPA will run.
Second, the issue of recruiting civilians. We have been
focused on foreign troops. We need to focus on foreign
civilians too. They do not require the same logistical trains.
One of the problems with going out and recruiting all the
foreign troops is that we have to do a lot of the logistics for
them. That is an incredible burden on us. Recruiting talented
non-American civilians does not bring that same burden. If we
use this decentralization model that I talked about, there
would be plenty of great opportunities to plug in European,
Asian, Middle Eastern civilians into that decentralized
structure, and I guarantee you the donors' conference is going
to go much better. When there are at least five or six
nationals of a given country on the ground out there, they will
be much more ready to pony up.
Senator Hagel. Ms. Crocker, did you have a comment?
Ms. Crocker. I do not have anything to add to that, no.
Dr. Hamre. Could I just have 30 seconds, sir? The one
thing, though, I would say I think it would be very useful, if
we think about the United Nations, to try to put our efforts
around getting greater international recognition to this
governing council. Clearly we intend that to be the core of the
new process under which a new government emerges, and I think
that is probably a better basis for doing resolutions. My fear
is that there is so much extra politics with going to the U.N.
right now. It would be one thing if the Europeans were ready to
say we will give you 100,000 troops tomorrow if you come back
to the United Nations, but I have not found any commitments to
100,000 troops anyplace in Europe. So there is not going to be
a big, serious contribution coming from that process. So let us
just do this the old-fashioned way. Let us try to buildup the
part of the credibility around which the new government is
going to emerge and make that our focus.
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Hagel.
Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the New York Times a week ago, there was a story about
the U.S. trying to get help with the Iraq costs, which of
course you have touched on in your report, and I do want to
express our appreciation to you for your report and the effort
that obviously went into it. It is enormously helpful.
At the conclusion of that story, though, it concludes as
follows. ``Administration officials say there may be resistance
if other countries want some say in how money is spent for
Iraq. Many officials are adamant''--that is our officials--
``that it will be the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA,
the current name for the American and British-led occupation,
that decides. It still hasn't entirely sunk into the
international community, but the CPA is the government of Iraq,
said a senior administration official. There are already
unfortunate misunderstandings on that, but I cannot underline
that often enough. The CPA is the government of Iraq.''
Now, how are we going to get others to give money if they
are not included in the decision process with respect to the
use of that money?
Dr. Orr. I think that is exactly the right question. We can
involve them on two levels, at the national level and at the
local level. I have talked with a number of Europeans in
particular that have reached out to us since this trip and
said, is there a place for us to plug in? We have some people
to send, everything from the carbinieri to other civilian
administrators with experience in the Middle East with the
language skills. Again, if we would just say yes, open that
door and get some of them into the field, I think those
governments will be much more willing to contribute.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I think that the CPA--because I spent a
fair amount of time going through their budget and what they
are looking to spend money on for Iraq for the next 18 months.
It is pretty logical. I think it would stand the test of public
discussion. And if you can say this is what our assessment is
of what we think needs to happen, getting up electricity,
repairing electric fields, paying, employing teachers, getting
cops on the beat, it is a very sensible set of ideas that they
have worked up. I think that if we get past this initial
philosophic position, which I agree with--I mean, they are not
going to want to give money in the abstract to us, but if we
lay out what is the framework that we are trying to build for
the new Iraq, invest this governing council so that they see
this as a logical thing as well, become the basis for people
that are making international contributions that fit a big
plan. That I think is a good idea, and I think that it is not
entirely clear to me that we cannot resolve this dispute if we
can work on creating greater legitimacy around the governing
council.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, now, U.N. Secretary General Kofi
Annan just this week in a report to the United Nations Security
Council said--and I quote him--``It is important that Iraqis
are able to see a clear time table leading to the full
restoration of sovereignty. There is a pressing need to set out
a clear and specific sequence of events leading to the end of
military occupation.'' What is your view of that statement by
the Secretary General?
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. I think we are all in agreement, and
I think Ambassador Bremer is as well, that the time table needs
to be laid out. I think we go back to certain issues that we
face. We have to get the security under control in order for
the troops to leave, but I also think that empowering the
Iraqis through this governing council would be----
Senator Sarbanes. We were told here, as I understand it,
before I got here, that I read in the statement that we should
not put too much of a burden on the governing council because
they cannot handle it. They are in an extremely delicate
situation and therefore we cannot, in effect, hand off to them
making any tough decisions.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. I do not think I was suggesting
handing off, Senator, but I was suggesting that the first thing
they are doing and they are actively working on is the creating
of a committee that can create a constitutional basis. That is
a job that they need to get Iraqi input into. They need to go
out into the countryside. They need to go to these regional
councils.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you think the governing council now is
perceived by the Iraqis as having legitimacy?
Mr. Barton. I think it has a mixed perception right now.
Senator Sarbanes. Unlike Karzai in Afghanistan when he was
selected by the loya jirga. Would you say that was markedly
different?
Mr. Barton. I think we feel that the public participation
was broader in the case of Afghanistan, but then again, we
never dealt with the warlords there, so we have a complicating
factor in that case.
I think that the Kofi Annan statement we would agree with,
and we should not only have the very clear sense of direction,
but we should also explain what kinds of things could happen
that might derail the process that is laid out, and that needs
to happen. People are looking for that.
Dr. Hamre. But, sir, I do not think that Ambassador Bremer
is opposed to giving the council as much authority as it can
manage. I think our concern is that we not push it to failure
before it develops the internal competence to handle very
complex issues because there are very complex issues.
Second, I think a time table----
Senator Sarbanes. So are you recommending that we sort of
ride with the council over a period of time as opposed to
trying to move to put in its place a governing mechanism that
was at least more internally chosen and so perceived by the
Iraqi people?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I think Ambassador Bremer's plan--I
personally happen to agree with it--is to grow around this
council a broader process that is seen as legitimate by the
Iraqi people, and that is first getting competent services
demonstrated in the country and gradually infusing it with the
authority that it can run the country over time. But it still
has to stand for election, and it will take a little while for
us to be able to do that. I do not think that is a bad plan. I
think it would be very hard right now to go out and just try to
have 500 people showing up and writing a constitution in Iraq.
I think that would be probably failure-prone. So this strikes
me as a pretty good compromise. That is my personal view. I do
not know if my colleagues agree or disagree.
Mr. Borden. May I add just a comment? Two comments, please,
Senator. The establishment of the government must be a process,
not just an event. That is a bit of a cliche, but I think some
of us remember in Bosnia where the rush to have elections and
create a government there actually entrenched in many ways the
forces that we, broadly speaking, were seeking to overturn,
namely the warlords. My impression was that at least the Iraqis
I spoke to were very happy that the council was created. They
felt that this was not an open and democratic process, but it
gave some voice and it was part of an ongoing process that
would, in time, create a more legitimate government. I think it
is understood that you will not have a realistically legitimate
government until many other things are solved, such as outlined
in the report and so on. You cannot have democracy without the
society and even the economy functioning more broadly. First
point.
Second, I think, with respect, Mr. Biden was referring to
setting priorities, and the Senator referred to information
within that. I think he would understand and I would hope agree
that information actually not in security terms perhaps seems
to be the priority, No. 1. But in all of these issues, I think
you will not succeed unless you have an information strategy as
part of it. You cannot have the process of creating government
unless you have honest information around it. If you set a time
table, you are going to break that time table whatever you set.
You need honest information around it so that people can
understand that, and I think even in security terms, the
analogy I would use would be being in New York City in a subway
when it stops between stations. When you get that announcement
that there is a delay and somebody is working on it, you relax
a little bit, and when you do not get that announcement, you
get nervous and you are frustrated and you feel very tense. You
are left in the dark. I think that is where they are. So I
think security is related also to information as well.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Crocker, you talked about the value of funds flowing to
the provinces or to the local level. Are there any funds
flowing locally now even in limited amounts, and to the extent
that they may be, what are they being used for and how can they
be used more effectively?
Ms. Crocker. At the moment there are not funds flowing, and
so the answer is they are not really being used for anything.
There are some funds flowing to our military commanders out in
the field, and they have been able to use those funds for
certain quick start projects that have been put in place such
as rebuilding schools and sort of very small projects. That has
actually been working quite well so far. But our suggestion is
that we need to broaden that so that we also have some money
flowing to these local councils.
It also gets back to Senator Sarbanes' point before about
sort of the legitimacy of the governing council itself because
one of the ways that I think we would see that legitimacy
increase is if we were able to link what is going on in the
field to what is going on at the center. So we need to make
sure that those local councils that may be more representative
of their communities are linked into this national process.
Senator Sununu. Where the quick start moneys have been
used, have they been used autonomously by the military
structure command locally, or have they been used
collaboratively or cooperatively with the councils?
Ms. Crocker. As far as we know, they have been used
autonomously, although I think the answer is probably that it
has been ad hoc because I think what has been going on in the
field has been rather ad hoc and it just depends on which
military commander is running the show in that particular town
so that we might find that in some, there has been very close
coordination with the local councils in terms of setting up
priorities.
But I did talk to a couple of people who said there was
actually a great level of frustration on the part of Iraqis.
For example, at one particular hospital, there had been three
units of military guys who had come through as various ones had
been rotating through, who had come to the hospital and said,
tell us what you need, give us your list of priorities. And
they said finally on the third such visit, they turned to the
guy and said, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but we have
actually given this list over three times. And they gave it
again. But I think that just does point out that there is still
a bit of a disconnect and it highlights the importance of doing
that.
Senator Sununu. Assuming there was a system set up that
provided some level of funding to the local councils, do you
see or are you concerned about any limitations in the council's
ability to handle, use, distribute, invest money effectively?
Ms. Crocker. I think we would be concerned about that just
given the lack of experience probably with doing this sort of
thing, but I think what will just be important in that regard
is making sure that we have a process in place. I would assume
and something that we point out in the report is that if we
were to engage in this kind of revenue-sharing plan, that you
might require a co-signature of the military commander or the
civilian leadership there or that you might, at least, have
some sort of an oversight process in place.
Dr. Orr. Senator, I think this is an area where in military
terms, we do not like to use the term ``dual key approach,''
but I think on this financial question, a dual key approach
would be appropriate. The local councils make their decisions,
but if you had civilian CPA officials in each of those areas,
they could make sure that there is some oversight of those
moneys.
Senator Sununu. With regard to investments in
infrastructure, there was some discussion in the
recommendations about the value of investments in
infrastructure. When we heard from Mr. Bremer, he noted that
one of the most effective and efficient ways to make a
difference economically and to deal with some of the security
issues--and I think this was mentioned by the panel as well--is
to invest in construction projects. It is a way to give someone
a job, to get them to work, and obviously to make a difference
on infrastructure.
Does the panel have any specific recommendations for
construction or infrastructure projects? Was there any sense of
prioritization established in the recommendations?
Mr. Barton. I think again we would go back to the iron
triangle and we would say those would be the three major areas.
All of us who visited were impressed by quite a lot of the
infrastructure actually. The roads are superb. Much of the
construction techniques looked excellent.
We visited, outside of Basra, a large water plant which is
essentially the water supply for the entire southern, very dry
region. That is already on the list, and clearly the Army Corps
of Engineers was coming in as well, but the USAID, Bechtel
people were there visiting that site. That is going to be a
public works project that will take years, would be our guess,
to clean out the canal that has not really been maintained. We
looked at the infrastructure inside of that plant. It was well
worn down. So those kinds of opportunities really exist
everywhere.
And clearly the $5 billion plus figures that we have heard
about getting the oil industry up to the point where it can
produce 2 million barrels a day, or hopefully 3 million barrels
a day, is really the starting point for that industry, but I
think we would focus in that iron triangle which everything
else depends upon.
Senator Sununu. I do not want to put too fine of a point on
it, but I see a distinction here between critical
infrastructure projects or essential services whereby the most
effective way to make a difference might be to contract to go
get international contractors, foreign contractors who have an
expertise in an area of technology maybe having to do with
energy services, maybe having to do with water plant
construction in order to get it done as quickly as possible and
other areas where the more appropriate goal would be to provide
funding perhaps locally, but to provide funding domestically to
employ domestic workers in industry.
Did you make a distinction between these two groups of
projects or make any effort to try to distinguish between these
two somewhat different sets of priorities?
Mr. Barton. I do not think we differentiated, but I think
we believe that you have got to have a bottom-up and a top-down
approach. Because you have this imperative to really make
tangible progress in these coming few months, you really have
to do whatever you can to get that going.
This is a management by chaos period, and if you think you
are going to bring in lovely, well-coordinated teams of
people--we saw some of those teams coming in. They are bringing
in their own private security guards, retired British Special
Forces agents that look as tough as anybody we saw in the
country, and half of the money they were spending was on that
element of their work. So this is the reality on the ground,
and so you really have to come at it every which way you can.
Dr. Hamre. But, Senator, while we were there, they released
$100 million worth of construction contracts, and it was with
local firms. Now, there is a good construction industry there
and it is exactly for that purpose that Ambassador Bremer is
trying to get that going. This is for things like repairing
bridges and this sort of thing. That industry which was fairly
competent has been a bit damaged by the looting. The one
company in the country that makes these long concrete pillars
that span bridges--whoever it is stole all the electric motors
for their overhead cranes. So they have got problems like that.
But I think Ambassador Bremer understands that is an option and
he is pressing as fast as he can with real projects as fast as
he can. It was right in the neighborhood of $100 million that
he did right away.
The long-term investment, for example, electricity which I
would put as the highest priority, is going to take outsiders
because there is no domestic production to produce new
generation capacity.
Senator Sununu. I have one more question. I see my time is
up, but a final question for Dr. Orr. You talked about the
civilians and getting more civilians in place for a number of
reasons, which I very much agree with. Could you be a little
more specific about the types of civilians you are talking
about in terms of prioritization, what kind of backgrounds are
most essential, what kind of role do you see them playing? In
other words, is it just a leadership role or is it an on-the-
ground implementation role? And when you say civilian, are you
talking perhaps about Federal employees here from the
Department of Agriculture or Department of Justice that have
expertise, or are you talking about private sector civilians
that are identified and take advantage of an opportunity to
make a difference in Iraq?
Dr. Orr. In terms of the types of civilians, first I should
address the volume question. In each province we asked: how
many people do you need? We asked the military. We asked the
civilians we did find there. On the international side, how
many civilians would you need to make this province function,
with respect to the kinds of issues that you raised with us,
agriculture, infrastructure, security. The numbers that they
came back with were fairly consistent at about 20 to 30. They
differed by province as to what the functions would be, but
agriculture showed up in some provinces, financial management
and budget showed up everywhere.
Senator Sununu. About 20 or 30 per province?
Dr. Orr. Per province.
Senator Sununu. And 18 provinces?
Dr. Orr. Yes, 18 provinces. If you cost it out we came up
with about $200 million a year. And that does not all have to
be American.
I think the key is that a coherent group of people come in
as advisors. They could be seconded American Federal employees
seconded. They could be private sector employees that we have
specifically gone out and recruited. It could be done through
contractors and it certainly could be internationals as well.
So not all those costs would have to be borne by the United
States.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Borden. May I please make one contribution? I know that
light was red a second ago.
Senator Sununu. That light is for me. It cuts me off. It
does not necessarily cut you off.
Mr. Borden. I am here slightly to bang one drum, but I will
relate the information of the media issue to the budgeting
question you were referring to. I happen to have a colleague
with me from my organization who is intimately involved in
public service broadcasting reform in Kosovo, and I think there
is a relationship here.
A key question is multi-year budgets. It sounds very
technical and very dull, but especially if you want to bring in
outside contractors, and I would say this particularly for the
media field because that is the field I know, but I am just
guessing that it relates to many of the other ones. If I am a
manager asked to do something, you must give people the
responsibility to do it and the tools with which to do it, and
then step back, and they succeed or they fail. But many times--
and I am sure people who have been on assessment missions in
the field have seen it many times before--the budget is
confirmed, it is not confirmed, I am only here for 4 months, I
do not now what is going to happen next, or the project, as
soon as it is launched, it falls into a desperate fund-raising
process itself. So it really is from the minute, and there is a
great fear within in it because in many of these public service
broadcasting reform projects, whether in Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan to a degree, which we are also involved in, there
is a political will for the moment. But the manager needs to
take a 3- to 5-year view. The director general of this has to
take a 3- to 5-year view. But he knows in 2 years the world is
going to be looking elsewhere, and he is very terrified. It is
very difficult to get the quality people you need and really
make the investment in the start. So while it is management by
chaos--and I picked up on that phrase--even within the chaos,
if you are a good manager, you have to have a strategic plan
and you cannot do that if the resources are not somehow more
confidently behind you as you get started.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Sununu.
Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join and
echo the gratitude we have, all of us, for the report and the
insights.
I will read the phrase that made the headlines, ``the
potential for chaos is becoming more real every day,'' in that
section of your report, you went on to talk about multiple
internal and external players. Can you talk a little bit, give
a little scope of understanding of how you see the external
player piece to the security issue which appears to be priority
No. 1 and give us some framework? Is this external players that
have been, continue to be joining the chaos, the word of the
moment?
Dr. Hamre. Let me say a word and then I will turn to my
colleagues. Sir, I think that clearly in the southern part of
Iraq, we know that there were Iranians who moved in, more
really to connect with Shia followers in the south. I do not
think that there is a lot of evidence that they have been
behind the physical violence directed toward our forces. I
think they have been more toward organizing the Shia
population, more on religious affiliation grounds.
There certainly are rejectionist radical islamic elements
that have operated in the area. Some reportedly are moving
back, but they tend to be more minor in nature. It is certainly
something to be concerned about.
The bulk of security is frankly in two dimensions. It is
the Saddam rejectionists who really are invested in the past,
not the future, and see themselves threatened by the future.
I think there is an international connection which is
under-appreciated which are these smuggling gangs. There is a
great deal of black market activity that is plundering the
country. These are gangs that are taking things out of the
country. In many ways they operate like where you see
convergence between drug trafficking and terrorists in South
America and around the world. This tends to happen in places
where you impose long-term sanctions. Black markets emerge and
they get deeply entrenched in these societies. And they operate
transnationally in this region. They are taking things they
steal from Iraq and they are taking them into neighboring
countries. That is a very real problem. Now, they are not right
now trying to attack our troops because they are trying to
avoid our troops. They are trying to steal stuff. But it is
definitely an international dimension of corruption and
violence that we are going to have to come to grips with. And
to the extent that that becomes a vehicle for politically
motivated violence--I cannot say that we see that now, but it
has happened in other places where we have seen this
phenomenon, and that is a real source of worry over time.
Senator Corzine. In that connection, is there any sense
that there is trafficking in military equipment, munitions, any
of the potential for the yet-undiscovered smoking gun falling
into the hands of this crowd of folks that proliferate this in
and outside of the borders?
Dr. Hamre. They undoubtedly are trafficking in arms. These
sorts of gangs do that as well. It is simply part of the
commodity line, anything from melting down salvaged copper to
turning it into ingots to taking munitions that are still in
cases and selling them to the black market. So the answer is
yes.
Senator Corzine. More worrisome obviously, in the context
of the overall framework in which we entered into this
conflict, was weapons of mass destruction. Do you have any
evidence that they have involved themselves in trafficking and
things other than conventional weaponry?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I do not have any personal knowledge about
that, so I cannot comment on that in any authoritative way. I
think we would be concerned about it obviously, but I do not
have any knowledge about it.
Senator Corzine. Sort of a follow-on to Senator Sununu's
questions. Rebuilding requires security. That is why I think
all of you talked about security as project No. 1. How much of
what is being rebuilt has become subject to the kind of--
whether it is loyalists and rejectionists or organized crime
figures, is being limited in its ability to be effective
because it gets destroyed before it gets put in place, and how
big a problem is this?
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. Maybe I can start, and I know my
colleagues have other comments. But we were told, when we
arrived in Baghdad, that 60 percent of the power generating
capacity was actually destroyed during the looting. Now, that
is not saying it had a great system to begin with, but if you
cut out 60 percent, you have a tragedy.
The other thing we were told in the----
Senator Corzine. Have we stopped the bleeding, though, I
guess?
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. Well, hopefully we are beginning to
stop that bleeding now, but you started really hobbled by a
looting situation. Also, some of the looting that is going on
where the copper in the wires and other pieces of just basic
hardware are being taken out of the walls as soon as they are
put in because there are no jobs. People sell these and they
sell it to a black market which, as Dr. Hamre said, then
exports these. So you have the need for static security. All of
this is circular because you have to guard what you build in
order to prevent things from happening overnight.
But I will let others comment as well.
Dr. Hamre. If you bring in a generator, you have got to
protect it. If you are going to bring in a brand new generator
to keep water pumps working, you have got to put a guard by it.
Now, we hope to get Iraqi guards guarding it rather than
American troops guarding it, but you have to do that right now
because there is this industrial-strength plundering still
going on in the country.
Dr. Orr. Senator Corzine, I would add that one of the key
elements of security that should not be overlooked is when
communities are involved in the decision, they will protect
what they just decided on, and that is why these local
governance councils we have talked about are so important. If
they enumerated their top three priorities and then we put
money against it, the chances of that community organizing
itself to keep those assets safe goes up exponentially.
Senator Corzine. The civilians that you had suggested that
are an important element of moving the country forward--what
security arrangements do we think we would need to put in place
to make sure that that happens? It sounds if we cannot keep
copper wire in the wall or we have a death a day among military
forces, civilians would be much more vulnerable I presume.
Dr. Orr. You are absolutely right, but the key point here
is that the security situation is very different in different
parts of the country. While it is a little bit sketchy in most
of the country, you could safely put civilians in over half the
provinces without significant extra increments of security over
what is already there. There are obviously parts of the country
where you would have to implement the security package
alongside the addition of civilians.
Senator Corzine. I am presuming that that 30 folks that you
talked about in the individual provinces did not include the
security forces that would be necessary.
Dr. Orr. No, that did not.
Senator Corzine. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Corzine.
I am going to ask unanimous consent, with Senator Corzine
still here, with just myself asking myself.
I request that an excellent review of U.S. decisionmaking
with respect to Iraqi reconstruction that appeared in the July
22, 2003 edition of USA Today be included in the hearing record
at the conclusion. Hearing no objection, that article will be
reproduced.
The Chairman. I know that Senator Biden and Senator Hagel
have questions, and they have temporarily absented themselves,
but will be back. In fact, Senator Biden is back now. So I will
recognize him at this point.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
try not to trespass too much on your time.
I would like to ask a couple very basic questions, if I
can. Anyone, if there was a television and radio that was up
and running that had the force of some legitimacy in the minds
of the Iraqi people, that just chronicled, nothing else, what
is going on right now, what would be the impact?
What made me think of this was Ms. Crocker's point about
some good things happening. What does your gut tell you would
be the response of the Iraqi people if they knew, for example,
they could actually see these town council meetings that we saw
and sat through? We were there and they were talking about, if
I am remembering correctly, well, why cannot the water main go
an extra 250 meters or whatever to get to our side of the
neighborhood. And then they would turn to the guy who had been
the former director of education for that area of Baghdad. The
neighborhoods represented roughly 14,000 people. And there were
two neighborhoods that were part of this essentially town
council. Being a former county councilman, it was an impressive
display of participation that was genuine, real disagreement,
dialog and consensus. And how impressive, as you said, doctor,
those young lieutenants and the young majors and young colonels
who were standing there. I mean, they are an impressive group
of people.
What is your sense about that window that we have if people
in Iraq knew that we are actually setting those, whatever you
want to call them, neighborhood councils up?
Mr. Barton. Our sense is they would have a huge and
beneficial impact. Right now seeing is believing is the only
credible way that information is moving within the country. We
talked to three young attorneys who were working inside of the
palace. They would not tell anybody but their families that
they worked inside the palace. So that gives you a sense of
that.
On the other hand, when we started talking about Saddam,
they said, why do we not see the people that you have arrested
in shackles? Why do we not have the confirmation that you
mentioned earlier? We had also said it would not hurt to have
crime watch shows. We are not going to be able to figure out
what the high ratings are. We really just need to get every
single form of communication that we can imagine into play
because the appetite is absolutely unbound at this moment. The
Iraqis need information. Furthermore, they have got an awful
lot of time to digest and process information because there are
not a lot of activities going on right now inside the country.
So we believe it is essential. It needs to happen. There
are a lot of ways of doing it, but we have to go way beyond
sort of ``psyops'' and government public information. We are
talking advertising. We are talking focus groups. We are
talking every conceivable form, hiring thousands of young Iraqi
students who do not have anything to do this summer to go out
as promoters in the community so that we will also have a
better sense of what is going on in the community. We cannot
just count on young American soldiers who do not necessarily
have the language skills to be our key intermediaries. We have
got to expand is. So clearly do it on the media level, but this
is much more of a campaign than kind of an ordered exercise.
Senator Biden. Well, I am going to save you to the end, Mr.
Borden, because I have three questions I want to ask you and
you can then add anything you want to say.
I want to go back to Dr. Orr and talk about civilians in
the provinces. We have a fairly extensive track record in this
country, initially the SEED legislation back in the 1980s. We
had the Freedom Support Act that we worked in Eastern European
countries, former Soviet states. We have some experience in
dealing with getting civilians into Bosnia and Kosovo.
Hopefully our learning curve on this has improved.
Have you had an opportunity, any of you, since you have
been back, to interface with our government people, our agency
people about mechanically, A, how we recruit or what recruiting
mechanism and how we would dispense? If not we, there are all
kinds of NGOs out there who are chomping at the bit, but for
the security concerns of getting out there. Is there anything
in play since your report? And if you were sitting up in our
job, who would you be calling before the committee from the
administration to tell us about what, if any, plans they had
about implementing a civilian corps, in effect, that is
international. As you said, they do not have to be Americans.
Can you talk to me about that a second?
Dr. Orr. Absolutely. On Friday, Under Secretary Feith, in a
briefing at the Pentagon that he invited us to join, said that
they would be taking this recommendation of setting up a backup
office for Ambassador Bremer in DOD, but that it would include
people from all of the relevant agencies. Since that time, I
have had at least two other agencies in town say, we are ready
to put up our person for that office. So I think it is in play,
but it would be important to get it up and running very
quickly. Those people should not just be any old person from
the agency. It should be the person who is the talent scout in
that agency that normally does that, that knows how to look
into the private sector, look into local government, look into
Federal Government to find those people.
Senator Biden. My time is about up. I want to end with you,
Mr. Borden, if I may. I think your recommendations are, as some
of my British friends might say, spot on. I think they are
pretty darned good here. I think what you have in mind is the
game plan; your three recommendations are the way to go,
personally.
My problem is immediately. Again, we are running up against
this immediate crunch. What is left of this committee here and
everybody there, I think we are all on the same page here on
that score.
Now, as long as this security vacuum exists, as we are
trying to fill this vacuum, it is going to hopefully get filled
gradually day by day. But as long as it exists, what can Jerry
Bremer do now to better communicate with the Iraqi people? I
realize we need a long term, and I am not trying in any way to
diminish how consequential that is and we ought to be able to
walk and chew gum at the same time. Plan for that and get that
underway. But what does Ambassador Bremer do now--now,
tomorrow--to say to the folks he has on the ground now, this is
how we are going to better communicate beginning today? What
kinds of things does he need to do?
Mr. Borden. Thank you. With respect, I think if your own
office and department had the information campaign and
information strategy that he does, you would not be a Senator.
You are a politician and you know about information. You know
about communicating with the constituency. You know how
important it is. It is part of the democratic process. And I
believe this is beginning to be quite understood within
Baghdad. They need a director of communications and a proper
information operation, which is very robust, and begins
immediately.
What I would urge them to do is to separate the
understanding of the information from the plumbing by which you
communicate it. They are, as they said, the government. Bremer
does not need a TV station. He just needs a microphone and a
press conference and people will come. Focus on getting the
message out, figuring out what the message is. And not to
distinguish myself from my colleagues, but I am a journalist by
background. I would focus on information and honest conveyance
of, as you say, briefings and so on. Marketing and all the rest
has its role, but I do think the Iraqis have a long history of,
let us say, propaganda, and they want the truth, and when they
have the truth, I think they will understand the difficulties
and appreciate it and be generally on side.
Senator Biden. One last point, Mr. Chairman. I have been,
as we all have here, a strong supporter of our Board of
International Broadcasting. Our Board of International
Broadcasting not only has Voice of America, it also has those
apparatus that have literally journalistic independence, the
radios, the so-called Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the
remnants of those and new startups. I would like to ask you--
and you may not have an answer now, and you may. If you have
it, please tell me--what you would think about a recommendation
of getting Bremer and company or at least folks in the
administration to call these folks in and have them come up
with a proposal near term to immediately be able to deal with
the dissemination of information.
I realize it is different, but literally in a matter of
several months, they put together this Radio Sawa that became
the most listened-to radio station in that part of the Arab
world, almost overnight, because we took, what you are
suggesting, Dr. Orr, a very smart guy who made a billion bucks
putting together radio stations in the United States of
America. We went out. He volunteered his time. He sat on the
Board. The Board turned to him and said, put together a radio
station. How would you do it if you were going out there?
We invented Madison Avenue, for Lord's sake. Our inability
to be able to communicate is probably--if you were sitting on
Mars for the last 6 years or 60 years and got brought back to
Earth and said, well, what is the one shortcoming we would
have, the last one you would come up with is thinking we would
not be able to communicate our point of view.
So I would like you to think about--and I have no ability,
like the Secretary of Defense or anybody else, to task you in
any way. But I would appreciate it, as one member of this
committee, if you would, Dr. Hamre, think about whether or not
existing governmental agencies are up to the task When we were
riding back, the chairman and I with General Kerr, who was
being, as all the military were, absolutely straightforward
with us. The chairman was saying we have to learn to plan for
this kind of stuff much better in the future in terms of nation
building or whatever you want to call it, to have a much bigger
civil affairs component of this operation. Kerr was not
lamenting but pointing out that he is very shorthanded, that
there is not as much of a workup on this side of the equation
as necessary, and that he could use a whole lot more on the
civil affairs side.
So my question, not to be answered at this moment, for you
to consider for the committee is within the present Federal
Government structure that exists, what should we be doing? What
other parts of the government should we be calling on to assist
on this communications side, if that is the case? Mr. Borden,
if you would think about it for me. If this were the President,
the Secretary of State, and I am the commanding general and I
am Bremer and we all come to you and say, hey, look, we want
you to become the public information officer for Biden sitting
over there trying to put this together, what would you be doing
not next month? What would you be doing tomorrow and the next
day and the next day?
Dr. Hamre, this is not a criticism of Jerry Bremer, and it
really is not. I mean it sincerely. But when I asked the
Ambassador yesterday about this issue, he said, look, I am
doing x number of press conferences a day. I am on Al Jazeera.
I am making myself available. And he is and doing a good job
when he does. But that is not a press plan. That is not a press
plan or a communications plan.
So anyway, I have trespassed on my time already. If you all
would consider that, if you could either put it in writing,
pick up the phone and call, seriously, and I look forward to
meeting with you separately, Mr. Borden, if you would be
willing to give me some time. I do not know how long you are in
the States, but just to come in and sit down and educate me a
little bit. OK?
Mr. Borden. A pleasure.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much.
[The following response to Senator Biden's questions was
subsequent received from Mr. Borden.]
Institute for War & Peace Reporting,
Lancaster House,
33 Islington High Street,
London N1 9LH UK, July 31, 2003.
Senator Joseph Biden,
United States Senate,
201 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Biden:
Re: Iraqi Media and Information Strategies
Thank you for your invitation last week during the hearing on Iraq
to present further thoughts on information and media strategies.
As I understood, your outstanding question was how to achieve
immediate impact, in light of the poor information flow to the
population and the short window of opportunity described by Dr. Hamre
and colleagues.
Your championing of this issue itself offers the kind of
constructive pressure that can make a real difference in achieving
early results.
Practically speaking, I would strongly argue that the primary
approach should be to press ahead hard with the strategies I outlined.
Political pressure to ensure rapid and professional implementation, and
appropriate allocation of resources, can achieve a great deal--and
relatively quickly.
(1) In a fast-moving environment, my understanding is that a
Director of Communications for the CPA has been identified.
That person needs to be in post, with clear authority and
adequate resources, and close scrutiny in the first instance to
ensure creative and energetic implementation. I hope for an
aggressive and progressive strategy for providing information,
especially to Iraqis through Iraqi media. In a politicized
environment, a message needs to be clarified and communicated,
but the emphasis should be on transparent and honest facts
rather than spin and marketing. Communications need to be
offered in Arabic and Kurdish, and mechanisms developed to
enable local media to make contact, which means getting outside
the cloistered palaces.
(2) A head for a new independent Iraqi media commission has
also been identified. He also needs clear authority and remit.
As I indicated in my testimony, mid-level bureaucratic
resistance and delays in allocating resources present a serious
obstacle to success here. In particular, full independence
needs to be provided from the start, especially in terms of
staff hires. On the positive front, there are creative
strategies to exploit frequency regulation in the first
instance to gain rights for public service programming across
all existing local Iraqi media. So there can be ``early wins'',
as long as this process is allowed to move ahead with full
steam. Any let-up here would be a disaster.
(3) I am pleased to note that the British development agency
DIFD has confirmed a grant to my organization, the Institute
for War & Peace Reporting, to launch a journalist training and
humanitarian reporting project with local journalists, and we
expect this to begin in a matter of weeks. Our understanding is
that this will be the first such field training and reporting
effort. The aim is to produce reliable reporting through local
voices on humanitarian developments and disseminate this work
through local print and radio outlets. Further resources
through organizations like IWPR and others with whom we
cooperate could extend such activities. In terms of other
immediate possibilities, fresh resources could also be utilized
to provide free Internet access for local journalists, which
could substantially improve their capacity to report. Such an
effort could serve as a first project of an independent Iraqi
Media Institute and could be implemented quickly. Public
private partnerships should also be encouraged to ensure the
establishment of sustainable Iraqi media with a focus on
promoting civil society and engendering broad debate and
political participation.
In the Balkans and elsewhere, we have seen crisis response
initiatives undermine long-term strategies, soak up substantial donor
funds, and ultimately fail in their own terms as well. After the
initial false start, the strategies outlined--establishing a CPA
information strategy, creating an independent media commission, and
supporting independent and Iraqi-led activities--are solidifying and on
the verge of implementation.
The challenge now is to see them through, and your championing of
the issue would make a very important contribution to maintaining
pressure and mobilizing support to ensure that that happens.
It was a particular honor to testify before you and your colleagues
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I would be delighted to
provide you with any further assistance you may require, and your staff
have all my contact details. If we do not speak by telephone, I will be
regularly in the States from September and could meet any time.
With thanks for your interest and support on this issue, and best
regards.
Yours,
Tony Borden, Executive Director.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Let me just indicate--I am going to call upon Senator Hagel
now--that a rollcall vote has commenced on the floor and there
will be another following that. So after this questioning, the
hearing will be coming to a conclusion, and you will finally be
released.
Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I very much
appreciate the chairman's giving me an opportunity to ask one
final question and I will be very direct.
It is your last point, Dr. Hamre, of your seven points you
laid out in your statement. Dr. Orr you referred to it, I
believe, referencing bureaucracy in Washington slowing
Ambassador Bremer down. You talk about it, Dr. Hamre, here
saying, ``finally, Administrator Bremer and his team need
greater flexibility.'' You went a little further I think, Dr.
Orr, in being a little more specific about bureaucracy hanging
him up here in Washington. We heard some of this when we were
in Iraq, by the way, and we heard it rather plainly and it was
put indelicately by some, not in earshot of the authorities,
but nonetheless I think we got the picture.
Would you care to respond to the points you each made, in a
brief amount of time here, because obviously I do not want to
use all the time? The chairman has time here.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I understand that people here in Washington
want to try to be helpful, but I think that they are really
operating within the Washington frame of reference when that,
frankly, is not helpful right now. We need to trust the people
over there to be making the right decisions. Just like
Ambassador Bremer trusts a local lieutenant colonel to spend
money on a project on his word this is going to help, we need
to really start investing that kind of trust in Ambassador
Bremer and his whole team. It is taking too long to get money
released. It is taking too much time to get contracts approved.
We ought to have much more contracting capability there in
theater. They need to be held accountable, but they feel they
are accountable. So let us not tie them up with lots of second-
guessing and micro-management in Washington, and I think that
would be our plea. I think it is in the area of funds release,
funds control, accountability, personnel assignments, that sort
of thing.
Senator Hagel. Before I go to Dr. Orr for a very quick
answer, let me just add, if you have not done this already and
if it is not in your complete report, which I have just read
the abbreviated version of, the executive summary of, it would
be very helpful to get down into that because we heard specific
agencies--in fact, OMB was mentioned, too much control at DOD.
Everything was having to go back through DOD, then OMB, then
back around. So anything specifically that you could touch on
would be helpful. I would be very interested in getting any of
that myself to see if I can help.
Dr. Hamre. Most of those complaints I heard directed at me
when I was comptroller. So I am very familiar with them, and I
will be glad to report on it.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Dr. Orr.
Dr. Orr. Just as Dr. Hamre describes himself as a money
guy, I will describe myself as a people guy. I think on the
personnel side the needs are just screaming, quite frankly, and
I think Ambassador Bremer and all of his top people know what
they need. They have put this to us many times, and we said,
well, why do you not have it? They said, well, we have asked
for it. I cannot tell you why exactly. It goes to Washington
and we just do not get the people that we really need here on
the ground. So I think we need to have someone take a look at
the process of where the echo chamber is bouncing these names
around, where it is bouncing the money around. Someone could
cut through a lot of that business as usual. This is a
situation where I think, as Dr. Hamre said, we cannot afford
business as usual either on the money side or on the personnel
side.
Senator Hagel. Well, if you have not done it, I just say--
and I know you want to make a quick comment, Dr. Mendelson-
Forman--I think this is a critical part of this, especially in
light of the larger dynamic of your recommendations, all of
you. Time is not on our side here, and you all presented that
pretty clearly today on the great challenges that we have here.
We are going to stay the course and accomplish what we have to
accomplish. But just as you point out, Bremer needs a straight
line here and his people do or it is going to be much more
difficult, and you know that.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. I just wanted to add to Dr. Orr's
comment because this project started as a look at the gaps in
U.S. capacity to deal with post-conflict reconstruction. We did
write a paper about some of the funding obstacles, and we would
be happy to share some of that information because it does not
touch on Iraq because it happened before Iraq, but I think some
of the obstacles and the needs for these quick infusions of
cash are discussed and ways to deal with them. So we can send
that to you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, you were very generous with your time. Thank
you.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, may I make very one brief
point to reinforce the point you all made? Right after the
Taliban was rooted out, I spent 5 days, 6 days, or whatever it
was, in Kabul at Bagram Air Base. Our Ambassador had people
coming to him, Ambassador Crocker, acting, to ask just to get a
little bit of help. I think it was something like $360 to fix a
boiler in a hospital that was a pediatric hospital where they
had no heat and the average temperature there was 19 degrees.
And DOD had no money. He had no money. I came back and found
out that there is a fund at State where I called a guy--he was
one of the best guys I ever dealt with at cutting through
stuff. He is the No. 2 guy over there. And I called him up and
I said, look, you have $20 million. Send it to them.
What happened was immediately you had Rich Armitage send
them $20 million over there to Crocker so he did not have to go
through anybody. And he put a sewer in here. He put a well in
there. And it was of significant immediate impact. That is the
kind of stuff you are talking about right now. Is it not?
Dr. Hamre. Absolutely.
Senator Biden. And I wish you guys were able to talk to
State a little bit too, but that is another question.
Dr. Hamre. Well, we will.
The Chairman. Let me just add one further thought on the
communications thing, which I would have amplified if more time
had been available to us. Yesterday Jerry Bremer told us a
television station was stood up on the 13th of this month, and
he estimated that through radio maybe 90 percent of the
population of Baghdad is able to get messages. He did not make
estimates for beyond Baghdad for the rest of the country.
Each of you have been there even more recently than we. I
am eager to get some analysis of how the word would get to
people. How many people have TV sets or radio sets or what have
you in Baghdad or elsewhere. Even as we think about the
importance of the message, even after you have the vehicles, it
was not clear to me at the time--we were there 4 weeks ago
yesterday--how many people could hear anything, if you even had
some content. I am just curious about the infrastructure of
communications because this is obviously a very important
matter, as are the budget, the personnel, and the other items
we have tried to cover today.
We thank you again for a remarkable report and for being so
forthcoming in your testimony and your responses.
Dr. Hamre. Thank you.
Ms. Crocker. Thank you.
Dr. Orr. Thank you.
Dr. Mendelson-Forman. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
Mr. Borden. Thank you.
Senator Biden. A good hearing, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Additional Submissions for the Record
[From USA TODAY, July 22, 2003]
How Peace in Iraq Became so Continued--Violence and Chaos not Only
Jeopardize Troops but Also the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy in the
Middle East
(By Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz)
Washington--On March 16, three days before the first U.S. bombs
fell on Iraq, Vice President Cheney signaled on NBC's Meet the Press
what sort of war the Bush administration thought American troops were
about to fight: ``Things have gotten so bad inside Iraq . . . we will,
in fact, be greeted as liberators,'' Cheney said.
Baghdad fell 21 days after the initial assaults, and military
analysts describe the campaign as historic, even brilliant.
But so far, the verdict on the aftermath of that campaign is much
harsher. More than three months after Baghdad fell, American soldiers
are not being treated like liberators. Instead, they face a guerrilla
war, according to Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in
the region. Shadowy forces prey on U.S. troops, sabotage the nation's
electric grid and other vital infrastructure, and spread fear among
average Iraqis that Saddam Hussein is coming back.
Administration officials say the violence will eventually subside.
But as of mid-July, even the top U.S. official in Iraq was offering no
clear forecast for when, ``We need to be patient,'' Paul Bremer, the
U.S. administrator for Iraq, told Meet the Press on Sunday. Though
expressing confidence that resistance could be overcome, he conceded
that ``we are going to be there for a while. I don't know how many
years.''
Interviews with more than 30 current and former U.S. officials,
analysts, Iraqi-Americans and others--including a cross-section of
those involved in the planning process--identified a number of prewar
decisions that they say helped create the current situation. Hasty
planning, rosy assumptions about Iraqi attitudes and a failure to
foresee and forestall the disastrous effects of looting and sabotage
all contributed, they say.
Most spoke on the record, but a few in sensitive positions
requested anonymity.
Whatever the reasons for the disarray, the stakes are enormous. A
failure to create a successful, stable Iraq could have grave
repercussions throughout the Middle East and beyond, jeopardizing U.S.
efforts to deter support for terrorism, curb proliferation of dangerous
weapons and encourage democratic reforms. The outcome could also affect
voters' views of the war and President Bush's reelection prospects.
Failure to secure the peace in Iraq ``has the potential to outweigh
every accomplishment of American foreign policy,'' says Leslie Gelb,
who recently stepped down as president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, a prominent think tank.
Should planners have foreseen the chaos and disorder that now stalk
Iraq? And how did such a well-fought combat operation give way to such
a messy and seemingly open-ended guerrilla conflict? Those interviewed
disagree about precisely what went awry, but they identify at least six
different reasons for the current difficulties:
deploying a limited number of troops
When major cities were captured quickly by a comparatively small
force of allied ground troops, military officers and analysts who had
advocated a massive invasion force were silenced--for awhile. Now they
say the postwar chaos shows they were right after all, that it was
crucial to have a massive force on the ground, not just to win the war,
but to establish a commanding presence the minute the war was over.
Instead, once Saddam loyalists sensed how thin the U.S. forces were,
they became emboldened to begin looting, conduct sabotage and, finally,
wage guerrilla war.
``Once we got to Baghdad, we needed to establish an immediate
presence to show the people we were in charge,'' says Ralph Peters, a
retired Army officer and strategist. ``We did not present tangible
strength on the ground.''
Four years ago, those who devised an Iraq war game called ``Desert
Crossing'' concluded that a large force would be needed to subdue the
country. ``We were concerned about the ability to get in there right
away, to flood the towns and villages,'' says retired Marine Gen.
Anthony Zinni, who was commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and the
surrounding region when he supervised ``Desert Crossing.'' ``We knew
the initial problem would be security.''
The 1999 exercise recommended a force of 400,000 troops to invade
and stabilize Iraq. But at the insistence of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, ground forces in the March invasion were held to less than
half that: about 130,000 U.S. combat troops and some 30,000 British
troops.
Top Pentagon officials fiercely defend their decision to hold troop
numbers down. Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy and
an influential adviser to Rumsfeld, says the strategy prevented much
worse problems that could have arisen if Saddam Hussein's regime had
had more time to react.
Taking time to deploy more troops, Feith said in an interview July
8, would have given Saddam ``more chances to send a Scud missile into
Kuwait or Israel, rig bridges to explode, or prepare to hide or use
chemical weapons.''
Feith said it's easy in hindsight to identify problems that should
have been planners' primary focus. ``But if we didn't have a looting
problem, but we had the oil fields blown, and refugees fleeing across
the border, and mass starvation, and all other things we planned
against . . . would everybody now say that was a brilliant job of
planning because you put an extra 100,000 forces in and a building
didn't get looted?''
It's uncertain whether a force of 400,000 or more would have
prevented looting and sabotage or headed off a guerrilla war.
Peacekeeping missions vary from country to country, and what worked in
one nation might not work in another. But participants in the war
preparations offer insights into the information planners considered
and what assumptions they made when they rejected the idea of a larger
force.
As late as February, barely a month before the war began, the
question of how many troops to send to Iraq to stabilize the country
after the war was unsettled, according to a high-ranking Defense
Department official involved in the planning process.
To help planners reach a decision, staff members on the White
House's National Security Council (NSC) prepared a memo that looked at
the numbers of troops used in recent peacekeeping operations and stated
what numbers would be sent to Iraq if those models were followed, the
official said. If the peacekeeping operations during the 1999 Kosovo
crisis were used as a benchmark, the memo said, 500,000 troops would
have been deployed to Iraq. A large number of peacekeepers was also
sent to Bosnia, but relatively smaller forces were deployed in other
crises in Haiti and Sierra Leone, where the outcome has been less
successful than in the Balkans.
The memo did not set an inflexible rule for force size, but instead
laid out the apparent lessons of recent peacekeeping operations.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice saw the memo, but it is not
clear whether President Bush did. Michael Anton, an NSC spokesman,
refused to comment on the document, apart from denying that any
specific recommendation had been made regarding how many troops should
be deployed. ``The NSC staff does not make recommendations or provide
estimates to the president on the number of troops needed for any
mission,'' he said.
Yet about the same time the document was drafted, Rumsfeld and his
deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, harshly criticized then Army Chief of Staff
Gen. Eric Shinseki for telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that
it would take ``something on the order of several hundred thousand
soldiers'' to stabilize Iraq in the months after the war.
In the end, the conviction that U.S. forces would be warmly
welcomed was at the heart of the decision-making, judging from the
administration's public statements and inside accounts from those who
took part in the debate.
Thomas White, who served as secretary of the Army until Rumsfeld
pushed him out after the war over differences about force size and
other matters, traces the force-size decision to the belief by Cheney,
Rumsfeld and others that U.S. troops would be hailed as liberators.
The implication was that ``liberated people don't misbehave,''
White said in an interview. When Army generals suggested larger troop
numbers, ``that was not music anyone down the hallway (in Rumsfeld's
office) wanted to listen to,'' White said. ``Anybody who looked at the
situation, that string of assumptions, it affected what kind of force
we took in there and how we are conducting ourselves now. This is going
to be a long, drawn out affair.''
White's description of Rumsfeld's view was corroborated by three
serving high-ranking Pentagon officials, as well as analysts at the
Pentagon's own academic institution, the National Defense University.
Former and current Pentagon officials also say Rumsfeld decided to
limit ground forces in part because of his conviction that high-tech
arms can transform military operations and reduce the need for boots on
the ground.
Feith confirmed that the decision to limit the number of troops
sent in was ``strategic and goes far beyond Iraq. This is part of his
(Rumsfeld's) thinking about defense transformation. It's an old way of
thinking to say that the United States should not do anything without
hundreds of thousands of troops. That makes our military less usable.''
starting too late
While war planning started more than a year before the March 2003
invasion, Pentagon planning for postwar Iraq did not get underway in
earnest until shortly beforehand.
The Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance
(ORHA), tasked with initial post-Saddam political and economic work,
was not created until Jan. 20 and did not really start functioning
until a few weeks before the war began. Wolfowitz told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that ``to my knowledge this is the first
time we have created an office for postwar administration before a
conflict had even started.'' While that's technically true, U.S.
planning for the occupation of Germany began three years before the end
of World War II.
Retired Army general Jay Garner, who headed initial post-Saddam
planning and reconstruction efforts, says U.S. officials were inhibited
partly by the need to show the world that they were giving diplomacy a
chance. But he says he could have used more time. ``I didn't have all
the people who had been appointed to work in the ministries,'' Garner
says. Also ``10 of 13 major contracts (for reconstruction work) weren't
signed until after the war started. Should we have done it earlier?
Sure.''
underestimating the impact of looting and the poor state of local
infrastructure
Only three brigades of about 6,000 soldiers were in Baghdad when
the city fell on April 9, controlling just 15% of a city with a
population of more than 5 million. Among them were only 140 MPs, says
Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division.
As a result, U.S. forces were not in a position to stop the widespread
looting that broke out after Saddam fell, even if they had been ordered
to. And they were not given such orders because the pilferage was
regarded by Rumsfeld and his top aides as a minor annoyance, a letting
off of steam by newly liberated Iraqis.
``Looting wasn't taken into military consideration,'' Blount says.
``It never came in the order process that it would be a major
problem.''
But the devastation seriously undermined the postwar mission.
Iraqis stole, destroyed or scattered furniture, computers, electric
lines, archaeological relics, crucial records, and vital equipment at
power plants, oil installations and hospitals.
``It presented us with a hard problem,'' acknowledges Garner. ``Our
plan was to immediately stand up 20 of 23 existing ministries,'' he
says. ``But 17 of them had been vaporized.''
U.S. officials also overestimated the condition of Iraqi
infrastructure, discounting reports from the United Nations and others
about the jury-rigged nature of Iraq's oil industry and electrical
grid. As a result, they face a much bigger task trying to restore basic
services than they anticipated. Two prior wars and a decade of U.N.
economic sanctions ``killed this country,'' says a congressional aide
who recently returned from Iraq. ``We had no idea how bad it would
be.''
making wrong assumptions from the last gulf war
Pentagon and State Department experts, studying the lessons of the
1991 Gulf War, expected ordinary Iraqi soldiers to surrender in large
numbers instead of taking off their uniforms and melding back into the
population. There was also an assumption, a senior State Department
official involved in Iraq planning said, that U.S. forces could
immediately use the rank-and-file Iraqi soldiers and police to
stabilize the country once the top officers had been removed.
``The fact is that the so-called decapitation theory, the thought
that somehow or other the United States would take out of commission
police officers, army officers, people who were in the ministries, who
were identified with Saddam Hussein and the regime, and the rest of the
forces would continue on to do their duty, was totally inaccurate--a
disastrous assumption,'' says Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee.
``The policemen seem to have been better trained to raid people's
homes at night than to patrol the streets,'' Wolfowitz acknowledged
before the Foreign Relations Committee in May.
planning for crises that didn't happen
Much of the prewar planning focused on crises that did not
materialize: oil field fires, large refugee flows and huge numbers of
prisoners. In a clear strategic success, U.S. and British forces got to
the oil fields before they could be sabotaged in a significant way. The
initial combat ended so quickly that most Iraqis stayed in their homes.
``A lot of our current problems have to do with the fact that we
planned for the wrong immediate aftermath,'' says Richard Haass, a
former senior State Department official who now heads the Council on
Foreign Relations.
``The administration planned quite a lot. But planning is only as
good as the assumptions, and one of the assumptions built in was that a
lot of the initial period was going to be dealing with the humanitarian
crisis.''
Haass, who occasionally clashed with Pentagon hardliners over U.S.
policy toward nations such as Iraq, says the swiftness of Baghdad's
fall, ironically, made the post-Saddam effort more difficult.
``The fact that the Iraqi people were so spared by the war,
psychologically, there wasn't a sense of the defeated society,'' he
says.
``So it's not nearly as pliable as Japan or Germany were after
World War II.''
Turkey's refusal to allow 60,000 U.S. troops to invade Iraq from
the north meant that the so-called Sunni Muslim triangle north of
Baghdad was largely untouched. That region has become a focal point for
resistance.
Feith conceded that he was surprised by the degree of opposition
from remnants of Saddam's Baath party, which he said was ``more
sustained and more intense than anticipated.''
failing to resolve interagency conflict
Chronic feuding between the State Department and the Pentagon's
civilian leadership made the planning process even more difficult,
those involved in the process say.
The office of the secretary of Defense largely ignored position
papers produced over the past year by the State Department's Future of
Iraq program, which brought together about 200 Iraqi exiles to discuss
reorganization after the fall of Saddam.
Instead, the Pentagon early this year started a parallel operation
with exiles vetted for support for Ahmad Chalabi, an exile leader close
to Republican neo-conservatives and distrusted by the State Department.
Pentagon civilians also vetted State Department volunteers for
service in Iraq and tried to bar those considered hostile to Chalabi,
State Department officials said.
``What went wrong was turf war in Washington,'' says Feisal
Istrabadi, an Iraqi-American lawyer in Chicago who participated in the
State Department effort to draft new laws for Iraq.
``The Pentagon won the (bureaucratic) war in January and shunted us
off to one side on the theory that they could re-invent in two months
what we had done in ten months.''
Pentagon and State Department officials, as well as Middle East
experts from all sides of the political spectrum, also fault the
National Security Council, which is supposed to be the coordinating
body for foreign policy.
One Pentagon hardliner, who asked not to be named, said so-called
``principals'' meetings' that brought together Rumsfeld, Secretary of
State Colin Powell and Rice, often failed to reach decisions, leaving
subordinates to improvise as they went along.
``We have to understand that it was the function of the NSC to
insure that the interagency process worked,'' says Anthony Cordesman, a
Middle East military expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS). ``Failure must be placed at the level of
the NSC and the president.''
As attacks on American and British forces intensify, concerns are
growing about whether the U.S.-led coalition will be able to stabilize
Iraq.
``The next three months are crucial to turning around the security
situation,'' concluded a task force of foreign policy experts from CSIS
and the Council on Foreign Relations who visited Iraq last week at
Rumsfeld's request.
``The window for cooperation may close rapidly if they (Iraqis) do
not see progress,'' the report said.
______
Prepared Statement of American Association of Engineering Societies,
Paul J. Kostek, Chairman
The American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES), its 24
member societies and the over one million U.S. engineers it represents,
wish to thank Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden for the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record on the topic of
Reconstruction in Iraq.
The engineering community understands and believes the most
pressing task in Iraq is to establish secure and stable conditions
throughout the country, and we believe that the Coalition forces are
well on their way to doing just that. Key to the establishment of
secure and stable conditions is the reconstruction and building efforts
to improve the country's infrastructure, which are currently underway.
Since the President declared an end to major combat operations on May
1, 2003, building and reconstruction efforts have focused on critical
areas of infrastructure that will each contribute to substantial
improvements in the lives of the Iraqi people. They are water,
sanitation, health, education, electricity, ports, airports, and local
governance.
The US engineering community believes that one of the most
important actions to occur during the building and reconstruction
process must be the engagement of the Iraqi people in all aspects of
the process, especially the Iraqi engineering community. It is an
accepted fact that the Coalition forces will be a strong presence in
Iraq for years to come, but at the same time it is also understood that
the Iraqi people will be responsible for their own community once the
Coalition forces have decreased and withdrawn.
In conjunction with the World Federation of Engineering
Organizations (WFEO), the US Army Corps of Engineers and others, the US
engineering community has begun to work directly with the Iraqi
engineering community during the building and reconstruction process.
Through regular video conference calls, e-mail exchanges, meetings and
the like, the US engineering community has come together to help its
colleagues in Iraq. Some examples of that assistance include providing
technical journals and literature in an effort to update existing
engineering skills and technology; providing volunteer US engineers
willing to travel to Iraq to help their colleagues; and providing
contacts within the technical community for general assistance in all
manner of issues. At this critical time, we appreciate the efforts made
by the US Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies to help
facilitate our outreach to the Iraqi engineering community.
Our outreach to the Iraqi engineering community is an example of
how the US engineering community is working to create a sustainable
world that provides a safe, secure, healthy life for all peoples. The
US engineering community is increasing its focus on sharing and
disseminating information, knowledge and technology that provides
access to minerals, materials, energy, water, food and public health
while addressing basic human needs. Engineers must deliver solutions
that are technically viable, commercially feasible, and environmentally
and socially sustainable.
The reconstruction of Iraq, and indeed the survival of our planet
and its people requires the collaboration of all professions in both
developed and developing countries to sustain future generations. The
goal of improving the social and economic well being of all peoples in
the developed and lesser-developed countries is a pre-requisite for
creating a stable, sustainable world. Although achieving this goal will
require a broad coalition of well-crafted policies, it will only be
realized through the application of engineering principles and a
commitment to public/private partnerships involving professionals from
all fields including the social sciences, engineering and medicine. It
will also require collaboration for development, acceptance and
dissemination of innovative solutions and better use of existing
technologies.
Today's world is increasingly complex, and the need for US
assistance in building and reconstruction more common. The US
engineering community stands at the ready to provide any manner of
assistance to help in the creation of a sustainable world.
-