U.S. MILITARY COMMITMENTS AND ONGOING
MILITARY OPERATIONS ABROAD

Hearing Before the
Senate Armed Services Committee

September 9, 2003

OPENING STATEMENT OF

JOHN WARNER
A Senator from Virginia, and
Chairman, Armed Services Committee

SEN. WARNER: (Strikes gavel.) Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on U.S. global military commitments and ongoing military operations. We welcome our witnesses this morning: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Ambassador Marc Grossman and General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We also are privileged to have with us a special guest here this morning. General Mattis, if you'd stand, please. General Mattis, as commander of the Marine (sic) in country in Iraq, I had the privilege of visiting with my codel and others. And at some point in time we'll liable to have you come forward, General. Thank you.

We meet today just two days before the second anniversary of September 11th attacks on this nation, terrorist attacks which took the lives of over 3,000 innocent victims and forever changed our sense of security, forever changed the manner in which we in this great nation will conduct our lives for ourselves, our families, and indeed our nation's defense posture.

As we reflect this morning on the request by the president, $87 billion, we should keep in mind, apart from the tragic loss of life, what was the cost of 9/11, what is the cost to do everything we can as a nation to prevent a recurrence of any incident similar to that, or others.

Since that fateful day two years ago, U.S. military forces, working side by side with coalition partners from around the world, have been engaged in an all-out global war on terrorism, in an effort to prevent future terrorists from reaching our shores. As the president stated so eloquently on Sunday evening -- and I quote him -- "And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.

And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and where he plans and where he trains. We are fighting the enemy in Iraq, Afghanistan, so that we do not meet him again on our streets, in our cities, in our towns, in our villages."

What has been accomplished over the past two years in the war on terror? That's the question before us today. What is the future tactics, plans and costs? That is before us today.

I think, myself, we have accomplished a great deal. The Taliban regime, which provided a safe operating base for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, no longer controls that nation and has been driven into the hills. Do they appear? Yes, occasionally, but certainly not with the force they once had. They've been replaced by an emerging democratic government. Al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Many of its top leaders and operatives are dead or in custody. And the remnants, again, are scattered.

Over the past two years, thousands of terrorists around the world would have been captured, and many terrorist operations have been disrupted. That's progress.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's reign of terror has ended, never to return. The threat he posed to his people, his neighbors, and indeed, to the world, has been removed, and Iraq is in the early stages of establishing a democratic form of government representative of the needs of all Iraqis, not just selected portions of that population, as Saddam Hussein doled out the largess to a few, and most of all himself.

While much remains to be done in both Iraq and Afghanistan to consolidate our military victory -- and we as a nation are committed to seeing it through to the end, let there be no doubt -- we must not lose sight of the many achievements over the past two years. I believe, I think most Americans believe the world is a safer place because we and a coalition of partners acted promptly and acted decisively.

Recent military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq are a tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women in the United States armed forces and their families. We're proud to have with us today the distinguished chairman, other military officers, as symbols of those achievements by our professional military. Both operations achieved their basic goals in record time, the military goals, their primary military objectives: removing regimes from power that were a threat to the security of the United States, and indeed, the world.

They were led by a team: Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, their deputies, one of whom, Secretary Wolfowitz, is here before us today; and on the military side, General Myers, indeed, General Franks, General Abizaid -- I personally am very proud of that team, to have had the opportunity to have worked with them. While we've had our differences, I respect them. I commend their leadership. And we're going to stick together to get this job done.

We've acquired post-extensive, post-conflict stability operations that are ongoing and requiring significant manpower, resources, time and commitment to fully secure the peace. Has everything gone exactly as envisioned? We all know that's not correct. But when in history has a magnitude of this -- operation of this magnitude gone exactly as planned?

But now is not the time, in my judgment, to try and assess what went right and what went wrong and who may be at fault for faulty vision. What we should do now is resolve to remain strong behind this president and this team to do everything we can to cut back on the tragic casualties we're taking; not only loss of life, but loss of limb, and to care for those families and to press on as quickly as we can to establish this nation in the security framework so they can take the nation back, the Iraqis themselves, and to run it.

As we meet this morning, we're ever-mindful that the U.S. and coalition forces continue to be exposed to significant personal risks through this ongoing phase of operation. On Sunday, the president went before the American people to forthrightly give his views and ask for their continuing support. As part of that thoughtful address to the nation, the president clearly stated, and I quote him, "We will do what is necessary," end quote, and ask Congress for $87 billion to fund the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm confident the Congress will support him. It's imperative that the Congress, we, the representatives of people, provide the president and the men and women of the armed forces and those engaged in the stability operations and the reconstruction the resources they need to fight this war on terrorism. Ultimate victory in this global effort depends on our continuing support. It is a war we will win. It is a war that I'm confident the American people will continue to support, provided we continue to give strong leadership.

I heard this morning that there's maybe a division of opinion as to about this 87 billion (dollars); support for that portion that goes for the troops, but a question mark on that portion that goes for the reconstruction and the political reconciliations so that the Iraqi people can take over their own government. I'm open to listen to those who have got ideas, but bear in mind, in my judgment, the reconstruction is a direct corollary to the casualties we take. The sooner the electricity is on, the sooner the water is running, the sooner that we have that nation with a quality of life over and above what Saddam Hussein allowed of his people, in my judgment, the sooner the Iraqi people will in greater numbers turn to support the coalition and finish the job. So look at the timetable, those who want to try and change course, on exactly who, how, why and when we do this reconstruction.

Over the past several months, approximately half of the members of this committee made the opportunity to join our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed, Liberia and other locations around the world. I want to thank them, and I urge others to avail themselves of the opportunity, because the on-scene presence not only says to the troops, "We're with you," but much can be learned and brought back to bear on the decisions that this committee and other committees in the Congress have to make.

We have all come away from these visits with our own impressions; I share my own. First and foremost, as Americans, we can take pride in the magnificent performance and the professionalism of our troops. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines I met with are doing their jobs and doing them well, often in the harshest of conditions, on land and afloat. It is very clear that our troops understand the importance and the necessity of performing their duty, and the enormity of the task, and they appreciate the support of the American people. The morale is strong, and they are fully committed to getting the job done. All America appreciates the sacrifice they have made, together with their families. But we commend them for the strength that they have shown in the face of the strongest of adversity.

In Iraq, I was encouraged by the level of involvement of other nations. And I fully support the administration's renewed efforts to obtain a new U.N. mandate, which will, hopefully, result in additional troops from other nations to share the burdens in Iraq. Twenty-nine countries currently have forces on the ground in Iraq, and others have committed to the effort. A Polish division, composed of troops from many nations, has recently taken over a sector in central Iraq. Significant numbers of Dutch and Italian forces have joined the British division in the south.

Clearly, the significant commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Liberia, will have an impact on the ability of the U.S. to meet other military commitments. Discussion has begun about the nature of our future force presence abroad. Last week, General Myers was quoted as saying, quote, "We're still in Bosnia, we're still in Kosovo. Should we be there? Should the Europeans pick up more of that? We're in many places in numbers that perhaps we don't need to be in. Given the new security environment, it cannot be business as usual in the rest of the world." End quote.

I commend you for that insight, General. And we're greeted this morning by the news that extension of some of our Guard and Reserve units, and others, in terms of their period of service in Iraq. All of this ties together to focus on the attention of our overall size of the forces, and there is a legitimate debate as to whether the in- country force level meets the requirements of the commanders. We expect to hear discussions on that today.

In my opinion, the framework of national security and foreign policy issue before the administration is the most complex since World War II. We're fortunate to have this Defense/State team before us today in public service addressing these challenges. I welcome our witnesses.

Senator Levin?

OPENING STATEMENT OF

CARL LEVIN
A Senator from Michigan, and
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join you in welcoming our witnesses today.

As we meet, Iraq is anything but secure. Attacks on Americans continue. Just within the last month, the Jordanian Embassy was bombed, the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was bombed, the Shi'ite mosque in Najaf was bombed, the Sunni mosque in Baghdad was attacked by gunmen last Friday, and there are reports that al Qaeda and sympathetic foreign fighters are infiltrating Iraq to attack U.S. and coalition personnel.

Our military forces are stretched thin. Over 180,000 are fighting the war in Iraq, or supporting it from Kuwait and other Persian Gulf states. Another 10,000 are conducting combat and stability operations in Afghanistan.

At the same time that we're helping to maintain the peace in Liberia and Bosnia and Kosovo. And, of course, we have thousands of troops deployed in South Korea, dedicated in war plans to the defense of that nation, in a region that is becoming ever more volatile with the North Korean drive to obtain and develop nuclear weapons.

We read in the paper this morning that thousands of National Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq and the Gulf area are going to have their tours of duty extended, and that is, indeed, it seems to me, very troubling news to people back in all of our states.

Sunday night, the president finally came forward with the amount that he will ask in a supplemental appropriation request for fiscal year 2004 for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan -- $87 billion.

This huge sum is a bitter pill for the American people to swallow in a year when the president's budget falls billions short in funding the education programs and the No Child Left Behind Act; proposes to cut highway funding by $2.5 billion from current levels; when the administration proposes to cut after-school programs by $400 million, or 40 percent from this year's level; and when it proposes new costs on veterans health care programs that will be a real hardship for those who have served our country in uniform in the past; and proposes huge cuts in funding for programs to help small and middle-size manufacturing firms at a time when we're losing tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in this country every month.

This $84 (sic) billion comes on top of the $79 billion appropriated for those purposes in this fiscal year. It is ironic to note that administration officials denounced Mr. Lindsey's estimate that the cost of the war, before it was launched, would be in the range of a hundred to $200 billion.

We're already in the upper reaches of that estimate for the first two years of a long commitment.

And Mr. Wolfowitz, you told Congress in March that, quote, "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," close quote. Talk about rosy scenarios!

Before this committee, when senior military leaders tried to give us realistic estimates that Iraq will require substantial numbers of U.S. troops for the foreseeable future, they were contradicted and at times ridiculed by the civilian leadership of the Defense Department.

It has been clear from the beginning that the United States cannot do all of this alone. The U.S. needs the support of the international community in Iraq, including the troops of Muslim nations, not only to share the burden, but also to change the perception of many Iraqis from that of a Western occupation to that of an international effort to stabilize and rebuild their country.

The administration was long overdue in recognizing the need for the increased involvement of the world community, through the United Nations, in Iraq. The administration only belatedly and begrudgingly now has gone back to the United Nations for an explicit mandate, a mandate that many countries, such as Pakistan, Turkey and India, have said for months that they needed if they were going to send troops to Iraq.

The administration's task is now more difficult, because it delayed so long. Their go-it-alone chickens are coming home to roost.

Ninety percent of the troops in Iraq are American troops, and probably a larger percentage of reconstruction funds are going to be American if the administration's proposal is adopted, unless we change the context, unless we change the dynamic in Iraq to one of an international community effort with the support of the United Nations.

But if the administration is going to win international support, it's going to have to be willing to provide a substantial and meaningful U.N. role in the political development of a new Iraqi government and in the reconstruction of Iraq.

And the issue, by the way, isn't whether there will be a unified military command under a U.S. commander. There must be, and there will be. We have the dominant share of the troops. There is no doubt about that issue.

But based upon my visit to U.N. headquarters in New York yesterday, my meetings with our U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Negroponte, and with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, I don't believe that we will receive a substantial contribution of troops and resources from other nations, unless the administration is willing to give the United Nations a substantial and meaningful role in the civilian side of the reconstruction effort. It is imperative that we do so, so that we will be clearly giving the lie to the propaganda that the jihadists use to attract soldiers for their army of terror: that the West intends to dominate a Muslim country.

Congress will provide the funding to give our troops what they need. Let there be no doubt about that.

But before providing reconstruction funds, partly to assure that those funds can be effectively spent, in an effort that will be successful, we must assure ourselves that the administration is willing to give more than lip service to enlisting the support of key additional nations in providing troops and resources for the long struggle that lies ahead in Iraq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much.

Several members have asked for time for opening statement, but I had to make the judgment call that we would proceed directly to our witnesses. But in that context, I will extend the time for questioning period to enable members to add some observations prior to their questions.

Secretary Wolfowitz?

MR. WOLFOWITZ: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I submitted a fairly long statement that I'll put in the record, but I'll try to give you a reasonably short summary.

SEN. WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The full text of all statements will be incorporated into the record.

STATEMENT BY

DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ
Deputy Secretary of Defense

MR. WOLFOWITZ: One of the things that is most important for troops facing danger on the front lines is the knowledge that their dedication and sacrifice is appreciated by the people of America. On behalf of the men and women who serve our country so faithfully and so well, let me begin by expressing thanks to the Congress for the bipartisan support that you give our armed forces.

Just two years removed from the most brutal attack on our nation's soil since Pearl Harbor, we remain a nation at war. We fight a threat posed by an enemy that hides in the shadows and has burrowed into scores of countries around the globe. And with the help of a coalition of some 90 nations, we've gone after that adversary of freedom wherever he may be found, using every resource at our command, including our instruments of diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, financial influence and, of course, every necessary weapon of war to defeat the global terror network.

It might be worth mentioning, Mr. Chairman, that I just got an unclassified summary from the CIA of where we stand in that larger war, and let me just read two sentences from it. "Two years after the September 11th attacks, al Qaeda's central leadership is reeling from the impact of the counterterrorist successes of the U.S. and our allies. The central leadership of al Qaeda is a growing risk of breaking apart, as our blows against the group create a level of disarray and confusion throughout the organization that we have not seen since the collapse of the Taliban in late 2001." I think that is a good news story. I guess one should also remember that in war, good news can be followed by bad news. But I think the point is that we are moving to victory.

Like World War II and the Cold War, this war is being fought on a global stage. And like those previous conflicts, the stakes are enormous and our very freedom is threatened. However, we also need to realize that this war is different from any previous war. If we react based on experiences from past conflicts or from prior peacekeeping experiences, we are likely to act wrong in many cases. We face a new situation and we need to constantly think anew about it.

At the Pentagon, just one year removed from sealing the horrible gash the terrorists made in our outer wall, the memory of our lost comrades remains strong. Our military and civilian forces have not forgotten whom we are fighting and what we are fighting for. They, above all, know what's at stake.

It's a big job. It's going to take patience and time and determination. And it will take more than killing and capturing terrorists and dismantling terrorist networks, as important as that is. It also requires winning on what I would call the second front of the war on terror, what the president called in his State of the Union message, "building a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror," and particularly in the Muslim world.

We don't start a job that we can't finish. And when we do start a job, we give it our best. That's the American way.

As the president said on Sunday night: "Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.

"First," he said, "we are taking direct action against terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. Second, we are committed to expanding the international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. And third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators," the president said, "and we will depart as liberators."

I'd like to focus in these brief opening remarks on three critical areas where we seek the support of the Congress, and particularly this committee.

First, the specific issue of obtaining the resources and the authority to train and equip and field foreign military forces fighting alongside our own. Second, to give us the flexibility that we've asked for to reduce the stress on active duty end strength by making it easier to convert military jobs to civilian jobs. And most important, most demanding, to support the president's request, expressed so forcefully Sunday night, for the resources needed to wage and win this war. We need resources for our military, we also need resources to win that second battle front, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, to help those people build new and free countries that will remain free of instability and terrorism, and to send a message to the world, especially to our enemies, that we have the staying power to finish the job.

Concerning the first point, General Abizaid and his commanders have said repeatedly that they not only don't need more troops, they don't want more American troops. What they do want are more international troops to share the burden of providing stability forces. But most of all what they want is more Iraqi troops because it is their country that we have liberated, and it is they who need to take over the main security tasks.

In July, when I visited the Marines in southern Iraq, the commander of the 1st Marine Division, Major General Jim Mattis, who, as the chairman noted, is here with us today, told me how he had sent some of his 15,000 troops home already because he had enough of them to do the job, and he didn't want what he called the "reverberations of a heavy foot print" that a large army requires. He said that if you want more people on your side, don't bring in more Americans.

General Abizaid mentioned in his briefings here last week that what we really need are more Iraqis fighting with us.

We've begun recruiting and training Iraqis for an Iraqi civilian defense force to take over tasks such as guarding fixed sites and power lines.

It's the same with former New York City police chief Bernie Kerik, who just volunteered for four months, helping Iraqis rebuild their police force. He favors empowering Iraqis over sending more American troops. He said: If you triple the number of coalition forces, quote, "you'll probably triple the attacks on the troops. The future is not in the military, but in getting control back in the hands of the Iraqi people."

And we are making rapid progress in that area. We have gone from no Iraqis fighting with us when Baghdad fell to currently more than 55,000 -- 55,000, Mr. Chairman, serving with us and providing security for their country, and that makes Iraqis the single largest member of the coalition after the United States. And they are taking on the hard missions. They are fighting and taking casualties with us. Just a few days ago, one of them was killed by a suicide bomber attempting to attack our troops.

Those numbers are predominantly Iraqi police, some 40,000, but we have started two new formations, the Iraqi Facilities Protective Service and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. By January, we plan to have 15,000 members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and 20,000 members of the Facility Protection Service. And those numbers, as well as the police numbers, can be increased more rapidly with the resources that the president is asking the Congress to provide.

We should not, however, find that we are held back by a shortage of money or authority to give those willing and able to fight on our side the proper training and equipment to get the job done.

On converting military jobs to civilian jobs, we ask the Congress to give us the flexibility to make it easier to do that, because it would help relieve some of the current stress on the active duty force. Right now, the complexities of putting civilians in the thousands of jobs that don't need to be performed by men and women in uniform puts unnecessary strain on our uniformed personnel. And I could also add, Mr. Chairman, from personal experience, it makes it more difficult to recruit the great talent pool that we have out in this country among Iraqi-Americans and Afghan-Americans who are ready and willing to serve, either as civilians or as military.

In the current situation, bringing more troops on line by increasing our end strength will not provide a short-term answer. It takes time to recruit and train people, and any increase we put into effect now would have no appreciable effect for some time to come. And if the current strain on our military forces reflect a temporary spike from an increase in wartime operations tempo, then it would be better to resist increasing forces for the long term, because doing so will impose a sizeable personnel cost in the out years that will inevitably come at the expense of other things that our armed forces need.

What can deliver results more quickly are the things we're looking at to reduce the stress on our current end strength. That includes an examination of our entire global footprint, as you just suggested in your remarks, Mr. Chairman. It means looking at how to make adjustments in the active Reserve mix, so that particular portions of our force, and particularly, specific portions of our Reserve force, are not inordinately strained.

And it means looking at how we can shift some jobs performed by people in uniform to civilians who can do them just as well or perhaps better.

We're asking you now to help us with our proposed National Security Personnel System. We're -- the fact that we're fighting a tough and sustained war on terrorism only makes the need to take that step to even more pressing.

But finally and most important, Mr. Chairman, we're asking you to provide substantial means to fight and win this war. The bulk of the president's request will be -- some $66 billion, will be dedicated to ensuring our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to complete their missions in the war on terror. The rest, $21 billion, would help build safe, stable and self-governing societies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In recent weeks, many of you have said that even if this is a formidable venture, even if it costs substantial resources, it is important enough to our country, to our security, to our national interests to merit Congress's full support. The costs are large, but it is a battle that we can win and is a battle that we must win, because victory in this battle will be a major victory in the war on terrorism and a major defeat for the global terrorist networks. As large as these costs are, they are still small compared to just the economic price that the attacks of September 11th inflicted, to say nothing of the terrible loss of human life. And even those costs are small in comparison to what future more terrible terrorist attacks could inflict.

By those actions and by what Congress says, you can help us send the message to the world, and particularly to our enemies, that America is behind her troops, that America has the staying power to fight this war on terrorism to victory.

The Ba'athist bitter-enders and their foreign terrorist allies believe that if they can inflict casualties on us, like Beirut and Somalia, we will give up and go home. We know that Osama bin Laden saw Somalia as an example of how Americans can be driven out by inflicting casualties. We know that Saddam Hussein told Ambassador April Glaspie in 1990 that he could take massive casualties and we couldn't stand even a few.

The sooner these terrorists and Ba'athists understand clearly that our will can't be broken and that the Iraqi people, despite hardship and difficulty, will persevere in building their new society, the sooner we will win. That is why it is so urgent that Congress pass the supplemental request, and I would encourage speedy action when the request is formally submitted, because as the speedy action of Congress after September 11th sent a strong message to friends and enemies alike and to our troops, so too a message now will send that same message, and particularly to the troops, who are giving us 100 percent. They need to know that we're behind them 100 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you in expressing my thanks and the thanks of our troops for the special efforts that members of this committee and the Congress more generally have made to visit Iraq.

Your visits have been important not only for the morale of our men and women, they've also given you an opportunity to get a much clearer picture of the situation on the ground. The common experience of almost everyone I've talked to, who goes to Iraq, seems to be that while we all see the problems that are so frequently reported in the press, we also see a great deal of good news. And in the case of Iraq, where the only news for 35 years was horrible news, the remarkable amount of good news is indeed a story.

It's impossible to generalize about Iraq, Mr. Chairman. I'm afraid when a bomb goes off in one place, people get an impression that the whole country is about to come apart. The truth is -- and I suppose one has to say "knock on wood" -- one doesn't know what tomorrow will bring, but the truth is that so far, the predominantly Shi'a south has been remarkably stable, and I would say far more stable than most prewar predictions would have given you. And the mixed ethnic Arab-Turkish-Kurdish north has also been remarkably stable, again, contrary to fears that many of us had that we might face large-scale ethnic conflict.

Our problems, and they're real, have largely been concentrated in the Ba'athist areas in central Iraq and parts of Baghdad. I have tried in my statement, at some length, to give some feel for that wide variation. I'm not going to take you through it now. But I would like to mention southern Iraq, and Najaf in particular, partly because it was in the news, and partly because General Mattis here, and if you wish to hear more from him, he can tell you much more than I can.

But it's interesting, I think, what stunning successes the Marines achieved in those two cities, Najaf and Karbala, the holiest cities of Shi'a Islam. It's a success that can be perceived, I think, even despite the recent tragic bombing in Najaf. That event, of course, was a terrible tragedy and has contributed to unease and fear in Iraq. And that's precisely what the people who did it intended. And as far as we know, they were probably outsiders. It doesn't take many people to plant a car or a truck bomb. They've done that here in the United States.

To me, the real news has been the remarkable calm and restraint that Iraqi Shi'a have shown in the wake of that horrible provocation. Some hundreds of thousands of people came out to witness the funeral procession of Ayatollah Hakim as it passed, with no major violence reported. Fears have been expressed that this horrendous act would lead to attacks by Shi'a on Sunni. But so far, at least, that hasn't happened.

Last week, General Abizaid told reporters that after being in the United States a week and a half, and reading news reports on conditions in Iraq, it could lead him to think that perhaps he should go back to Iraq, he said, and "find someone to surrender to." And yet, when he talks to our troops, well-informed by first-hand knowledge, he said, "They are so confident and so positive that it takes me only about 30 minutes," the general said, "to understand we've got this under control."

Of course there are many challenges remaining for our troops. And as our commanders consider military operations in Iraq, there are at least two things they tell us they would like more of.

Number one is Iraqis fighting to secure their own liberty, as I mentioned earlier. And their number two critical item is forces of other countries, and we're making substantial progress there, as well. So far, close to 30 nations have sent close to 23,000 personnel to Iraq. Over 40 nations have pledged more than $3 billion in assistance. In southern Iraq, Polish forces have assumed command of an international division, and we are hoping to add another division above and beyond that.

The president's request will provide some $800 million to support the troops of our coalition partners, who need that help to provide support. And in the wake of the bombing in the U.N., we have a new opportunity to get a more extensive resolution from the U.N. that will make it easier for those countries that are contributing to continue to do so, and hopefully, easier for new countries to enter, as well.

(Pause.)

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to conclude by mentioning something that General Mattis said to me when I visited Iraq in July. He said the people that presented the fiercest opposition to them as they drove north in that phase of major combat operations were the Fedayeen Saddam, a group of thugs with a kind of cult-like dedication to Saddam Hussein, who, though their numbers are reduced, are still a problem, and foreign terrorists. And I asked him, "How did you know that foreigners were fighting?" And he said, "Well, we found a lot of foreign passports on the battlefield." And he was good enough to bring a few of these that he found back with him.

This is one -- (holding up the passport) -- a foreigner who came into Iraq on March 24th through Syria -- not a Syrian, but through Syria. The entry permit on his passport said he came to, quote, "volunteer for jihad." Here's another one, came into Iraq through Syria, same crossing point. The entry permit said "to join the Arab volunteers." And here's a third one that came in on April 7th.

In other words, from the very early stages of the war, foreign terrorists were coming into Iraq, obviously with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Iraqi government, and sent to the front lines to fight Americans. They're still there. Others are coming. Getting better border controls is one of our important objectives. But I think it is a strong illustration of the major threat that we face today. As the intelligence briefings put it, it's the combination of former regime loyalists and foreign terrorists. The level of cooperation between them is something that's hard to determine. There is some we know. There's probably a lot more that we don't know.

And the foreign terrorists, Mr. Chairman, who go to Iraq to kill Americans understand this: If killing Americans leads to defeat and the restoration of the old regime, or any kind of new tyranny, they would score an enormous strategic victory for terrorism and for the forces of repression and intolerance, rage and despair, hatred and revenge. As the president told members of the American Legion recently, "Terrorists know that a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would be a further defeat for their ideology of terror."

And Iraqis understand this. Alongside us, they are working hard to fight the forces of anger and helplessness, and to seize this historic opportunity to move their country forward.

When I met with General Abizaid when we were both in Iraq in July, he put the battle in Iraq into a larger perspective that I think is worth quoting. And I'd remind everyone, too, as most you of know, that he's not only a distinguished general; he is a real Middle East expert, a fluent Arabic speaker who spent many years in that part of the world. The general said, "The whole difficulty in the global war on terrorism is that this is a phenomenon without borders. And the heart of the problem is in this particular region, and the heart of the region happens to be Iraq. If we can't be successful here, we won't be successful in the global war on terrorism."

Success in Iraq, the general said, offers "a chance, when you combine it with initiatives in the Arab-Israeli theater and initiatives elsewhere, to make life better, to bring peace to an area where people are very, very talented and resources are abundant, especially here in Iraq."

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, America's troops and those of our coalition partners -- among whom, I would emphasize, are the Iraqi people themselves -- are determined to win. And they will win if we continue to give them the moral and material support they need to do the job.

As the president said, our forces are on the offensive. And as Army Vice Chief of Staff General Jack Keane said in testimony here, "They bring the values of the American people to this conflict. They understand firmness. They understand determination. But our troops also understand compassion. Those values are on display every day as they switch from dealing with an enemy to taking care of a family."

I've seen the troops in Iraq, as have many of you here have as well, and I think you would all agree General Keane is absolutely right.

SEN. WARNER: Well, Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your strong leadership and a very, very informative statement this morning.

We have excellent attendance here at our committee. We're anxious to get into the questioning, but we also want to receive your observations, Secretary Grossman, those of the chairman. And we'll invite General Maddox (sic; means General James Mattis) to the table, such that he can respond to areas of his special expertise in the course of the questioning. Thank you.

Secretary Grossman.

MR. GROSSMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the right thing to do here is -- perhaps I should yield to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Senator?

SEN. WARNER: Go.

MR. GROSSMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT BY

AMBASSADOR MARC GROSSMAN,
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs

Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, other members of the committee, I thank you very much for this invitation to appear today. And Senator, I appreciate the fact that -- I'd like to also put my full statement in the record, and I'll try to limit it as much as I possibly can.

Let me first of all say that since we are here, all together, at this table, that the State Department -- we, every single one of us, are committed to supporting in every way America's men and women in uniform. And as I have on many occasions in front of this committee, I want to thank all of the members of this committee for your support for the 46,000 men and women of the State Department, who also defend their country in 258 diplomatic posts around the world and, I think, do a very important job in winning the war on terrorism. They have suffered as well -- in embassies in Nairobi, embassies in Dar es Salaam -- and also, as Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz said, have made, I think, a substantial contribution to the effort to create diplomatic coalitions, mop up terrorist financing and bring more people to this fight.

In fact, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, State Department people volunteered to staff our reopened embassy in Kabul, where they endured and still do endure hard living conditions.

We're not a big organization, so these numbers may not seem large compared to our colleagues, but 33 State Department employees joined General Garner in Iraq in April. Forty-seven of my colleagues serve today with Ambassador Bremer. Twenty-two more are scheduled to go out in the next weeks.

Altogether, almost 300 State Department people have volunteered to go since July, and I think that's a credit to the dedication and patriotism of the men and women of the department's foreign service and civil service.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter of introduction, you asked us to talk a little bit about America's global commitments, and I think it's important in that regard to first step back and remember that almost exactly a year ago, in fact, President Bush signed the national security strategy of the United States. And it is that document which forms the basis of the conduct both for America's foreign policy and military policy. And it says that the primary aim of the United States is to not just make the world more secure, but also to make the world better. And in order to bring about, as Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz said, political, economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity, the president has designated a number of tasks.

I hope you had a chance to see Secretary Powell's speech at George Washington University last Friday in which he laid out what we are doing, together with our military colleagues, to meet these tasks, including strengthening alliances to defeat global terrorism, building cooperative partnerships with other major powers, including Europe, Japan, Russia, China, India, working with other nations to diffuse regional conflicts, and preventing our enemies from threatening us, our allies, our friends with weapons of mass destruction.

And luckily, as a number of you have said, we are not alone. The United States is not alone in this effort to make a better world. And so at the president's direction, we seek partners and allies because it enables us to achieve better our national objectives.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levin, you asked in your letter about cooperation with individual countries, with NATO, with the United Nations and other multinational organizations. All NATO countries contribute to the global war on terrorism. Indeed, as we have discussed at this committee, Afghanistan represents an historic first out of area operation for the alliance as a whole.

We're also working with the United Nations in Iraq. We have said from the very beginning, our president has said that the United Nations has a vital role to play in the reconstruction of that country and the criminal bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad only furthers shows the importance of galvanizing international support for Iraq's reconstruction.

As the president announced to the nation on Sunday, and Senator Levin talked about yesterday in his meetings in New York, the United States is seeking a new U.N. Security Council resolution to build on those we already have in 1483 and 1500. And that resolution would try to accomplish three things. First, it would invite the Iraqi Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for them -- not anybody else but for the them to write a constitution, develop political institutions, conduct free elections, leading to the Iraqi people's resumption of sovereignty over their own country. Second, as Senator Levin mentioned, it would authorize a United Nations multinational force, under a U.S. commander, and third, afford the United States a more comprehensive and active role in the transition back to Iraqi sovereignty.

We're also working, as members of this committee know, for successful donors conferences, both for Afghanistan and for Iraq so that we can galvanize the financial support, not just of other countries and other multilateral institutions, but also the international financial institutions.

Mr. Chairman, in my statement I've tried to describe how the State Department and the Defense Department and the combatant commanders work together to try to develop these needs, and so I hope that people will take a look at that. I won't go through all of that, but it's a very important area of cooperation between the military services, the Department of Defense, and the State Department.

I'd say one other thing about the work of the department, and that we have two other dimensions that are key and fully integrated with what we do with our Defense and military colleagues, and that are to work -- those are to work with allies and partners to help them dissolve regional conflicts, and working with partners to address the internal security problems that can lead to terrorism and other transnational threats.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter you asked me to highlight what we were doing to get other countries to be involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Liberia, and if I could, sir, ask that these charts that we have, which I think we've distributed to each one of you, be part of the record. And I won't go through every single one, but I think that they show graphically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with this coalition.

Forty-nine nations publicly declared their support to become part of the immediate -- coalition for the immediate disarmament of Iraq. Forty-five countries provided access, basing, over-flight rights, and 24 countries contributed military assets in one form or another to operations in Iraq. Additional countries have joined the stabilization effort. As you have noted, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz have noted, a total of 29 countries have now deployed approximately 23,000 troops for stability and humanitarian operations, and you can see in the next two columns our plans for the future.

We followed a clear strategy, and that is we've tried to take the needs presented to us by the combatant commanders and the coalition provisional authority and try to go out and get other countries to help us meet those needs. If I could do the same, sir, for Afghanistan. The international community again working together in Afghanistan. Seventy countries joined the coalition, Operation Enduring Freedom. Thirty-four countries have contributed forces to Operation Enduring Freedom, and to the international -- I'm sorry, the International Stabilization Force for Afghanistan. And I said, they're important to me and a milestone for NATO. NATO, as an organization, has recently taken over the lead role in ISAF after supporting NATO members Germany and the Netherlands in their cooperation of the force. Fifteen NATO countries make up ISAF, contributing some 5,800 troops on the grounds. And you can see the main contributors to this force include Canada, with 900 soldiers, France, 500, U.K. with 400 soldiers. And so I think this idea that we are working with other countries is also extremely important.

And finally, a slide on countries contributing troops in Afghanistan, and you'll see the total down at the far right, 5,830. And that has been a very important job that the department has done, I believe, in support of our military operations.

In my statement, Mr. Chairman, I've talked about the importance of the Afghan National Army, the importance of provisional reconstruction teams where our officers and military officers work together in Afghanistan, and we're proud of that, and that is part of my written statement as well.

Mr. Chairman, you had the, I think, very important visit to Liberia, and I know you also visited our embassy there and our people there, and they were very pleased and proud that you had a chance to visit them as well. And they also, I think, are doing an important job in Liberia.

SEN. WARNER: Could I just interrupt to say yes --

MR. GROSSMAN: Yes sir.

SEN. WARNER: -- I did have that privilege. Ambassador Blaney told me a very interesting story. He said in the height of the struggle he had his -- simply a Marine detachment, eight or 10, himself and maybe one or two others, and the embassy was being bombarded, the embassy was being riddled with bullets. Today, the ambassador lives in one room on the third floor with a bathroom adjoining, and that's all, it's office and everything else, and there are 50 caliber machine guns hanging out of the windows protecting the embassy. This is a great credit to the Foreign Service.

The president said, sent him a message. "You can bring down the flag. It's your call." He decided, together with his Marine contingent, to let the flag stay. And as a result, and with the intervention of our forces, the main threats have been quelled, and we see ECOWAS, ECOMIL and eventually the United Nations bringing about stability in that region.

Thank you for mentioning Ambassador Blaney. Great credit is owing to him and his team.

MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that, and I know that they will be pleased to hear that, not just here, but of course you said that when you were there.

I think it also goes to the point that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made and that the president has made so well, which is that if we are to win this global war on terrorism, it's going to take all of the aspects of our nation's power -- diplomatic power, intelligence power, military power, working together.

Mr. Chairman, you have essentially taken my section on Liberia. We are working very hard to support the West African peacekeeping troops there. On August 1st, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1497. The West Africans have, as you have seen, step up -- stepped up to this challenge, and led by Nigeria, over 3,000 troops from Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Benin are deploying to the region with U.S. assistance and will likely be submitted -- subsumed, I'm sorry, into the U.N. mission. And we're looking to try to get that U.N. mission up and running by the 1st of October.

To date, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we've committed over $15 million to this effort, and we're in the process of identifying additional resources to ensure that the ECOWAS force is able to fulfill its mission until the UN PKO is in place.

SEN. WARNER: That is needed, and it is needed urgently. I think the correct decision was made by our administration to help the Africans solve their own problem. That we did.

MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you, sir. I'll let Chairman Myers talk a little bit about Bosnia and Kosovo, but very important to us, you have that we went there, we have done a job, our troops are -- the numbers are reducing, but we still have important work there to do.

One final point about resources, and I join Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz in asking for your early and positive consideration of the president's request when it comes formally, and I'd also welcome your support for the State Department's foreign operations budget request, which has passed the House and is awaiting floor action in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I can only conclude as Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz did, that the world is a dangerous place. The president has made it clear that all of us will do what it takes to make it safer and better by working to be rid of terrorists and tyrants who threaten the United States, their neighbors and their own people. By fostering democracy and the rule of law, building coalitions with allies and friends, and pursuing regional stability and funding military aid programs and training, we are actively pursuing the president's national security strategy. And together with our colleagues at the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we're committed to these goals and we'll continue to work unceasingly to attain them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Myers.

STATEMENT BY

GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

GENERAL RICHARD MYERS: Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing to put my written statement into the record.

I'd like to first thank you for your continuing, and for that matter tremendous support of our men and women in uniform -- very, very important, given the situation that we're in today.

When I came before you in July with General Pace, I made some points that are still true today. The first one of those is that we are totally committed to winning this war on terrorism, and the stakes could not be higher. Defeat means the destruction of our way of life that we forged over two-and-a-quarter centuries. Victory will restore the sense of security that was shattered on September 11th, 2001.

I also said that I am positive we're making great progress in the war on terrorism, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere around the world, and I have visited Iraq and Afghanistan recently, as some of you have, and every time I talk to a commander, or perhaps more importantly to the captains and the corporals, they were all very confident about being able to accomplish the mission and the task they were given, and about ultimate victory.

And the third point that I made back in July that is still true, obviously, is that our servicemen and women are doing a fantastic job. This is their moment in history to ensure peace and freedom, triumph over tyranny and terror.

Let me focus briefly on some of the accomplishments of the last few months. As you know, the coalition division led by the Polish military and consisting of more than 11,000 troops, from 17 countries, is now in place in Iraq, and they're well underway in establishing their presence in that country. As Ambassador Grossman and Secretary Wolfowitz have said, 29 countries have troops deployed to Iraq. Many of them have very recently had to struggle for their own freedom. And they all understand fully what's at stake. As you know, it's vitally important that we have a broad, international coalition in Iraq. And why? Because it's in the interest of the world community for Iraq, now liberated from a brutal dictatorship, to emerge as a legitimate member of the world community.

Also when I last spoke to you, I mentioned the large number of Iraqi police than have been trained. I think in July we were saying 31,000. Those numbers have since grown. There are now more than 41,000 Iraqi police, and thousands more Iraqis recruited for duty with the new Iraqi army, the civil defense corps, the facilities protection service, and the Iraqi border guards. So, I think the total number today is over 55,000 that are on duty, more in training. And the numbers continue to grow and will grow.

These numbers highlight that the Iraqi people are eager to play a leading role in their own peaceful future. Iraqi police, among others, are already making significant contributions to preventing attacks, and some of these Iraqis have given their lives in the service of the new, free Iraq.

The recent acts of terrorism, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters and the mosque in An Najaf show a couple of things. First, that Iraq is still a dangerous place. They also show, I think, the desperation -- the desperation of the adversaries that we face. We're actively engaged in rooting out this threat with more and more Iraqis coming forward with information and a willingness to help us.

I am equally positive about our progress in Afghanistan. Remnants of the Taliban have made desperate attempts to regain control over sections of the country, but continued pressure from the coalition operations is thwarting their efforts.

I believe that we're fully capable of meeting today's commitments while preparing for future threats, and we're working hard to improve our war-fighting capability, including focusing on transformation initiatives, reevaluating, as Secretary Wolfowitz said, the mix of capabilities that we have in our active and our reserve force, refining our deployment and mobilization processes, and many, many more activities.

Before I close, I'd like to reiterate the importance, as Ambassador Grossman said, of the cooperative effort in this war on terrorism. General Abizaid has said, and I think General Sanchez has said recently, that the forces that we are fighting in Iraq couldn't defeat a single company of our infantry. I believe they're right. But this isn't just a military fight alone. It requires close cooperation between the Department of Defense and other government agencies, between U.S. departments and agencies, and those agencies of our allies and our friends, and between the coalition that's in Iraq right now and the people of Iraq, and Afghanistan, who want to be free of violence and repression.

I think we need to take a moment and pause and just think what this is all about. We are a nation at war. We have been a nation at war for almost two years. The stakes could not be higher. The stakes could not be higher. Certainly in my 38 years of service, the stakes have never been higher. You may have to go back to the Civil War to find a time when the values that we hold dear have been threatened like they have been threatened today.

Osama bin Laden said some years ago was what we wanted to do was reduce the United States to a former shadow of itself, and by implication the rest of the free world. So what's it going to take to win this war? The first is it's going to take patience. And every time I've come in front of this committee, every time anybody senior in this administration has talked about it, we have talked about the patience required. Why? It's a different enemy. It's a difficult enemy. It's not just military might, as we just talked about. It is hard work. It is hard slogging. And we have made tremendous progress, and we are winning. To continue to win, we need three things in my mind. And one was patience. The second is commitment. I can speak for the armed forces; I can't speak for others. I have tremendous admiration for the Foreign Service and other government agencies that have been alongside us in this from the start. But I can tell you about our armed forces. We have never been more focused or more committed to winning this war. Failure is not an option. We have got to win.

Other countries understand that. I just hosted my counterpart from Macedonia last week. Here is a country that a year ago -- two years ago, for sure -- you could say was on the brink of chaos and in failure of their political system. But they've come out of that. And they also understand the value of freedom. And that's why they have troops in Afghanistan and they have troops in Iraq. Are they a lot of troops? No. In Iraq they have I think 28 individuals, special forces. But they aren't a large country, and they're not a large armed force, and they have an internal problem they are trying to work. But they understand the value of freedom, and they are with us. And as Secretary Grossman showed you on his charts over there, there are many others that are with us as well.

Most importantly -- and the third point, besides patience and commitment -- the third point is we have got to have the will to win. This is a battle of win. Boil it down to what it essentially is: It is a battle of wills. The terrorists have said, and think, they are going to win. They are absolutely wrong about that. They will not win. They can't win. We can't let them win, and we won't. We are going to win as long as we have the continuing will of the American people, and for that matter freedom-loving people everywhere.

If you need inspiration for patience and for commitment and for will -- if you need inspiration, you can look many places. But being a military person, I can tell you need to look no further than the men and women of our armed forces. In the last two years they have made tremendous sacrifices -- personal sacrifices, family sacrifices, employer sacrifices for those Reserve component individuals that have been called to duty.

One final thought. Those that have been killed in action, wounded in action, and their families have sacrificed of course more than all the rest, and they are truly America's heroes. They have to be considered America's heroes, because they understand what this is all about, they've been out there, and they've sacrificed. Some of you I know have visited wounded around the country, and you have seen them up here at Walter Reed and Bethesda Medical Center, and you know the inspiration we gain from them and their devotion to duty and their understanding of the mission. They've got it, and they understand.

So with that I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We thank you for the support we have gotten from Congress. All this would not have been possible if we hadn't had your support. And we look forward to your questions.

SEN. WARNER: General, that message is not just for the Senate -- the American people -- it goes worldwide. And your troops, wherever they are under your command and your subordinate commanders, whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia or the Far East -- they are very proud of the leadership at the top that you've displayed today and have displayed. Thank you.

GEN. MYERS: Thank you, chairman.

SEN. WARNER: I will be very brief, colleagues, in three quick questions, because you have been generous with your time for me. And then each senator will proceed for about seven and a half minutes. First, I want to reflect on this issue of the United Nations. I personally support it, even though I don't fully understand precisely what is expected and what can be achieved. Secretary Grossman, these charts are impressive. There is a factual record of participation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you tell us what you as a professional of long standing in this department, what you would hope that the U.N. can bring which is not presently being done? And dwell on the issue which concerns me -- that is, while we would welcome large U.N. participation, we cannot afford to lose the momentum that Ambassador Bremer and others now have underway -- whether it's electricity or water or the like, because in my opinion there's a direct correlation to that and the casualties we are taking and the attitude of the people. So what is that you would hope, in a very short response, that the U.N. would bring which is not present today?

MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, sir, thank you very much. And I'd answer all three questions -- your question in three ways. First, if we are successful in getting a U.N. Security Council resolution along the lines that we have proposed, I think three things will happen. First, there are countries -- for their constitutional reasons, for their legal reasons, for other reasons -- who do not wish yet to send troops to help the coalition effort in Iraq. And if we get a resolution which authorizes a multinational force under unified command, more countries -- perhaps typically Turkey, India, Pakistan -- will feel that they send their troops in a way that they cannot today.

Second, Mr. Chairman, is the United Nations brings to the political effort skills that we'd like to have as part of the effort. The president talked about a vital role for the United Nations. And of course the great U.N. Special Representative Sergio de Mello died in a building trying to bring that vital effort to life. And so were the United Nations to help us in elections, in helping constitution- writing, in bringing a census, for example -- all of those things are in the resolution, listed as the kinds of things that could help us and help the coalition in Iraq.

I want to be clear to your last point that the resolutions specifically talks about the United Nations working with Ambassador Bremer and with the coalition. We think actually that if a resolution was to pass quickly, more troops were to come, focused U.N. effort, that we would actually increase momentum rather than decrease it.

Finally one more point, and that is the philosophy here. And that is this U.N. resolution is not about transferring authority from the United States to the United Nations; it's about getting as much authority as possible as quickly as possible to the Iraqi people. And I think as we go through the debate over the next week or so on this resolution that's an important point to keep in mind, sir.

SEN. WARNER: Do you wish to add to that, Secretary Wolfowitz, to comment on what is it the U.N. brings that we don't presently have? He's covered the resolution could give various nations the basis on which to bring troops, and I hope contribute financially to this. Do you have a supplementary comment?

MR. WOLFOWITZ: Absolutely all three things of those things: help on the troops front, help on the political front, and help on the economic front. And I think it's important to stress that with respect to particularly the political front, that we got enormous help from the U.N. and by Sergio de Mello personally, it is not only a tragedy -- it is an enormous loss to our efforts in Iraq that he was killed. He played a crucial role with Ambassador Bremer in standing up the Iraqi Governing Council advice and counsel, it was active work.

We have no desire to own this problem or to control. Our only desire is what will get things fixed most rapidly. And you have to look at these pragmatically case by case. More resources are great. Too many hands on the steering wheel, especially in the military area, is not great. But I think we've reached a very good understanding with the secretary general.

SEN. WARNER: Anyway, you are prepared to make a sharing of the responsibility and the authority in the direction on that side? Is that -- do I understand that?

MR. WOLFOWITZ: It's completely pragmatic and whatever works best we will do.

SEN. WARNER: Fine. Now, general, we talk about the unified command. A few days ago when Secretary Wolfowitz and General Abizaid were here, that question was put to General Abizaid, and he specifically said that he felt U.N. officers could be integrated -- although there's a unified command they could be integrated into the framework in some manner. Can you expand on what the U.N. can bring to the current command and control to maintain unified, but at the same time they feel they have a share of the responsibility, accountability and the direction?

GEN. MYERS: Certainly, Chairman Warner. And we've looked at this many different ways. And first let me just say that it will not be a problem to maintain this unified command. As I think was said earlier, generally under U.N. operations the countries with the preponderance of force have the leadership roles, and that will continue to be the United States -- at least for the foreseeable future. But in our Combined Joint Task Force-7 in Baghdad, as some of you have seen with General Sanchez -- he's got a headquarters now that is populated with people from the U.K. and those countries that make up the U.K. division; people from Poland and those countries that make up the Polish division. If there were other divisions that came in under -- with the help of this resolution, the U.N. resolution, those countries would also have roles on that joint task force. Would they participate then with General Sanchez and General Abizaid for that matter in their support of the Coalition Provisional Authority. This should not -- really shouldn't be an issue.

SEN. WARNER: Fine, thank you. General Mattis, I wonder if I might ask you to come up for purposes of the questioning. We thank you for your service and your leadership in that area. Those of us that visited had the opportunity to be briefed by you right on the field where your troops are operating. A question that I think is a very legitimate question -- as a matter of fact, it as in that very spot, that very seat, that the former chief of staff of the Army was asked the question by this committee about troop levels. His response provoked a good deal of controversy. That controversy is legitimate. It continues to this day. It's a question that has to be reviewed from time to time by this committee. I think you're in a position to give first-hand impressions, and your own personal professional military opinion about force levels now in Iraq, and what you as a former commander, and now your successor and his other colleagues in command of Army divisions and the like -- what is your opinion on the force level and what is needed for the future.

GEN. MATTIS: Mr. Chairman, I speak as a division commander in the South-Central area, and I prefer to speak just in that area, because I am really not familiar with some of the other areas. But it was my decision and my decision alone to send home 15,000 of my 23,000 troops back at the end of May. We had come out of Baghdad. I did not think I needed a heavy footprint down south after sizing up the situation. I've had three months to live with that decision, and I think at any point if I needed more troops I could have asked for them. But I have not needed them. The enemy over there, once we get the intelligence on them -- and 95 percent of that comes form the Iraqi people to us -- once we get it they are remarkably easy to destroy. It's mostly a fight for intelligence. They are a very dangerous enemy, but it is nothing that a Marine platoon cannot handle. So to bring in more troops and have that more impressive footprint, the number of supply convoys I would have added -- my way of thinking was if we needed more people on our side, enlist more Iraqis, and we continued to do that all the way through, and with 95 percent of our intelligence coming from them, sir, it's worked pretty well.

SEN. WARNER: Senator Levin.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Grossman, you've outlined some of the advantages of going back to the U.N., getting a key additional mandate from the U.N., and I surely agree with what you've indicated. We've known for months that a number of countries, such as Pakistan and Turkey, India, would not consider sending troops unless they had a clear U.N. mandate urging them to do so. Why have we delayed for months in going to the U.N.? During this period we have seen a huge amount of violence. We have seen the jihadists pour into Iraq, responding to an argument that this is some kind of a Western effort to dominate the Muslim country. The way to give the lie to that propaganda is for the U.N. to give the kind of mandate which we are now apparently seeking very belatedly, tragically belatedly. But why the delay here? Why not months ago respond to the statements of those countries, such as Pakistan and Turkey and India, who would give us large numbers of troops relatively, that they need that new U.N. mandate?

MR. GROSSMAN: Senator Levin, I would say a couple of things. First, I don't think we ought to underestimate the achievement of 29,000 -- I'm sorry, 23,000 troops from 29 other countries. And although I think all of us would have liked to have more troops earlier -- from a Pakistan, from a Turkey, from an India -- I think we have done extremely well in getting the 29 nations and the 23,000 troops that we have.

Second point, and that is that of course as this committee knows, there's always a disagreement about what constitutes a mandate. And if you would had asked me the day after we passed -- I'm sorry, the Security Council passed Resolution 1483, I would have said, and I believe, that Resolution 1483 is a sufficient mandate for countries to participate.

SEN. LEVIN: But key countries told us it was not a sufficient mandate.

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I understand, sir, but I'm just giving you -- you asked me my perspective, and that is that 1483, we believe -- and I still believe -- was a sufficient mandate. That turned out not to be true for a number of countries, and so the president gave the secretary the opportunity, with the full support of our colleagues, to go forward and get another Security Council resolution, and that's exactly what we are trying to do.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you. General Myers, could you tell us about the -- what we now have read, that the Guard and Reserve units serving in Iraq are going to have their tours on active duty extended, so that they will serve a full year in Iraq, which is on top of the time required for mobilization and training and demobilization? This comes as a real disappointment I know to them, their families, their employers, who were told that the total activation would be a year on active duty. What is going on in this area?

GEN. MYERS: Senators, we have talked about before in terms of United States Army a lot of their support, a lot of their combat support, combat service support, well over the majority of it, is in the Reserve component. And as long as we have active-duty Army engaged as we do around the world and in your question particularly on Iraq, then the reserves are going to have to play a role. And this is a -- it is a fact of life but we need the combat support and combat service support that these Reserve components provide. We are looking for workarounds to do exactly as you said, and I think if as all the joint chiefs and the leadership in the department believe, and that is we have got to put predictability in the lives of our Reserve component -- for that matter, our active component. But we also have to realize we are a nation at war, and we have to do what it takes in this case to win. So that is what is happening. We need that combat support, combat service support, to be with our active forces, as long as they are in Iraq. And they will be extended to meet our policy goal of up to 12 months in Iraq. And given their mobilization and demobilization timeframes on top of that, they will serve over one year.

SEN. LEVIN: Secretary Wolfowitz, we have been asked now for a significant commitment for reconstruction. What specific commitments have we asked of other nations for the reconstruction effort financially?

MR. WOLFOWITZ: I believe that so far we have on the order of -- correct me -- some $2 billion I think that has been pledged by a variety of countries. That is still the product of just an initial effort. Secretary Powell is going to be going to a donors conference in October in Madrid looking for more. And obviously in the context of what the president is talking about, asking the Congress for, we're going to be making a maximum effort to get other countries to contribute.

And you raised the issue, senator, about -- I think your phrase was giving up control or giving up ownership --

SEN. LEVIN: I didn't say giving up -- I said sharing --

MR. WOLFOWITZ: Fine, sharing.

SEN. LEVIN: -- in a significant way.

MR. WOLFOWITZ: And I think, you know, the more other countries are prepared to contribute the more they are absolutely entitled to share and control over how resources are used.

At the same time -- we have seen this in Afghanistan, for example -- if the system of sharing control gets too complicated, a lot of things that need to move quickly take too long. The road construction project in Afghanistan is an example.

In Iraq today, we're wrestling -- we've been wrestling with how to stand up the Iraqi civil defense force more quickly. There are very legitimate concerns on the CPA side. There are obviously huge military equities on the CENTCOM side.

Because of the way we're organized, we can resolve those differences and those issues in a quick and efficient manner. And given the stakes on the security side, that's the kind of sharing of control I think we'd want to be careful about. But when countries are giving money, they're certainly entitled to saying how that money is spent.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you. General, last week we read a report that there was an internal joint staff document on "Iraqi Freedom: Strategic Lessons Learned." And it reportedly shows that President Bush approved the overall war strategy in August of last year, eight months before the war was launched, but the planners were not given enough time to adequately plan phase four, which is the reconstruction phase. Will you make that document available to this committee?

GEN. MYERS: A couple of points there, Senator Levin. One is that the work is not finished. There was several levels of lessons learned that we tried to capture for this effort. The first one, which I think is scheduled to be briefed to you by Admiral Giambastiani -- I think it's next week -- is the operational lessons learned; what happened in theater from General Franks' level down.

We also wanted to capture, if you will, the strategic lessons learned, what we learned in the joint staff, on the OSD staff, in our inter-agency coordination. That work, the piece, the classified briefing that was leaked to one of the newspapers here in town, reflected work that is not yet complete. That work is -- we're probably about halfway through it. And I'm sure when we finish that work, it'll be up to the secretary of Defense to make that available to the committee.

SEN. LEVIN: But will it be shared with us before it gets to the secretary of Defense, or will it be shared with us after? Either way, will we get a copy of that document so that we know what the views are of the joint staff, unvarnished by the civilian leadership?

GEN. MYERS: Well, it's not a question of unvarnished. It's a question of having the facts straight. And that's why this whole effort has been a joint, as you would imagine, inside-the-building Department of Defense effort. It's both the OSD civilian staff, the joint staff, and, for that matter, the combatant commands will add to this as well. And it needs to -- for it to be useful, I think, you need to have everybody's perspective in there.

By the way -- let me just tag on for a second -- what a lot of people probably don't understand, and why -- and you do, I know; this committee does. You know why we have the finest armed forces in the world, and there are lots of reasons for it.

One of the reasons is that we criticize ourselves harder than anybody else. We only have one standard in the U.S. military, and that is perfect. And whether it's a flight debriefing that I used to participate in or any other debriefings of any exercises, the only standard we have is "How could we have done this perfectly?"

And some of what you see reflected in these reports, of course, is being very, very critical of ourselves. It doesn't mean we weren't good or that we got -- we could have gotten an A on the paper, but if an A+ was possible, then we didn't achieve a good paper. And that's how we critique ourselves.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.

SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much. Senator McCain.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say, before questioning, that I believe that we carried out this operation for good reason, that the United States of America, the world, and the people of Iraq are better off for having been liberated. And I think history will show that when the mass graves continue to be uncovered and the brutalities of the Saddam Hussein regime are more fully revealed, that it was a wise and humane decision on the part of the United States.

However, I think it's important for us to remember my hero President Reagan's old adage, "Facts are stubborn things." The facts, as I see them, Mr. Chairman, are clearly that we underestimated the size of the challenge that we would face after the military operations, unquote, were completed -- the Ba'athists' resistance, the former military people melting into the population, et cetera.

The decay of the infrastructure is truly staggering. You have to see the second-largest city in Iraq, which is a total and complete slum, to appreciate the depth and expense involved. Ambassador Bremer was correct when he said, I believe, it will require tens of billions of dollars. That was not anticipated before we went in.

Extending the guard and reservists -- which, in quoting the Washington Post story this morning, some officials have expressed concern that this could break the guard and reserve system -- that's another fact that we did not take in consideration.

No one believed that we would have to go to the United Nations to the degree that we have today.

Let me point out, Ambassador Grossman, we like to have full facts. There are 29 nations that are contributing 23,000 troops. There are 28 nations that are contributing 9,000, one nation that's contributing 14,000. That gives a little bit different perspective of the 29-nation coalition.

We've made great progress in the north and in the south, but there remain significant problems. The British made a tough decision in the last few days to increase the size of their commitment, not to call up guard and reserve but to increase the size of their commitment.

In the same area that the general was talking about, the Marines have decided to extend their commitment in Najaf rather than give it to the multinational Polish division, which has neither the charter nor the capability to do the job that our Marines can do.

So -- and, by the way, facts: The Pentagon had planned that there would be some 60,000 troops in Iraq today as a result of the progress that was foreseen.

So, if I may quote "The Weekly Standard," "What we are witnessing today is neither prudent multilateralism nor the normal gradual process of turning power over to Iraqis that we all expected to occur over time. On both the international and the Iraqi fronts, the administration's actions are being driven by the realization that there are too few American troops in Iraq."

I think that that is an accurate statement. When we have to extend guard and reservists on active duty, when we have to ask for international forces, when we have to do the things that we are doing, it's clear to me that we need additional troops and we need certain specialties -- intelligence, civil affairs, special forces, Marines, not just more tanks. That opinion is shared by a large body of opinion, not just my own.

It's been mentioned a couple of times, Secretary Wolfowitz, that there may be more casualties if we send in additional American troops. The general just referred to supply convoys that would be open to attack. Is that an accurate depiction of what you said?

MR. WOLFOWITZ: Depending on what you send them for, I think that's Senator.

SEN. MCCAIN: Right. So we're going to send in -- we're going to ask for international troops to come in, in all due respect, General, who will also need supply convoys and we'll tell them they'll take the casualties; Americans won't take the casualties. I don't get the logic, there.

MR. WOLFOWITZ: Senator, the kind of thing, if I may --

SEN. MCCAIN: Go ahead, please.

MR. WOLFOWITZ: The kind of thing I meant -- as a vivid example, we had three Americans killed and one very badly wounded when someone threw a bomb or a hand grenade out of the top floor of a hospital they were guarding. We're training Iraqis to guard hospitals. We're not talking about bringing in international troops to do that either. I mean, there are a lot of dangerous --

SEN. MCCAIN: What are we asking the international troops to do?

MR. WOLFOWITZ: Well, the truth is, on the whole, with, I'd say, the exception of the British in Basra, the international troops are going into areas that are relatively stable. And the delay in Najaf is not a permanent one or it's not an expression of a lack of confidence in the troops that are coming in there, which I believe are Spanish in that particular part of the Polish division, but rather that they're brand new troops and they came in in the middle of a particularly delicate situation, so we extended the overlap period.

General Mattis can speak to it better than I. But there's a lot of confidence that that Polish division can handle that region precisely because it's not as dangerous as other parts of the country.

SEN. MCCAIN: People I talk to say it's extremely dangerous. Secretary Grossman, when do you expect these international troops? When would you expect the first contingent of international troops to arrive in Iraq?

MR. GROSSMAN: Senator, it depends on how quickly we pass the U.N. Security Council resolution and --

SEN. MCCAIN: That's true. Would you say one month, two months, six months, two years, five years?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, Secretary Powell is going on Saturday to a meeting of the permanent five foreign ministers. We hope that that will make clear sort of what people think about the resolution we have proposed. And I think, as Secretary Powell has said over the past few days, we want to get this done sometime before the United Nations General Assembly, which is the 23rd-24th of September. So if that's done --

SEN. MCCAIN: I would repeat: Do you have any idea as to when we could expect the first international troops to arrive in Iraq?

MR. GROSSMAN: No, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: You have no idea. Thank you.

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, sir, I only have no idea because it would depend upon the Security Council resolution. I can only say to you, sir --

SEN. MCCAIN: So we cannot count on an immediate infusion of international forces into Iraq. Is that correct?

MR. GROSSMAN: I think what we can't -- I think I can't tell you, of the three or four countries that are waiting for the Security Council resolution, precisely what day that they will come.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you. I'm not asking for precisely what day. I'm asking a matter of -- could you tell me years?

MR. GROSSMAN: It won't -- if the Security Council resolution passes, sir, in the next few weeks, I can't imagine that it would be years.

SEN. MCCAIN: That precision is not really satisfying.

General Myers, finally, could I ask you a question?

GEN. MYERS: Could I comment on that question?

SEN. MCCAIN: You personally -- you can in the context of answering this question. You personally traveled to Texas to lobby the president on the need for additional international forces in Iraq. According to the Post report, you did so after visiting Iraq and hearing directly from General Abizaid that he urgently needed additional military forces from other nations. Isn't your support for the deployment of forces an acknowledgement we need more boots on the ground in Iraq?

GEN. MYERS: No, Senator, it is not. I think -- I'll stand by General Mattis' comments --

SEN. MCCAIN: Let me just point out, before we rely on the general too much, I have never heard of a commander in the field who requested more additional help. I don't know of an occasion. And so to put a Marine general who's in charge of a specific area of Iraq to discuss these issues, which are made by our civilian policymakers, I think, is not helpful to this hearing. Go ahead.

GEN. MYERS: Okay, some facts. First of all, the Washington Post article was not factual in tone or content. I did not go to Crawford, Texas to lobby the president for anything. I went as part of the secretary of Defense's delegation to talk about a variety of national security issues. That was -- of the four and a half hours or four hours we spent with the president, that might have taken 15 seconds to cover that piece. So that was not -- so the article was not correct.

I do believe we need to internationalize the effort. It's extremely important to do so. Why? I made it in my opening remarks: This is an international problem. International terrorism is an international problem. And every time an Iraqi turns around, they just can't see a U.S. service member, because they don't want foreigners in their country, and particularly there's some allergy from time to time against the U.S. And so we need to internationalize it.

At the same time that we're saying we don't need more troops, what's happening? We've got 55,000 Iraqis under arms. As Secretary Wolfowitz said, the largest part of this coalition right now, besides us, are the Iraqis. And more of those are going to come on every day. And I'm not going to swear to this number, but roughly, in the summer of '05, we'll have at least 184,000 Iraqis under arms to do this mission -- 184,000. And so that's part of the answer. And this is something that the Iraqis have to take responsibility for themselves. We cannot do it for them.

We could put every sailor, soldier, airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman we have in Iraq and it would not make this problem better. In fact, it could work just to the opposite. The more Americans in Iraq, the less Iraqis might feel prompted to come forward and furnish us that intelligence, which is what we need so badly to deal with this threat.