Excerpts of White House Statement, July 4, 2010Footnote 1
Senior Administration Official. Let me just say a few things at the top, then I'm happy to take questions.
As my colleague said, this is the Vice President's fourth trip as Vice President. He took a trip, as some of you may remember, right before the inaugural in January, so it's—five trips as either Vice President-elect or Vice President. And the purpose of this particular trip and the focus is really twofold. Mainly it's to be here on the Fourth of July with our troops and also with the folks who are working incredibly hard in our diplomatic mission. And as you know, tomorrow he's going to have a chance to do what he did last year, because he was here on the Fourth of July last year, which is take part in a naturalization ceremony for folks who have been fighting with us and who are about to become American citizens.
And for those of you who were here last year or have seen the ceremony before, it's an incredibly powerful thing and very moving. So he very much wanted to take part in that again, and in that time also to meet with a number of the senior military American leadership here working with General Odierno, and have lunch with troops in the dining hall here at Camp Victory tomorrow.
And then we begin the second piece, which is meeting with virtually the entire senior Iraqi leadership, in terms of the folks who are both leading the government now and/or playing a part in the formation of the next government. So those are really the two points of focus for the trip.
I think there are just a couple of things that are worth pointing out in terms of what the Vice President is likely to say. The first is he's going to underscore to the Iraqis with whom he meets our long-term commitment to Iraq. It's a message that he's carried in the past; it's a message that he continues to carry with them going forward.
You read somehow in the press occasionally that we are not focused or disengaged from Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is going on, as I think all of you know, is not that we're disengaging but the nature of our engagement is changing. We're moving from a prominently military lead to a civilian, diplomatic and economic lead. As our military presence ramps down, our diplomatic, political and economic engagement is ramping up. And there's a major transition underway as we make good on the commitments of the United States to end our combat mission in August, but also to significantly increase our diplomatic, political and economic engagement going forward. So it will be a focus on that and on that particular message.
In terms of government formation, which is on everyone's minds, he's really here to listen. He's here to listen to the Iraqis, to get a sense from them of where they are and where they think things are going. Let me just be very clear, there's no American plan, there's no secret plan. We don't have a slate of candidates, we don't have favorites. This is up to the Iraqis.
And the one thing that's become extremely clear over the last year and a half is that, as the Vice President likes to say, politics has emerged in Iraq. Virtually every time there's been a roadblock or a so-called crisis, the Iraqis have found a way forward. It hasn't always been easy. It's taken time. But using a political process, Iraqis have found a way to advance their interests.
We've seen this time and time again. We saw it before the election with the difficulties over the election law; the Iraqis worked through it. We saw it with the concerns about de-Baathification; the Iraqis worked through it. We saw it with concerns over recounts; the Iraqis worked through it. We've been able to be helpful, but this has been an Iraqi lead.
I think the other thing that's increasingly clear and that the Vice President has commented upon, and we may see it again as we fly into Baghdad tomorrow, is just the tremendous change that you see on the ground. And some of it is anecdotal, some of it isn't scientific, but it's very real. Last time we were here, flying it at night, from here, from the airport into Baghdad, the level of activity in the city, whether it was traffic jams, whether it was restaurants open and people congregating, was demonstrably higher than it had been in previous trips over the years. And so we're really seeing the reemergence of Iraq.
Other than that, we're really going to get—hope to get a sense from the Iraqis of where things are, where they think it's going. And we're here to be helpful if we can. But again, we're not here to offer a plan, a solution. We're here to hear what the Iraqis have to say and offer our advice if they want it, if they choose it.
Let me stop with that and take any questions.
Q. What's the Vice President's thinking if Ramadan comes and goes and the August 31st deadline comes and goes and there's still no leadership seated or agreed on?
Senior Administration Official. There's a linkage between these events that we think really shouldn't exist for a number of reasons.
Of course we would like to see—the Iraqi people would like to see—a government as expeditiously as possible. And they'd like to see, and we'd like to see, a government that is inclusive, that brings in the major groups, that's representative of the results of the election.
But that said, in terms of our own plans on the military side—that is, ending the combat mission on August 31st, drawing down to 50,000 troops, the relationship between that and the existence or lack of a permanent government really isn't there, for a number of reasons.
First of all, there's a caretaker government in place, and it's doing exactly that. It's taking care of business. It is providing security. It is, for the most part, providing services, despite the problems we've seen with electricity. It is answering the basic needs of the Iraqi people. So that's there. And in previous—2005, 2006, it was a very different situation.
Second, while the combat mission will be ending, the presence of combat troops will not. We'll be at 50,000 troops. That's still a significant number of troops. And these are folks who will have combat capability.
Third, we are not flipping a light switch on August 31st. The transition that is taking place, moving from a combat mission to basically stability operations, which involve advising and assisting the Iraqis, working in partnered ways with them on counterterrorism, protecting our own forces, and also protecting the PRTs and NGOs and so forth, that's been a process that started, actually, a year ago. We got out—remember, we got out of the cities in Iraq exactly a year—almost exactly a year ago. And the Iraqis have been in the lead in the cities ever since.
So this has been an ongoing process. And really, on August 31st, what we're already doing is what we'll be doing now—we're already in this advise and assist posture. And the only difference on August 31st is that there will be some fewer number of troops on August 31st than there are today. For all of those reasons—it's a long answer—whether or not there is a government doesn't change the plans that we have to end the combat mission and to be down to 50,000.
Q. Don't you think it could change the tempo? I mean, isn't there some impact? Or it doesn't matter, the caretaker government will be here—
Senior Administration Official. We just spent time, Andrea, with General Odierno. And he expressed, as he has in the past, absolute confidence in the plan. We're actually ahead of schedule, in terms of moving equipment out. We're moving people out very much on schedule. And he told us he sees absolutely nothing that would move us off of that plan.
Senior Administration Official. Let me add to that, he also has expressed a great deal of confidence in the performance of Iraqi security forces as they continue their operations. And he's quite pleased—and you can ask him, and I won't speak for him—but he seems to be quite pleased with the progress they're making and the kinds of operations they're carrying out.
Q. And yet, even so, so many of the ISF don't want American troops to start withdrawing. They say that they don't feel ready, and the fact that Maliki remains in government and remains—especially the Sunni-based ISF feel like it's a flash point that could cause more violence.
Senior Administration Official. Again, it's not as if we're going to be at zero, and it's not as if we're not going to have combat troops here on August 31st. Fifty thousand Americans will still be here. And again, they'll have combat capability. But the mission that they will formally be undertaking is the mission that, as a practical matter, they've already transitioned to, which is essentially advising and assisting the Iraqis.
This is about putting the Iraqis in the lead, having Iraqis take responsibility for their own country, which is exactly what they want to do. So we really don't see a tension there, as my colleague said.
It's striking that in the last two to three months, not only despite the spectacular and terrible attacks that we still see, the level of attacks is at, overall, is at historic lows. And second, we got through the election with the Iraqi security forces in the lead providing security and doing a very good job. And third, the senior leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq over the past two months was either killed or captured with the Iraqi forces in the lead, acting on intelligence developed by the Iraqis. The number one, two, three and four, depending on how you count, senior members of al Qaeda in Iraq have all been taken off the field by the Iraqis. So they're doing, as my colleague said, quoting General Odierno, a very good job.
Q. A lot of senior government officials in the past two weeks have told me, in this caretaker government, that there's a definite link and that it would be a disaster if the U.S. stayed on track if there's no government come September 1. They called the policy here right now weak, disengaged on the diplomatic side, and they said that it's being seen as a sign of weakness to countries like Syria, Iran and the Taliban. Can you explain—
Senior Administration Official. Well, I'd be very curious to know the names of the officials, because—
Q. Well, I have one named in my story right now, Fawzi Hariri in the Ministry of Industry, and there's others—you're not going on the record now, but senior officials are saying this, and it's not one or two, it's a lot.
Senior Administration Official. Well, we'll see what they say to us in the next couple of days. It's certainly not what we've been hearing from them. We've been, as you know, with our ambassador, with General Odierno, and with their respective teams, engaged very intensely with Iraqis across the board every day, every hour. And that's not what we've been hearing from them. So it will be interesting to compare notes, but that's certainly not what we've heard. And the professional judgment of our senior general, General Odierno, as well as our ambassador, is that the plan that we're on makes sense, and we're not seeing anything to change that assessment.
And again, let me just emphasize one thing, because I think it's very important—we're not flipping a light switch on August 31st. This change in mission has been underway for a year. And it's largely already occurred. That is, our troops are already in an advise and assist posture, and that's where they'll be on August 31st. So there's no dramatic change.
Q. Is there a legal obligation that you have to leave in the end of August, because—
Senior Administration Official. It's the President's policy, and let me tell you why it's important. We've made commitments to the Iraqis over time. We said that we would have our troops out of the cities last year. We said that we would end the combat mission on August 31st. We said that all U.S. forces will be out of the country at the end of 2011. And when we demonstrate that we're good on our word, that we make good on our commitments, we build trust and confidence with the Iraqis that makes a huge difference in the relationship.
A lot of Iraqis did not expect that we would be out of the cities last summer when we said we would. We did it, and I think they—that paid tremendous benefits. We kept our word. I suspect there are some who don't believe we'll end the combat mission or be down to 50,000 on August 31st. Barring events that are right now totally unforeseeable, we will be. And again, that's a demonstration that we keep our commitment. We have a policy that's stated; we stick to it. And we will move forward for the end of 2011.
Q. So you can't rule out building back up beyond 50,000 should violence increase after the August 31st—
Senior Administration Official. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about the future. I can't rule out lots of things in life. What I can tell you with great conviction is that we have a plan, we're following it, and I don't see anything that would take us off that plan.
Q. Will you talk with Prime Minister Maliki or others about, for instance, this secret prison in Baghdad that had over 300 people who were tortured and were the force that detained these people in the city of Mosul and brought them to Baghdad? You know, they were attached to the Prime Minister's office. It doesn't mean the Prime Minister knew, but that's an aspect, I think, to think about as we have U.S. forces in advise and assist mode. I mean, there are actually U.S. forces on that facility where the prison was, and they didn't know.
Senior Administration Official. We're engaged in these kind of issues on a regular basis. Again, when something like this comes up, we have our ambassador, our general and others who are very much engaged with the Iraqis on this. In this particular case that you're referring to, what was particularly striking is this came to light as a result of the Iraqi government finding it out and then taking corrective action. That doesn't excuse at all what happened, but again, it is illustrative of the fact that increasingly, Iraqis are finding a way to use the political system both to correct things that should absolutely not be happening, and also to work through their problems.
Q. Are you concerned that U.S. forces could end up in a position—like, there was a case in The Washington Post about, in a town in Anbar, where the soldiers, who had U.S. advisers, were brought—they detained over 100 people over the course of several hours and beat them as they were looking for some insurgents who had killed a few soldiers, and the U.S. advisers in The Washington Post story had no idea. I guess what I'm wondering about, are you concerned in this next period, as you lose sort of a real overview of what's going on, U.S. forces are going to be in a position where they're backing up troops that sometimes really commit human rights abuses? How do you address that, then, because it's—it can hurt the credibility of the United States?
Senior Administration Official. In the first instance, again, Iraqis increasingly are developing their own institutions and abilities when these kinds of situations arise and problems arise, to find them out and to correct them.
We are extremely vigilant in everything we do. That vigilance is not going to go away. I don't think it's dependent on the number of troops who are here. It's something that's built into what we do.
Q. But do you think you'll know less? I mean, obviously you'll be knowing less of what's going on as the footprint shrinks.
Senior Administration Official. It's possible that we'll know less in places that we're not. I think we'll know just as much in places that we are. So the idea that our troops would somehow unknowingly become involved in something—and it's more likely that that would happen because there are fewer of them in the country—doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I think if—wherever the troops are, they will be vigilant about the mission and about the requirements of the mission.
Q. Part of the problem now is that, delaying that government, the fear is that could this destabilize the country, that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not want—he has ambition for another term or does not want to step down. Is the Vice President, when he meets him, is he going to try to convince him to step down and leave the way to Iraqis—you know, the one who actually won the election?
Senior Administration Official. As I said, we have no favorites, we have no candidates that we're either for or against. We have no plan. This is up to the Iraqis. They had an election; they now have to form a government. That's their responsibility. If we can be helpful to them, we're prepared to do that, but we're not proposing anyone. We're not promoting anyone. That is absolutely up to the Iraqis.
In terms of the concerns about the lack of a government, there are two sides to the coin. I think on the one side, as I suggested earlier, there is a functioning caretaker government that for the most part is doing that, it's taking care of the necessary functions of government. And what we haven't seen, despite the violent attacks that continue—that occasionally do occur, and despite the lack of a permanent government, we have not seen a rise in sectarian tension or violence. We have not seen a rise in the lack of confidence in the political system or governance.
So to that extent, we haven't seen a problem emerge. On the other hand, here's why getting a government in place is so important and why we hope that Iraqis can act expeditiously on it. There are, as you know, a number of very important outstanding issues that need to be resolved for Iraq to move forward, including laws on how to deal with hydrocarbons, the disputed internal boundaries and the status of Kirkuk, the integration of various forces into the Iraqi military, constitutional reforms—all of these issues are unlikely to be resolved with just a caretaker government in place. They require a full-time, permanent government. And until we get to—Iraqis get to that point, it's going to be hard for them to move forward on these basic and serious outstanding issues.
It's also going to be harder for us to move forward with them on what we're committed to doing, which is building a long-term partnership and bringing the strategic framework agreement to life. That is, developing increasingly not only political ties and diplomatic ties, but economic ties, cultural ties, scientific ties. People want a climate to engage in that they're confident in. And that comes with a permanent government, and it comes with Iraqis moving forward on these outstanding issues.
So that's why it's so important to get there. But I don't think we've seen any evidence that the absence of this government has created the kind of vacuum that many people feared that would lead to a lot of bad things happening. Thus far, that hasn't happened.
Q. Do you have any idea when you're going to announce a replacement—when the White House is going to announce a replacement for the commander of CENTCOM? There's a big, gaping hole there right now.
Senior Administration Official. I do not.
Q. Can I ask an Iraq-related question? So he just told us that he expects to see a government that's inclusive, that's representative of all the parties. What's his thinking on this super Shia government that kind of came in postelection and grabbed more seats than Iraqiyya, even though Iraqiyya won more seats in the actual vote?
Senior Administration Official. Again, we're not here to comment on Iraqi internal politics. We just have, I believe, what is the same desire and perspective that, as far as we can tell, the Iraqi people have, which is they would like to see a government that reflects the results of the election, and that means an inclusive government that brings in the major blocs. And that's important, both in terms of the actual government formation process itself—we think everyone should be in on the formation process—and it's important in terms of the outcome, that is, we think, an inclusive government that brings in all of the major players is the best reflection of what the Iraqi people want. That's as far as we go. We're not—again, we're not picking parties, we're not picking candidates. That's not our business.
Senior Administration Official. And I would add to that that our sense is that that's where the Iraqi leaders are as well, that they understand the need for an inclusive government.
Q. Yes, the sense—the fear here, I wonder if it's mirrored or echoed in Washington, is that if this stands and Iraqiyya has to take a back seat, despite having won more seats than any other coalition in the vote, it will further alienate Sunnis and this will create more destabilization and lead to more violence.
Senior Administration Official. As my colleague just said, our strong sense is that the need for an inclusive government is one that seems to be shared more or less across the board by Iraqis, never mind what we think. But not only the Iraqi people, but also the political leaders for precisely the reason that you cited, that is, there's an understanding that a failure to do that could be very destabilizing, and that the way forward for Iraq is to be inclusive.
Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton and Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari, July 13, 2010Footnote 2
Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Hoshyar Zebari delivered these remarks in Washington, DC
Secretary Clinton. Well, hello, everyone, and I'm delighted to be welcoming back to the State Department a colleague and a friend, someone who has served his country with great distinction. And I am very pleased to have this opportunity with Foreign Minister Zebari here to reaffirm the importance and strength of the long-term strategic relationship between the United States and Iraq.
I also, Minister, offer our sincere condolences for the loss of life suffered in recent attacks against religious pilgrims and security forces in Iraq. But I am confident that Iraqis will not be deterred from working together to build a new future of peace and security for all of their people.
This will be the second meeting of the Diplomatic Joint Coordinating Committee of the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. This committee guides our engagement on a wide range of diplomatic, cultural, economic, and security issues. It is the roadmap for our long-term partnership. The foreign minister is co-hosting the committee along with Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeff Feltman, and they are working on a range of common concerns, including Iraq's removal from UN Chapter 7 sanctions and other important matters that are of concern to Iraqis.
We also discussed the critical need for Iraq's political leaders to continue the hard work necessary to form a proportionate and inclusive government that represents the voices of Iraq's diverse communities and can deliver on the promise of democracy. More is needed from everyone involved. The United States expresses no preference for the outcome in the government formation, but we share a sense of urgency. The people of Iraq deserve to have a government that is ready to meet their needs, and we hope that that occurs soon.
The Iraqi security forces are growing in confidence and capability, which has been evident in the way that they've handled some of these recent attacks. As our Ambassador Chris Hill recently said, our soldiers may withdraw from Iraq, but our interests will remain. We are committed to this relationship, and after August 31st, 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq to train, equip, and advise Iraqi security forces, conduct joint counterterrorism missions, and protect ongoing U.S. and civilian military activities.
We are working every day to create a very strong foundation for a long-lasting relationship between the United States and Iraq, and the reduction in troops in no way reflects a decrease in American engagement with Iraq or our commitment to the Iraqi people. Guided by the Strategic Framework Agreement, the United States will continue to be an active partner and supporter as Iraqis strengthen their democracy, improve their security, and reintegrate fully into the regional and global community and economy.
We believe a sustained U.S. role will be crucial to lasting peace and security in Iraq. But ultimately, we recognize the long-term success of the Iraqi nation depends upon the leaders and people of Iraq. It is their determination and hard work that will make the difference. The strong turnout in the March 7th election underscored their resolve, but we know some delays have occurred on the road to forming a government, but we're betting on the Iraqis. We think the Iraqi people are a tough, resilient, determined people who are more than up to the task. And the United States will stand with the Iraqi people for the long term.
So again, Minister Zebari, thank you for your visit, thank you for your friendship and cooperation, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
Foreign Minister Zebari. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. It's always an honor and pleasure to see you, whether here in Washington or in Iraq. I am here with my delegation, in fact, as Madam Secretary indicated, to convene the second session of the Joint Coordination Committee for Political and Diplomatic Cooperation. This is a message to all the people of Iraq, to the region, that our long-term relationship is there and it will flourish, it will be strengthened; it has nothing to do with the drawdown of U.S. troops by August 31st. I think this long-term strategic friendship and cooperation has been enshrined in an agreement which is to the benefit of the people and of the region's people of some stability.
In fact, we come from New York and we had good discussions with the secretary general, with a number of the permanent Security Councils, the P-5, in order to discuss means and ways for Iraq to get out of Chapter 7 regulation. And here, Madam Secretary, I want to thank you and the U.S. Government for all the help and the assistance you have given us, in fact, to get Iraq back to its rightful place in the community of nations.
And we are making progress on a number of issues. We discussed, as you know, the efforts—the current efforts of government formation. And this is an Iraqi issue and the people of Iraq, the Iraqi leaders, in fact, face this challenge to form their own representative government based on the outcome of March the 7 historic elections. Now we have some delays. Eventually, I think a government will emerge and we are doing our best, in fact, to do that in order to avoid any constitutional governmental vacuum. I think that people are aware of the urgency. As you have, we as Iraqi also feel a sense of urgency. But we are confident we will overcome and we will form our next government.
And once again, thank you very much for hosting us and it's a pleasure to see you. Thank you.
Q. And Mr. Foreign Minister, welcome back to Washington. There's reports of hundreds of millions of Iraqi crude oil leaving Iraq illegally through Kurdistan smuggled into Iran against—in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. How do you explain that and what is the Iraqi Government doing to combat it? Thank you.
Foreign Minister Zebari. Well, Iraq, as I've said earlier, we are trying to get out of Chapter 7 and to free Iraq from all these obligations and so on. So Iraq will definitely—will abide by Security Council resolutions in order to be a responsible member of the community of nations. This oil trade with Iran, as you mention—in fact, the government is looking into that with Kurdish Regional Government authorities. And at the moment, in fact, it's not at a large scale as has been portrayed. The recent sanctions are new, the last package (inaudible) on Iran. But definitely, we are looking into that. And it seems that there is some trade going on across the border, but the government is looking at that and is in close consultation with the KRG authorities, in fact, to find a solution to that.
Q. This is Nihad Ali from Al Iraqiya Channel, and the first question goes to the foreign minister of Iraq. Mr. Foreign Minister, you met yesterday with the secretary general of the United Nations as well as the ambassadors of the various member countries of the Security Council. You—did you—what is—is there a ceiling, a timeline ceiling, for taking Iraq out of Chapter 7? As well, did you discuss the crisis of the formation of the Iraqi Government?
The second question goes to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Despite the visit, the recent visit of Vice President Biden to Iraq, until now there are no signs that Iraq is going out of its crisis pertaining to the formation of the government. Did you discuss with Foreign Minister Zebari any suggestions about this issue?
Foreign Minister Zebari. Welcome to you. And yes, we met with the Secretary General of the United Nations Mr. Ban Ki-moon as well as the ambassadors of the five permanent countries, members of the Security Council. We discussed the ways and the means of—and other measures that the Iraqi Government has been undertaking in order to take out Iraq from the provisions as well as the repercussions of Chapter 7. And in the past year, we have achieved a lot of progress, mainly pertaining to ridding Iraq of weapons or at the issue—about the issue pertaining to the weapons of mass destruction, as well as issues pertaining to the remaining contracts related to the Oil-for-Food and also issues pertaining to our relationship with our brother country Kuwait. Therefore, we are building on all what you have been achieving over the past year and we will continue to do so.
Secretary Clinton. We discussed at great length the status of government formation. I reiterated that the United States does not have any preference in the outcome as to who is awarded what position, but we are concerned by the delay. We think that there needs to be more of a sense of urgency to resolve this matter.
I watched with interest as the people of Iraq demonstrated over the lack of electricity in the very hot weather that they are suffering through. And it takes a government to solve such problems. So we urge the leaders of Iraq to reach an agreement and to put their personal interests behind the national interest. And therefore, anything the United States can do, we stand ready to do, in order to encourage the government formation as soon as possible.
Thank you all very much.
Statement by National Security Advisor Blinken, August 30, 2010Footnote 3
National Security Advisor Antony Blinken delivered this statement at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Advisor Blinken. The main purpose of the trip is for the Vice President to take part in ceremony marking the change in mission and change in command here in Iraq, an important moment, a momentous moment that he thought was important to mark here in person. But he'll also take advantage of being here to meet with Iraq's senior leaders. They'll be seeing, among others, Prime Minister Maliki, Dr. Allawi, President Talabani, President Barzani, Vice President Hashimi, Vice President al-Mahdi, and His Eminence, al-Hakim among others.
And with them, he is going to take the opportunity to preview the President's speech to the nation on Tuesday night to give them a look at what the President is going to say and to reinforce two points that will be in the President's speech. First, that the President and this administration are making good on our commitment to end the war in Iraq responsibly and to help build a stable, self-reliant, and sovereign Iraq, but just as important, this administration's commitment to an ongoing relationship with Iraq.
We're not disengaging from Iraq. The nature of our engagement is changing with this change in mission from a military lead to a civilian lead. And even as we draw down our troops, we are ramping up our engagement across the board—diplomatic, political, economic, cultural, and so forth.
In short, we are determined to build a long-term partnership with the government of Iraq and with the Iraqi people. But to build a partnership, you need a partner. And so the Vice President, I am sure, will also in his meetings talk about the government's formation process when he sees Iraq's leaders.
In many ways, the length of time it has taken to get a government in place in Iraq was not unexpected. I think most of us predicted it even possibly on the record before the election. After all, the last time around it took six months. This time, the Iraqis had an incredibly close election with two seats dividing the two leading parties and no one getting anywhere near the majority needed to form a government alone.
Unlike last time, however, we have not seen a dangerous vacuum develop in which those bent on destruction would change the dynamic in Iraq. To date, that has not happened. And instead, we've had a caretaker government that for the most part has been able to take care of the basic business, whether it's security services, or the disbursement of the budget, which is a critical element as well.
Obviously, there have been issues and problems, but by and large what many fear in the absence of a government formation—a really dangerous vacuum developing—has not happened. That said, this is not a durable solution for Iraq. There was an election. The Iraqi people would like to see the results of that election made real by the formation of government.
We sense some frustration among Iraqis that this process is now taking a considerable amount of time. And significantly, without getting to the elected government, it's going to be very hard for Iraq to do two things. One, it's going to be hard for Iraq to tackle the big, outstanding issues that remain, whether it's dealing with the question of disputed internal boundaries or the status of Kirkuk, whether it's dealing with the production and distribution of energy resources, whether it's dealing with constitutional reform and so on. All of these big, outstanding issues require the elected government.
Similarly, when it comes to building up our own partnership with Iraq, it's very hard to move forward in the absence of this elected government. And so I think there's some sense, growing sense of urgency that government formation move forward. And that's—certainly, the Vice President is going to urge the leaders to bring this process to a conclusion.
Two other quick points and then we'll take questions. Let me just make it very clear there is no United States plan. There is no United States candidate in terms of the next Iraqi government. The Iraqis don't want anyone, any outsider dictating outcomes or trying to influence the direction of their country or their government.
What we do have is a conviction shared by the Iraqi people for a government that reflects the results of the election and is inclusive of the leading coalitions, including Iraqiyya State of Law and the Kurdish Alliance.
And so that's where we are. That's a very broad outline of the trip. Let me stop there and take any questions.
Q. You talked about wanting an inclusive government and not picking a candidate. But the Sadr Movement has the biggest single bloc in Parliament now. So how would the administration feel about a government that was truly inclusive and actually had them in a leading role?
Advisor Blinken. What we want to do and what we believe the Iraqis want based on our many interactions with them is to strengthen this partnership that is set out in the Strategic Framework Agreement. And given that, it would seem to be in the interest of the Iraqis—and certainly in our interest—to have in the government partners who want to build a partnership with us.
And so I think we—again, this is up to the Iraqi people. It's not our decision, but we would hope that the government that results will include in its leadership positions parties and coalitions that are interested in building a long-term partnership with the United States. And that's what we're looking at and so you can make up your own minds whether one party, one coalition or another is interested in that or not. But it's hard to build a partnership if you don't have a willing partner.
Ultimately, that's up to—again, up to the Iraqis, up to their government. If that's not something they want, that's their decision. But every indication we have from the people we talk to across the board is that that is something the Iraqis want. That is something they want to build. That is something that's contained in the Strategic Framework Agreement.
Q. Can you talk a little bit about what sort of leverage the United States has to convince the Iraqi officials to form a government?
Advisor Blinken. I don't think it's our leverage. I think it's the leverage of the Iraqi people who are looking for their leaders to bring this process to a close. And it's been five months now. That's less time than last time. But there's in a sense a higher expectation after an election that went forward remarkably well that was deemed credible by the international community. Some aspects of the election were challenged. The challenge went forward. The election was certified. This is a very good process.
And I think as a result of that, in a sense—as a result of the success of the election, there's a heightened expectation that the political leaders will in a sense match the courage and sacrifice of the Iraqi people who have been through an awful lot. So that's one. I think they're feeling more and more pressure from their constituents to get on with this.
Second, as I mentioned a moment ago, there are a lot of issues on the plate for the next Iraqi government, issues that the Iraqi people care about deeply, whether again it's the question of disputed internal boundaries in Kirkuk, whether it's how to deal with energy resources, whether it's some constitutional changes they may be looking at, whether it's the integration of security forces and also moving forward in terms of dealing with their neighbors, dealing with the United Nations. All of these things really require the elected government to be in place.
The caretaker government is able to do the critical basics—that is basic security, basic services, and disbursement of the budget. But in terms of making big, strategic decisions, every caretaker government is going to feel constrained in doing that. So for Iraq to move forward and to deal with the issues that are out there, it needs this government. So those are the reasons. It's not a question of our influence or our pressure. It's what the Iraqi people want and what Iraq needs them for.
Q. Could you drill down on that a little bit more? You said that in order for there to be a partnership with the Iraqis, you need to have somebody to be a partner with. So what is it the United States can't do now in terms of getting aid or assistance or advice or whatever that it will be able to do once there's a government that's been seated?
Advisor Blinken. Well, there are a few things. There are a number of things that the Iraqis are looking for assistance with that's more difficult to do in this context than it would be with the full-time government in place, for example, moving forward with helping Iraq get out from Chapter 7 of the United Nations and moving forward its relationship with Kuwait. These are things that will be much—it will be easier to do more effectively once the full-time government is in place. And we can be helpful. We pledged to be helpful.
Similarly, in continuing to build up relationships with all of their neighbors, I think some of the neighbors are waiting to see the government form before moving forward more forcibly with engagement with Iraq. Again, we can be helpful, since we have relationships with virtually all of the neighbors. And that too will benefit from having the government in place.
There are a number of things we're looking to do in terms of building up the trade and economic relationship, building up the cultural and educational relationship. All of these things benefit from the greater certainty you get from having the elected government in place and not a caretaker government.
So it's not that things are on hold, but it's that they are moving more slowly than they would if we had the full-time government in place. So those are the kinds of things that we're looking at.
Q. You spoke about some pretty complicated, complex issues dealing with internal borders, about sharing resources. And a lot of people are saying it's very difficult to make any headway on these issues in the next say year or 16 months. Already, we're hearing talk from a lot of Iraqi officials that the U.S. must remain deeply engaged, deeply involved in Iraqi affairs. There was even talk—there was a comment by the Iraqi Army Chief of Staff about the readiness of Iraqi forces. I mean, there's even talk now that the U.S. may ultimately have to delay or postpone a full withdrawal. Is that a possibility?
Advisor Blinken. We committed to the Iraqis to be out of Iraq's cities last summer on a deadline, and we were. We committed to change the mission, end our combat mission and be down to 50,000 troops by August 31st, and we are. And we have an agreement with the government of Iraq to remove our forces, all of our forces from Iraq, at the end of 2011, and we will. We are bound by that agreement and we will make good on it. Let me just make a quick comment about a couple of things you mentioned in the question. I think all of you know, but it's just important to underscore, that we're not flipping a switch this week. The process of ending the U.S. combat mission in Iraq has been just that, a process that's played out over a year. This has been a lengthy transition to Iraqi responsibility.
As I mentioned, we were out of the cities more than a year ago, and so Iraqis have had lead responsibilities in the cities for a long period of time. And what we've seen—and I would refer you to General Odierno and U.S. Forces Iraq—but we have seen a growing capacity on the part of the Iraqi security forces to handle security. And the evidence of that has been in the way the elections themselves were handled, the efforts to kill or capture extremist leaders, which have been quite successful in recent months.
Of course, none of this means that extremist groups of one kind or another do not continue to pose a threat to Iraq. Clearly, they do. And we've seen evidence of that in just the past week. And these attacks continue to kill innocents.
But what they haven't done thus far is achieve what we believe are their fundamental objectives. One, to re-light some kind of sectarian fuse—that has not happened—two, to fundamentally undermine the credibility of the Iraqi government. That too has not happened.
All of that said, again, the sooner the Iraqis get a permanent government in place, the elected government in place, I think the easier it will be to continue to move forward with the Iraqi security forces.
Let me add one other quick thing. We will continue until the end of 2011 to have as many as 50,000 troops here. As, again, I think all of you know, the combat mission ends, but the presence of combat troops does not. And so we have—we will continue to have a significant number of troops here whose primary mission will be to advise and assist the Iraqis, to continue to help train them to do partner counterterrorism operations and also to protect their own personnel who are here.
And so we think that over the next year and a half, our ability to continue to help the Iraqis increase the capacity of their security forces will be very significant. And then, as part of our long-term relationship with Iraq, we will be setting up within the embassy an office of security cooperation, as we have in embassies around the world, that will be the real link between our military and theirs in terms of continuing to provide advice and help the Iraqis—for example, become familiar with any equipment they may buy from us in the future.
So, again, let me just emphasize this has been a process and will continue to be a process.
Q. I have two questions. First question is don't you think as the end of combat operation comes at a time that is very critical for Iraq—I mean, they don't have a new government and it's already on alert for more attacks from al Qaeda. So do you think that the—like the end of combat operations now might be actually inviting more attacks by insurgents? This is the first question. The second question is what is the time and what is the deadline when you see that this is a critical time for Iraq to have a new government? I mean, it's been already almost six months so far. So is this a critical time or is there a certain deadline?
Advisor Blinken. In terms of the first part of your question, the end of mission—of the combat mission was planned out over a long period of time. And as I said a moment ago, it's not a flipping of the light switch. It's been a process that started well over a year ago with removing U.S. forces from the cities, giving Iraqis responsibility for the cities and increasingly transitioning over the last year to lead Iraqi responsibility.
So it's not as if we've had an arbitrary deadline that we suddenly had to meet. This has been a very planned process, a planned transition, keyed to the amount of time we thought was required to develop—help the Iraqis develop sufficient security capacity to take lead responsibility. It was not keyed to the election per say.
Second—again, as I mentioned, even though the combat mission is over and that's very significant, U.S. combat forces will remain in Iraq to advise and assist the Iraqis, and there will be 50,000 of them. So that's a significant number of troops who can help handle contingencies if any arise.
And then, the other point that I think is critical, which we talked about a moment ago, is it's not as if Iraq does not have a government. There is a caretaker government in place. Again, it's not satisfactory for dealing with Iraq's long-term problems. It's not satisfactory in terms of the desire of the Iraqi people to have a government in place that reflects the courage they took in going to the ballot box. But it has also enabled the Iraqis to make sure that a dangerous vacuum doesn't develop in Iraq. So for all of those reasons, I think while this is a critical time, there's this linkage between the change in mission that some would make and government formation we don't see.
As to your second question, we don't have a deadline for the Iraqis. It's not our place to suggest a deadline, to impose a deadline, to ask for a deadline. It's not the business of any foreign country to do that. What we are doing and can do is to suggest to the Iraqi leaders that both in terms of the desires of the Iraqi people to see a government form and the ability to get on with the important business of moving Iraq forward, forming a government is critical and getting that done as quickly as they can is critical. But there is no timeline, deadline. That has to be up to them.
We have seen significant forward movement in recent weeks in terms of the discussions among the leading Iraqi parties and coalitions, very, very detailed discussions over power sharing. That's encouraging. But they're not there yet, and it's up to them to get there.
Q. You said you have no preferred plan—there's no U.S. plan, there's no U.S. candidate. But there is a preferred U.S. formula if you like that everybody knows about, and it's been out there for some time. And you kind of hinted at it when you said we want to see a government that reflects the outcome of the election. Could you elaborate a little bit more on why it is that you consider that formula the best one for Iraq at this moment and why you think it reflects the election results?
Advisor Blinken. Well, the election results were clear in one sense and not clear in another. They weren't clear in the sense that there was no outright winner. Several parties did very, very well. And, again, as you know, the top two coalitions were separated by just two seats—one had 91, the other had 89. You need 163 to form a majority in Parliament.
And so given that, it seems a couple of points are obvious. One, is that the next government in Iraq, by definition, has to be some kind of coalition government, because no single party or existing coalition can get to a majority on its own.
Second, this was a democratic election, and we believe, again, that the election was credible. It was challenged. The challenges went forward. The election was certified. Given all of that, it would seem important to have an outcome, in terms of government formation, that reflects the basic results and those basic results had among other things, the Iraqiyya coalition, the State of Law coalition being the two leading coalitions, the Kurdish Alliance performing very strongly, various Shiite parties also performing strongly.
And so based on that, we believe that to reflect the results of the election, which are the best gauge of the will of the Iraqi people, having a broad-based coalition in place is the way to do that. And less important than what we think, that seems to be not only what the Iraqi people are thinking, but what Iraq's leaders are thinking, because the discussions that we've seen going forward involve these very groups.
But, again, it's not for us to say how this should come out. We are simply expressing what we believe is the preference of the Iraqi people as reflected in the election results.
Q. You have specifically promoted that it should be State of Law, Allawi Alliance dominating this government, with a preference for al-Maliki remaining as Prime Minister.
Advisor Blinken. We have expressed no preference for who should be Prime Minister. We have said that we believe that as the two leading coalitions in the election, Iraqiyya and State of Law should be we think at the foundation of the next government along with the Kurdish Alliance. But how—the details of how that government would be composed and in particular who holds what seat is not for us to say. It's not something we have said. Let me repeat, we have no preferred candidate. We do believe, again, that the two leading coalitions should be at the heart and foundation of the government.
Q. Do you rule out that Allawi could be Prime Minister?
Advisor Blinken. We haven't ruled in or ruled out anything. Again, that's up to the Iraqis. All we've said is that the election should reflect—the government should reflect the results of the election, it should be inclusive. And we hope that whoever is in a position—in positions of leadership in the Iraqi government are people who would like to build on the Strategic Framework Agreement and build a partnership with the United States. If that's what—if the Iraqis choose not to do that, again, that's their choice. But we believe that reflects a pretty broad-based will of people and leaders here. And so we hope that any government we're dealing with reflects that desire and reflects that interest.
It's hard to build a partnership if you don't have partners who want to do it. So that's—those are only working assumptions.
Statement by President Obama, August 31, 2010Footnote 4
President Barack Obama delivered this statement in Washington, DC
President Obama. Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.
I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We've now been through nearly a decade of war. We've endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we're trying to build for our nation—a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity—may seem beyond our reach.
But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.
From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.
These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America's longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America's men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I'm awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.
The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians—and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people—Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.
So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.
This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people.
That's what we've done. We've removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We've closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.
This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.
This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq's future is not.
Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq's Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians—diplomats, aid workers, and advisors—are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That's a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.
This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq—one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.
Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest—it's in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We've persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people—a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it's time to turn the page.
As we do, I'm mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it's time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I've said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.
So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.
The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.
Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what's at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders—and hundreds of al Qaeda's extremist allies—have been killed or captured around the world.
Within Afghanistan, I've ordered the deployment of additional troops who—under the command of General David Petraeus—are fighting to break the Taliban's momentum.
As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can't do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That's why we're training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin—because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's.
Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power—including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America's example—to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that's based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes—a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibilities of our time.
Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction—we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.
Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation's strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.
Unfortunately, over the last decade, we've not done what's necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation's long-term competitiveness is put at risk.
And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it's our turn. Now, it's our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for—the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.
Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.
Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That's why we've already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We're treating the signature wounds of today's wars—post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury—while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we're funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II—including my grandfather—become the backbone of our middle class, so today's servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.
Two weeks ago, America's final combat brigade in Iraq—the Army's Fourth Stryker Brigade—journeyed home in the predawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.
Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband's embrace or a mother's kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice—part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”
Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations—war—and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.
In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar—Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the predawn darkness, better days lie ahead.
Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.
