U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–829PDF 2014

TERRORIST MARCH IN IRAQ: THE U.S. RESPONSE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 23, 2014

Serial No. 113–190

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Brett McGurk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran, Bureau 

of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State .......................................... 6

Ms. Elissa Slotkin, Performing the Duties of the Principle Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense .......................... 22

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Brett McGurk: Prepared statement ................................................................ 10

Ms. Elissa Slotkin: Prepared statement ................................................................ 24

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 66

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 67

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 69

(1)

TERRORIST MARCH IN IRAQ: THE U.S. 

RESPONSE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. This morning 

we consider the U.S. response to the terrorist takeover in Iraq. 

Nearly 6 months ago, the committee held a hearing. The title of 

that hearing was ‘‘Al-Qaeda’s Resurgence in Iraq: A Threat to U.S. 

Interests.’’ Then, the administration testified at that hearing that 

ISIS had begun to shift resources from Syria to Iraq in early 2013. 

That it had tripled its suicide attacks in that year and that it 

planned to challenge the Iraqi Government for control of western 

Iraq and Baghdad. That is what we heard 6 months ago. 

The administration testified that it had become aware that ISIS 

had established armed camps, staging areas and training ground 

in Iraq’s western desert in the summer of 2013, and that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had again threatened to attack the 

United States of America. The administration told us that ISIS 

must be, in their words, ‘‘constantly pressured, and their safe havens destroyed,’’ and that its objective was ‘‘to ensure that ISIS can 

never again gain safe haven in western Iraq.’’ However, what the 

administration did not say was that the Iraqi Government had 

been urgently requesting drone strikes against ISIS camps since 

August 2013. That there had been the opportunity to use drone 

strikes on those camps, both in eastern Syria before they came over 

the border and to use drone strikes as their units moved across the 

desert. And as you know, drones can hone in and can see what is 

going on on the ground, can see these units traverse from city to 

city. These repeated requests unfortunately were turned down. I 

added my voice for drone strikes as ISIS convoys raced across those 

deserts from city to city. 

Since that last hearing, ISIS has done over those 6 months precisely what the administration predicted it would. It has taken over 

most of western Iraq. It has turned its sights on Baghdad and it 

may be preparing to launch attacks against the U.S. But again, no 

drone strikes against those columns. Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large resource-rich safe haven as 

ISIS does today. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the 

2

heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that ISIS does today, 

which includes thousands of Western passport holders. 

The Iraqi population is terrorized. They have suffered mass executions and harsh sharia law. Last week, the remaining members 

of the ancient Christian community in Mosul fled on foot in face 

of ISIS’ demand that they convert or face death. 

To be clear, ISIS’ takeover has been aided by Prime Minister 

Maliki’s malfeasance and incompetence. Maliki has disastrously 

failed to reconcile with key Sunni groups. Many, including myself 

and Ranking Member Engel, urged him to form an inclusive government—and this was quite some time ago and on several occasions—so that ISIS could not exploit legitimate Sunni grievances. 

Maliki has only proven himself to be a committed sectarian, certainly no statesman. It is time for Iraqis to move forward in forming a government that serves the interests of all Iraqis. 

What started as a crisis in Syria has become a regional disaster 

with serious global implications, including credible threats of international terrorism, humanitarian disaster, and upward pressure on 

energy prices in a fragile global economy. Meanwhile, terrorist 

forces and the Iranian Government are gaining power at the expense of regional security and power at the expense of friendly governments. 

Of course only Iraqis can control their future. Only they can 

make the decision to replace Maliki. And the performance of the 

battlefield of certain Iraqi units was abysmal. That is to be expected when you put your son in charge and sack the officer corps 

and replace them with cronies. 

Americans have spent enough blood and treasure in Iraq, and 

that is exactly why the administration should have taken the opportunity to inflict decisive damage on ISIS from the air through 

drone strikes while its fighters were encamped in the desert 

months ago. 

This morning we are joined by a senior State Department official 

who has been in Baghdad for several weeks, and an official from 

the Department of Defense involved in the current assessment of 

Iraqi security forces, to learn of the path forward in dealing with 

this national security emergency. 

And I will now turn to our ranking member, Mr. Engel of New 

York, for any opening comments. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important 

hearing about the latest developments in Iraq. In recent months, 

a path of violence and chaos has burned across the Middle East. 

The unrest has left thousands of dead in its wake and driven tens 

of thousands from their homes. A civil war in Syria has spilled 

across the border and now Iraq teeters on the brink. 

Since December, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL 

or ISIS, has marched across Iraq with lethal efficiency. Fallujah, 

Ramadi and Mosul have fallen under their control. Hundreds of 

Iraqi soldiers have been killed or have laid down their weapons 

and the military equipment they left behind. Some even supplied 

by the United States is now in the hands of these fanatics. 

The border between Iraq and Syria is gone, ISIS is advancing toward the Jordanian border, and ISIS’ leaders have declared an Islamic caliphate, promising to rule with a brand of barbarism out 

3

of the darkest chapters in human history. ISIS is an existential 

threat to our allies in the region and it is a threat to the United 

States. We have seen this story before and we know how it ends. 

When Russia withdrew from Afghanistan in the late 1980s that 

country was allowed to become a no man’s land. Violent extremists 

found a safe haven in which to strengthen their ranks, train their 

recruits, and plan attacks on the United States and our allies. We 

cannot allow Iraq to follow the same path to become another safe 

haven from which another September 11th could be launched. 

So how are we going to meet the challenge? In my mind, we need 

to use all the tools at our disposal because in the end there is no 

military solution to this problem. We need to see real political 

changes in Iraq, more inclusive policies, and a greater effort to 

avoid sectarian conflict. I have real doubts that Prime Minister 

Maliki can lead Iraq into this new era. In fact, Maliki must go and 

the sooner the better. 

I have real concerns about Iran’s support for the Iraqi regime. 

Even if the United States and Iran seem to share a mutual concern 

over ISIS, I don’t see how Iranian and American goals can be 

aligned either in the short term or the long term. I don’t think the 

U.S. should deal with Iran in this regard. We also need to bear in 

mind that this is not solely an Iraqi problem. While ISIS grew out 

of al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS grew in strength and numbers while 

fighting in Syria. 

ISIS is a regional problem. This is a spillover from the Syrian 

civil war and fighting ISIS will require a regional solution. The 

right time to train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition was 

well over a year ago. That is when I introduced the Free Syria Act. 

It would have assisted moderate rebels to fight against both the 

Assad regime and the extremist elements of the opposition, like 

ISIS. 

I am glad that a few weeks ago the administration announced its support for a $500 million training and equipment program for the 

moderate Syrian opposition. But we waited so long, and by now 

ISIS has gained so much territory and momentum they are far 

more difficult to stop than they were 1 year, 11⁄2 years or 2 years 

ago. 

I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if we had 

committed to empowering the moderate Syrian opposition last year. 

Would ISIS have grown as it did? Would the opposition have been 

able to apply enough pressure to Assad to compel him to a diplomatic transition? And by the way, we passed a bill of the House 

yesterday, unanimously, slapping sanctions on Hezbollah. 

Hezbollah has moved in as a puppet of Iran and they have moved 

into Syria on the side of Assad and have helped tip the balance in 

Assad’s favor. 

The hypotheticals and the what-ifs break my heart, because even 

if do the right thing now it will mean small consolation to the orphan child, the grieving mother or the family in a refugee camp in 

Syria. I supported the President’s decision to send assessment 

teams to Iraq, but I am cautious about future action. We cannot 

end up in another sectarian quagmire in Iraq. 

And so I am interested in learning about the administration’s vision for how to meet this challenge. I am grateful to our witnesses 

4

for testifying today and for consulting with Congress about our 

next steps. We must be partners in moving forward as we determine what the U.S.’s role should be in Iraq and that Congress 

must play an important role. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We go now for a 

minute to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, chairman of the Middle 

East and North Africa Subcommittee. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Today’s 

hearing is on the terrorist march in Iraq. This is not something 

new or something that caught us unaware. This will be the second 

time that this committee has had Mr. McGurk testify on the deteriorating situation in Iraq since February. 

Sadly, it is clear that the situation went from worse to just about 

as bad as it can get, and I am interested in hearing how the administration has adjusted its policies since then. Because the three 

steps that he outlined for us last time—pressing the government to 

develop a holistic policy that would isolate the extremists; supporting the Iraqi security forces through accelerated military assistance and information and intelligence sharing; and mobilizing 

the Sunni population against ISIL have all failed to stop ISIL and 

the near collapse of Iraq. 

ISIL continues to advance its cause of an Islamic State that runs 

from Baghdad to Lebanon, and where Christians especially are 

being targeted; either fleeing, forced to convert or be killed. We 

have been woefully inadequate in our response to this crisis. This 

committee has repeatedly called on the administration to do more, 

to get more engaged and to be decisive, because it has been paralyzed by inaction. The threat of ISIL is very real and imminent for 

Iraq and the region, and it won’t go away by just wishing it away. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Ted Deutch of 

Florida, ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member 

Engel, for holding today’s critical hearing, and to our witnesses for 

appearing today on behalf of the administration. Deputy Assistant 

Secretary McGurk, I know that you have just returned from several weeks in Iraq, and I hope that you will be able to provide us 

with an update on efforts to encourage political reconciliation. 

The violence perpetrated by ISIL in its quest to establish an Islamic caliphate in Syria and Iraq is terrorizing these nations and 

according to the U.N., over 1,500 people were killed in the month 

of June in Iraq. And the news of this weekend’s horrific persecution 

of Christians in Mosul adds another layer to this sectarian conflict. 

With financial independence, ISIL answers to no one. Having 

been disavowed even by al-Qaeda, it is hard to imagine a terrorist 

organization being so vile that the vile al-Qaeda doesn’t want to be 

associated with it. But as ISIL continues its march toward Baghdad, how confident are we that the Shiite stronghold can withstand 

repeated attacks? What are the regional players doing to influence 

the outcome of current events, and what are we doing to ensure the 

stability of our regional partners? 

5

I would also hope that you will address what more we can or 

should do to convince Prime Minister Maliki that ISIL can’t be defeated without some sort of reconciliation process that reverses his 

attempts to marginalize Sunnis. Is he willing to do that? Will he 

ever be willing to do that and how does this proceed if he doesn’t? 

And I will look forward to the testimony from both of you, and I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We now go to Mr. Ted Deutch of Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 

Trade. 

Mr. POE. Well, he is not the chairman yet, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ted Poe. Excuse me. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I much prefer Florida also, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ISIL is blitzkrieging across the north of Iraq and it has its sights 

set on Baghdad. ISIL is made up of a bunch of bad outlaws, and 

in a hearing I held on this issue last week, our witnesses were 

unanimous in the belief that Prime Minister Maliki just cannot 

lead Iraq out of this crisis. He needs to go, the sooner the better. 

Also the Iranian influence needs to end in the Iraqi Government. 

The United States should not strengthen Maliki’s hand by providing unconditional military assistance. That is not the answer. I 

want to know what the administration’s strategic plan is to prevent 

the rise of ISIL. What is the plan, if any? Mending badly damaged 

relations with the Saudis and the Jordanians would be a good place 

to start. 

And finally, the MEK are still held hostage in Iraq. I want to 

know why we have so far failed to settle them in third countries 

including our own. While the U.S. has dithered, people in Liberty 

and Ashraf have been murdered. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Brad Sherman from California, 

ranking member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We see emerging from Beirut to Basra an infertile 

crescent where militias loyal to ethnic or religious groups are more 

powerful than governments, where there is warfare, and even when 

there is peace it is an unstable peace with militias in real control 

no matter what the map says about nation states. It is a three-way 

contest at least between the moderate Sunni, the Shiite alliance 

and extremist Sunni. 

I believe that the Shiite alliance led by Iran is the greater threat 

to the United States. This does not mean that we should not seek 

to weaken ISIS. Maliki is not a good guy just because we installed 

him. His approach to governing is as responsible as any other factor for ISIS’ emergence, and in the absence of ISIS pressure he 

would not have changed at all. Now we need a new Prime Miniser 

in Iraq. A distant second best would be some sort of radically 

changed Maliki platform. 

Maliki allows his airspace to be used for planes flying to Syria 

from Iran carrying weapons and thugs. He has been increasingly 

dependent on Iran. We do not want to be his air force. We do not 

want to see ISIS expand. We have got a tough problem. 

Chairman ROYCE. Indeed. We are joined this morning by the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran, Mr. Brett McGurk, 

6

and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Ms. Elissa Slotkin. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. It is Elissa Slotkin. 

Chairman ROYCE. Elissa Slotkin. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Elissa. 

Prior to his current assignment, Mr. McGurk served as a special 

advisor to the National Security Staff and a senior advisor to Ambassadors Ryan Crocker, Christopher Hill, and James Jeffrey in 

Baghdad. He also served as a lead negotiator and coordinator during bilateral talks with the Iraqi Government in 2008. 

Since July 2013, Elissa Slotkin has been performing the duties 

of the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Previously, Ms. Slotkin worked at the State Department on Iraq policy 

and served on the National Security Council Staff as director of 

Iraq. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements will be 

made part of the record. Members will have 5 calendar days to submit statements or questions or any extraneous materials that they 

wish to put into the record. And Mr. McGurk, if you would please 

summarize your remarks, we will have you testify first. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRETT MCGURK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR IRAQ AND IRAN, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. MCGURK. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and members of this committee. I want to 

thank you for inviting me to discuss the situation in Iraq with a 

focus on the U.S. response since the Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant, or ISIL, attacked Mosul nearly 7 weeks ago. 

Let me first review the bidding on why this matters, as this committee well knows. ISIL is al-Qaeda. It may have changed its 

name, it may have broken with senior al-Qaeda leadership such as 

Ayman al-Zawahiri, but it is al-Qaeda in its doctrine, ambition, and 

increasingly, in its threat to U.S. interests. In fact, it is worse than 

al-Qaeda. Should there be any question about the intentions of this 

group, simply read what its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi says. 

And it is important to pay attention to what he says because we 

cannot risk underestimating the goals, capacity, and reach of this 

organization. 

Baghdadi, in May 2011, eulogized the death of Osama bin Laden 

and promised a violent response. ISIL training camps in Syria are 

named after Osama bin Laden. In his audio statements, Baghdadi 

regularly issues veiled threats against the United States promising 

a direct confrontation. And in his feud with al-Zawahiri, Baghdadi 

clearly is seeking to lead the global jihad. 

Additionally, ISIL is no longer simply a terrorist organization. It 

is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state 

through the Tigris and Euphrates valley in what is now Syria and 

Iraq. It now controls much of eastern Syria. In January, in Iraq it 

moved into Anbar Province taking control of Fallujah, and, on June 

10th, it moved on Mosul. 

I arrived in Erbil, about 80 kilometers east of Mosul, on June 

7th, and I will begin there. In meetings with local officials from 

7

Mosul and with Kurdish officials on June 7th, we received early indications that ISIL was moving in force from Syria into Iraq and 

staging forces in western Mosul. We immediately asked and received permission from Kurdish leaders to deploy peshmerga forces 

in the eastern side of the city, but the government of Baghdad did 

not share the same sense of urgency, and did not approve the deployments. 

Iraqi military commanders promised to send nine brigades of 

force to Mosul in response to our warnings, and we stressed, however, that the forces would not arrive in time. On June 9th, the situation remained extremely tense, and we continued to urge the immediate deployment of additional security forces to protect against 

an ISIL attack from west to east. 

In the early morning of June 10th, ISIL launched a complex suicide bomb attack across a strategic bridge and poured forces into 

the eastern part of the city. Iraqi resistance totally collapsed, which 

led to a panic and a snowballing effect southward through the Tigris valley and through the cities of Tikrit, Samarra and into 

Balad. 

The result was catastrophic. Five Iraqi divisions nearly dissolved, 

and the approaches to Baghdad were immediately under threat. I 

flew to Baghdad first thing that morning with a focus on ensuring 

that our people were safe, and that the northern approaches to the 

city of Baghdad were bolstered. My written testimony sets forth in 

detail the critical elements of our immediate crisis response. 

We first made certain that our people would be safe, including 

contractors working on bases outside of Baghdad who were evacuated with the help of the Iraqi air force. At the Embassy and the 

airport we rebalanced staff to manage the crisis, and brought in additional Department of Defense resources to ensure the security of 

our facilities. 

In parallel, importantly, and at the President’s direction, we 

worked to urgently to improve our intelligence picture throughout 

western and north central Iraq, surging surveillance flights from 

one per month to nearly 50 per day; establishing joint operations 

centers and deploying special operations forces to assess Iraqi units 

particularly around the capital of Baghdad. These intelligence and 

security initiatives were undertaken in parallel with regional diplomacy led by Secretary Kerry to better focus attention on this serious threat. 

We finally sought to stabilize the Iraqi political process, recognizing that this attack took place at the most vulnerable moment 

in that process following national elections that were held on April 

30th in which nearly 14 million Iraqis voted, but before the formation of a new government. This process of forming a new government remains extremely challenging but it now has some traction. 

A new speaker of Parliament was chosen last week, overwhelmingly with the support of all major communities in Iraq, and Iraqis 

are now proceeding along the constitutional timeline to choose a 

new President and Prime Miniser. The current situation in Iraq remains extremely, extremely serious. 

ISIL remains in control of Mosul and it is targeting all Iraqis—

Sunni, Shia, Christian, Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, Shabaks and everybody who disagrees with its twisted vision of a 7th century caVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\072314\88829 SHIRL
8

liphate. It is also joined in an unholy alliance with militant wing 

of the former Ba’ath Party known as the Naqshbandi network, and 

with some former insurgent groups such as the Islamic Army of 

Iraq. 

Going forward, the Iraqis, with our support, must seek to split 

the latter groups from ISIL and isolate ISIL from other hardcore 

militant groups from the population. The platforms that we have 

established through the immediate crisis response are now providing additional information to inform the President and our national security team as we develop options to further protect our 

interests in Iraq. 

Any future decisions in this regard will be made in full consultations with this committee and the Congress. Any efforts we are to 

take, moreover, must be in conjunction with Iraqi efforts to isolate 

ISIL from the population. This is because, while we have a very serious counterterrorism challenge in Iraq, Iraq has a very serious 

counterinsurgency challenge and the two are inextricably linked. 

Based on my last 7 weeks on the ground in Iraq, there is now 

a clear recognition by Iraqis from all communities that substantial 

reforms must be undertaken and undertaken urgently. This will require the formation of a new government together with the restructuring of the security services. 

The emerging consensus in Iraq, which we can fully support, is 

a functioning federalism consisting with Iraq’s Constitution, adaptive to the new realities on the ground, and based on the following 

five principles. First, local citizens must be in the lead in securing 

local areas. Second, local citizens defending their communities, 

however, must be provided full state benefits and resources, perhaps modeled along the lines of a national guard type force structure to secure provincial areas, and areas in which ISIL is seeking 

to gain further footholds. 

Third, the Iraqi army should focus on Federal functions such as 

protecting international borders and rarely deploy inside cities. It 

should however provide overwatch support for local forces where 

they confront ISIL, which is able to overmatch tribal forces in 

areas such as Ninewah and Anbar Province. Fourth, there must be 

close cooperation between local, regional, and national security 

services to gradually reduce operational space for ISIL, particularly 

in Ninewah Province. 

And finally, the Federal Government, through its new Parliament and a new cabinet, which will be established, must work 

diligently on a package of reforms to address legitimate grievances 

from all communities, and ensure adequate resources to restructure 

security services. These five principles could begin to address many 

of the core grievances in the Sunni majority areas of Iraq while 

also, importantly, denying space for ISIL to operate and thereby 

protect the Shia majority and other vulnerable groups from ISIL 

attacks. 

Restoring stability and degrading ISIL will require smart, integrated central or regional, and provincial approaches led by a new 

Iraqi Government with an appropriate level of support and assistance. I can report that Iraqi leaders from all communities have 

asked for this assistance in implementing such a program, and 

General Austin, commander of CENTCOM, will be in Iraq tomorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\072314\88829 SHIRL
9

row to further assess the situation, and discuss concrete ways in 

which our assistance might be effective. 

This model of a functioning federalism is achievable and is essential if we hope to deny space for ISIL within the borders of Iraq. 

I look forward to discussing more details in the answers of your 

questions, and once again I want to thank this committee for allowing me the opportunity to address you here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGurk follows:]

10


88829a-1.eps
11


88829a-2.eps
12


88829a-3.eps
13


88829a-4.eps
14


88829a-5.eps
15


88829a-6.eps
16


88829a-7.eps
17


88829a-8.eps
18


88829a-9.eps
19


88829a-10.eps
20


88829a-11.eps
21


88829a-12.eps
22

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Elissa? 

STATEMENT OF MS. ELISSA SLOTKIN, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Thank you. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member 

Engel, distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to come and talk about the Department of Defense role 

particularly. I won’t cover too much ground other than to just foot 

stomp the point that Brett has made. 

The U.S. really does have a vital national security interest in ensuring that Iraq or any other country does not become a safe haven 

for terrorists who could threaten the U.S. homeland, U.S. citizens, 

U.S. interests abroad, partners or allies. As the President has said, 

ISIL’s advance across Iraqi territory in recent weeks and particularly its ability to continue to establish a safe haven in the region 

poses a threat to U.S. interests and to the greater Middle East. 

And we do not restrict that view just to the specific geographic 

boundaries that are on the map. Just to go over the things that the 

Department of Defense is doing, the situation on the ground as 

Brett described is extremely complex and fluid. We are therefore 

taking a very responsible, deliberate and flexible approach to the 

crisis. But I do want to be clear, there will not be an exclusively 

military solution to the threat posed by ISIL. Iraqis must do the 

heavy lifting. In the meantime, the Department of Defense remains 

postured should the President decide to use military force as part 

of a broader strategy. 

Our immediate goals as announced on June 19th, are 1) to protect U.S. people and property in Iraq; 2) to gain a better understanding of how we might train, advise and assist the Iraqi security forces should we decide to do so; and number 3) to expand our 

understanding particularly via intelligence of ISIL. 

All three are critical to any future U.S. strategy vis-a`-vis Iraq, 

and to that end we have done the following things. One, as Brett 

mentioned we have added forces to protect our people. The safety 

of U.S. citizens and personnel throughout Iraq is our highest priority. The Department of Defense is meeting all the requests that 

have come in from the Department of State for security, extra security for our Embassy and at the airport. 

As described in our War Powers Notifications we have sent a 

Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team—we call that a FAST team, a 

crisis response element—and additional military assets and personnel to reinforce security at the diplomatic facilities. The Secretary of Defense also ordered the amphibious transport ship, USS 

Mesa Verde, into the Arabian Gulf. Its presence adds to the other 

naval ships that are there including the U.S. aircraft carrier, USS 

George HW Bush, and provides the President additional options to 

protect American citizens and interests in Iraq should he choose to 

use them, as Brett mentioned, ISR, Intelligence, Surveillance and 

Reconnaissance assets. 

So as part of our ramping up effort we have significantly surged 

ISR capabilities into Iraq, as Brett mentioned, over 50 sorties a day 

compared to one a month in previous months. At the request of the 

23

Government of Iraq, we have ramped it up as well as our information sharing initiatives with the Iraqis. These sorties over Iraq provide us a much better understanding of ISIL operations and disposition and allow us to help the ISF counter ISIL. 

We are now capable of around-the-clock coverage of Iraq and 

have been focusing particularly on ISIL controlled activities—territory, excuse me—as well as in and around Baghdad. U.S. assessment teams and joint operation centers, as you know we have put 

in nearly 300 additional U.S. military advisors who have gone in 

specifically to assess and evaluate how we might better train, advise and assist the Iraqi security forces. 

These are small teams of special forces members who are working to evaluate the Iraqi security forces particularly in and around 

Baghdad. They are armed for self defense but they do not have an 

offensive mission. The two joint operation centers as Brett also 

mentioned, one in Baghdad and one in northern Iraq in Erbil, have 

been established to help coordinate and support efforts on the 

ground, give us a better picture of what is happening. 

One quick word about the assessments. I know that is of interest. Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey received the draft assessment from CENTCOM last week. Department leaders are taking a deliberate approach in reviewing this pretty lengthy assessment. These assessments will inform recommendations to the 

President. Meanwhile, additional assessing work goes on in and 

around Baghdad with respect to the developing situation on the 

ground. 

In closing, I just want to reiterate again that we believe that we 

have a vital security interest in ensuring that Iraq does not become 

a permanent safe haven for terrorists who could threaten the U.S. 

homeland. Look forward to your questions to that end. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Slotkin follows:]

24


88829b-1.eps
25


88829b-2.eps
26


88829b-3.eps
27

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I thank both of our witnesses. Before 

going to questions, I would like to welcome our newest member 

who is here today with us and that is Congressman Curt Clawson 

representing the 9th (sic) district of Florida. While he is the newest 

member of the House, he is not new to international issues as demonstrated by his fluency in four languages and the time he has resided in six countries abroad. 

His previous work as CEO of a global manufacturing company 

and his broad understanding of different cultures will be an asset, 

we believe, in the committee’s work to promote freedom and U.S. 

interests around the world. And I would also note that his appointment brings our committee delegation from the state of Florida to 

seven members, second only to the eight members hailing from the 

great state of California. 

In terms of questioning, if we could start now with Mr. McGurk. 

As I mentioned in my remarks, you testified before the committee 

in February, and you told us of ISIS’ plan to take control of western Iraq and to challenge the Iraqi’s Government control of Baghdad. And you reported that it was the administration’s objective to 

prevent ISIS from ever having a sanctuary in western Iraq again. 

There were countless other warning signs, and I know that you 

as Deputy Assistant Secretary and others in the U.S. Government 

were sounding the alarm. And your testimony was absolutely correct. We did see this coming, and that makes it even more troubling that the administration didn’t do what was necessary to prevent ISIS from taking over such a large swath of Iraq. And specifically, the Iraqis asked multiple times for drone air strikes against 

clearly identifiable ISIS targets in the desert. 

Someone in our Embassy brought this up as well. The agitation 

was for strikes on terror camps, and we know the administration 

rejected those requests. Now no one likes Maliki, but given this 

ISIS threat and given the administration’s stated goal of preventing an ISIS sanctuary in western Iraq, why didn’t we support 

at least in this limited way attacks that would have done damage 

to these columns or to the encampments? 

Mr. MCGURK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me try to correct 

the record on a few things. And again I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee in February, and I think 

what I described was when we really started to see this problem 

emerge over the course of last summer. 

And the first principle and the President’s policy is that we want 

to enable local actors to be able to secure their sovereign space as 

best we can. That was also the desire of the Iraqi Government. The 

Iraqi Government wanted to act on its own with our assistance in 

enabling functions. We worked through the summer and fall 

through our own surveillance, and also by showing the Iraqis how 

they could use their capability to be able to target some of these 

sites. 

They have a platform called a King Air which does persistent intelligence. They have a platform called a Caravan Aircraft which 

can fire Hellfire missiles. And we were able, with our information, 

to be able to kind of jerry-rig those systems in a way that they 

were quite effective, and they were effective against those camps. 

28

The formal request from the Iraqis for direct U.S. air support did 

not come in a formal way until May, and it came on a visit with 

General Austin. And I was there with General Austin during that 

visit, and then a subsequent phone call between the Prime Minister and the Vice President. And since that time obviously we have 

been looking at various options. 

But the first principle was to enable the Iraqis to deny safe havens and camps and sanctuaries within their sovereign space. 

They, of course, faced a significant problem across the Syrian border, which was increasingly in control of ISIS as of over the last 

3 months of last year, and the border increasingly became under 

threat. 

But the first principle was to enable the Iraqis. That was something the Iraqis also wanted and that was through the Hellfire 

missiles, through the Caravan Aircrafts, and through the persistent ISR. But the formal request for direct U.S. air support came 

in May. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, let me just say that we already have experience in Afghanistan with the fact that when you are dealing 

with suicide bombers or people who want to martyr themselves in 

the attack, the one thing on the ground, for example, the Afghans 

are looking for our air support. 

Traditionally, secular militaries run away in the face of people 

trying to lose their own life in an attack and they call in air support. It has been a problem. I mean I have talked to the Italians 

about this. What do they want? What did they ask for? Drones 

above that could give air support for their troops in Afghanistan. 

So when you have got a situation like this, yes, you have got 

Hellfire missiles but the Iraqis were trying to fire these from retrofitted Cessna airplanes. In an environment like that when you see 

this coming and you know that air support, psychologically, for infantry on the ground in this kind of an environment has been such 

an issue in Afghanistan when you are up against jihadists, why 

wouldn’t we? 

It wasn’t just that the request was coming from the Iraqi Government. As I say, some in the Embassy pushed for this. Certainly 

I raised this a number of times. I am just trying to figure out why, 

when you can monitor something with the eyes of a drone that can 

go in and actually see below it that you have in the jeep the flag 

of al-Qaeda waving and a column moving across the desert, why 

that asset wouldn’t be deployed as these troops are coming out of 

Syria, or why you wouldn’t take the encampment and come in and 

take out that encampment. 

I understand that this request went all the way up in the administration and was turned down, and I am trying to get to the bottom of why. 

Mr. MCGURK. Again I want to just answer from my own personal 

recollection, as first, the camps, the Iraqis were very effective 

against the camps with the Hellfires, particularly over the latter 

course of 2013. ISIL kind of poured out of the camps, particularly 

when they started to be hit, and moved into the cities. 

Chairman ROYCE. But again this is with a retrofitted Cessna airplane, at least this is what I understand from the Iraqis that they 

were trying to deal with in order to express that. Can you imagine 

29

how effective it would have been with something, a platform that 

could really deliver something more than a Hellfire? 

Mr. MCGURK. I also just want to correct the record. When the 

request did come in May, the formal request for direct air support, 

that request never went up, and has been denied. In fact, it is still 

under active consideration. There has never been a denial. 

Chairman ROYCE. That is like saying—if I could interrupt you. 

Because I remember Eliot Engel making the point 3 years ago 

about support for the Free Syrian Army when there were no foreign fighters in Syria and him laying out the argument that foreign 

fighters were going to come in the absence if we didn’t support the 

Free Syrian Army. That is like saying, well, that is still under active consideration. 

Well, yes, but after 3 years of not effectively getting engaged in 

a major way, the clock begins to run out and things happen on the 

ground, and that is what has happened with ISIS. We have 

watched it come into a vacuum over a 3-year period, establish itself 

on the border with Iraq, no action being taken against that encampment, no effective support to the Free Syrian Army to do 

something about it, then we watched it go from city to city across 

Iraq without it being hit from the air with drones, despite the requests that I know were being made. This is the reason for, at least 

my part, concern about lack of action here. 

Mr. MCGURK. I was just, on Thursday of last week before flying 

back, I was in our new Joint Operations Center which we set up 

in Baghdad. And I can say that the information we have now on 

these networks is night and day from where it was in May when 

the request from the Iraqis first came in. Therefore the options 

that are being developed for the President will be much more concrete and specific than anything we could have had before, and 

there is a significant risk, Mr. Chairman, of taking any military action without that level of granularity. 

So clearly, when the request came in May, we were not able to 

do anything immediately in any event yet we now have a much 

better picture which will inform eventual decisions from the President, and any decisions in that regard which would be made or 

might be made or considered would be in the full consultation with 

this committee and the Congress. 

Chairman ROYCE. Right. But ISIS now has the treasury of the Central Bank in Mosul. So they have at their disposal probably $1⁄2

billion. 

Mr. MCGURK. They are very good at propaganda. They put out 

that they got $400 million in the first week or so. We don’t think 

that is particularly true, but they are a self-sustaining organization 

and they are flush with resources, cash and equipment, no question. 

Chairman ROYCE. I am out of time. I will go to Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Brett and 

Elissa, thank you for your testimony and for your good work. I 

want to talk a little bit about the division in Iraq or keeping Iraq 

whole. On the one hand when you look at some of these borders 

in the Middle East they were all done by the colonialists, and I 

have often felt that why should we be obligated to maintain those 

borders? Iraq is not a real state. It is was slapped together. You 

30

have got the Kurds, you have got the Shia and the Sunni who really don’t want to be part of each other, and so particularly the 

Kurds who have autonomy now, practically have their own nation 

and probably will proclaim it very shortly. 

So my sympathies would be to say to the Kurds, well, why 

should we suck you back into Iraq? You have the right to your own 

nation. And frankly, nobody has ever explained to me why the Palestinians are entitled to self-determination but some other Kurds 

are not. I don’t think that is fair, quite frankly. 

On the other hand, we are told that if the Kurds break off there 

is practically no way that you could stop the radicals from dominating what is left of Iraq and that the Kurds provide some sort 

of a counterbalance to prevent the radicals from gaining control. I 

would like to hear from both of you what your views are on keeping 

Iraq intact or not. 

Mr. MCGURK. Let me address that briefly and I can turn to my 

colleague Elissa. As I described in the testimony of a functioning 

federalism concept, it is a concept that is under the Iraqi Constitution and that would recognize a very substantial devolution of powers. There is a recognition in Iraq that, from the center out, you 

are never going to fully control all of these areas, and particularly 

given the capacity of ISIL, and there is also recognition that locals 

alone and tribal forces alone cannot defeat ISIL. They need the 

support and resources of the central state. 

So, therefore, a functioning federalism concept which is under 

the Constitution is really the model that is an emerging consensus 

within Iraq. The Kurdish region now shares about a 1,000 kilometer border with what is effectively ISIS. We are in active conversations with the Kurds and the Kurdish regional government to 

make sure that they are able to manage that problem. 

They also face a very serious strategic, geostrategic environment 

given just the geography of the region, but believe me, we are in 

a very active conversation with the Kurdistan region about their 

future in Iraq. But significantly, it is important to recall that on 

April 30th, 14 million Iraqis voted in a national election. That included about a 60-percent turnout in Ninawa Province, a 50-percent turnout in Anbar Province. 

There is a 328-member Parliament which has just convened. 

Today was the first session with the new Speaker of Parliament, 

a very moderate, pragmatic Sunni leader, an emerging Sunni leader who secured the support of all political blocks. And today in the 

Parliament, again its first session, they all stood together, all 

groups, to denounce the very horrific tragedy inflicted by ISIL 

against Christians in Mosul. The country, overall, the people do not 

want to divide into three different countries, or three different 

states. There is no easy solution for that. When you game it out, 

actually, the consequences are quite serious. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. McGurk, it is my feeling—correct me if I am 

wrong—that the Kurds, consensus among the Kurds is that they 

want to separate from Iraq. 

Mr. MCGURK. Yes, the Kurds, there are a lot of Kurds that say 

to me, I think at the heart of every Kurd it wants an independent 

state. There is no question, and I think we have to recognize that. 

We also have to recognize that the Kurds are among our very closVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\072314\88829 SHIRL
31

est friends in the region. We have to have a very close, close partnership with the Kurds, and we do. 

But there is also a pragmatic element given the realities, given 

the economic realities, and other things in which we want to work 

very closely with the Kurds on their future. And I think the future 

within the constitutional structure, the Kurds right now, for example, are choosing their nominee to be the next President of Iraq, 

and we hope to have that sorted out over the coming days, but 

again within the constitutional framework. 

And we have had conversations with Masoud Barzani and others 

just over the last week when I was in Erbil, and then 

Sulaymaniyah with the leadership of the Patriotic Union of 

Kurdistan about their future, about how we can work with them 

on their future, and about a future within the constitutional framework. And at least in the near term I think that is the best way 

to go. 

Mr. ENGEL. I just don’t feel that it is fair to hold the Kurds hostage. Because we have unfortunately screwed up things in Iraq and 

everything is falling to pieces, we are essentially saying to the 

Kurds, you know what, you have to be the glue that keeps Iraq together and therefore we are going to deny you your aspirations. I 

am not sure that is quite fair. 

Ms. Slotkin? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So I will just speak to it from the security aspects. 

Given the ISIL threat, the strongest single blunt to that threat 

would be a strong, capable Federal Government in Iraq that is actually able to exert control and influence to push back on that 

threat. And while, I guess, it is sort of, there has long been this 

idea that Iraq can split into three pieces, I just sort of ask the 

question: Who is in charge of that western and north central part 

of Iraq in that model? 

So while I think, as Brett described, there certainly are lots of 

folks in the Kurdish regions who have aspirations of independence, 

think about what that means in that neighborhood and territory 

that they are left in if you don’t have a strong, capable government 

in Baghdad that is able to blunt these ISIL threats. 

They have got Syria, they have got the situation on their southern border right there. They have got Iran on the other side. That 

is a tough neighborhood. So from a security point of view, the single best blunt, frankly, to both ISIL and to a strong, dominant Iranian influence in Iraq is a strong, capable Federal Government 

based in Baghdad. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I was going to ask you about Iran, but I see 

my time is up. Let me just very quickly say that I hope that the 

United States does not think that it can be lulled into some kind 

of partnership with Iran in Iraq. There are some people who feel 

that because our interests may come together, converge, that 

maybe we should partner with Iran. I couldn’t disagree more. 

I think that Iran is major, the lead supporter of terrorism in the 

world. I think we look at what is happening now with Israel in 

Gaza and all the weapons of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization provided by Iran, and I just think it would be a tragic error 

if we somehow thought Iran was a viable partner in Iraq. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

32

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In 

your excellent opening statement, Mr. Chairman, you had said 

about Mr. McGurk that in February you said that we must ensure 

that ISIL can’t gain safe haven in western Iraq and that you were 

confident that Iraq will deny them this. We all know how that 

turned out just a few months later and ISIL took over most of 

western Iraq. 

How could your assessment have been so far off? How did Iraq 

lose this territory? Why didn’t we respond to their calls for help? 

Your testimony from February shows that there was some serious 

disconnect within the administration on the reality of the threat in 

Iraq, or we have just been completely failing in addressing it. You 

stated that the U.S. began to accelerate some of our foreign military assistance programs and information sharing to get a better 

intelligence picture of Iraq. 

Last month Secretary Kerry said nobody expected ISIL to capture Mosul. Even if our foreign military assistance had not quite 

kicked in yet, shouldn’t our information and intelligence gathering 

efforts have been able to get a better assessment, a more accurate 

assessment of Samarra and Mosul? And it has been widely reported that while taking control of Mosul, ISIL seized rather large 

quantities of U.S. supplied foreign military assistance and made off 

with nearly $1⁄2 billion from the local banks in addition to tanks 

and Humvees that were taken. U.S. officials were quick to deny the 

claims of ISIL that they captured advanced weaponry such as 

Black Hawk helicopters. 

Did they capture any Caravan Aircraft with advanced weapon 

platforms and did they take any other advanced weaponry like 

MANPADS? U.S. military equipment and hundreds of millions of 

dollars aren’t the only items that ISIL has seized. The Iraqi Government confirmed that ISIL took uranium from Mosul University. 

What is the status of that uranium? What could ISIL use that for? 

And on the Christian community, we have seen that the ancient 

Christian community in Iraq is under siege by these Islamist militants. Once a vibrant and sizable community, now over 1 million 

Christians have been forced to flee their homes and communities 

or be killed. Their homes are being marked by ISIL and they are 

being given an ultimatum to flee, to convert or to be murdered. 

In February, Mr. McGurk, you said you were trying to make sure 

that the Christian community had the resources to protect itself 

and that we had actually made progress. It is clear that we haven’t 

made any progress. We cannot protect them. So what are we doing 

now to help protect the few remaining Christians and their religious sites and artifacts? 

And as Ranking Member Engel had pointed out, are we on any 

level, directly or indirectly, coordinating with Iran or Syria over our 

Iraq policy, or ISIL, and does the administration believe that 

Maliki must go? Yes or no? Thank you, sir, and gentle lady. 

Mr. MCGURK. Let me try to address some of these in order. First, 

the discussion we had, the very good discussion we had in February was focused on Anbar Province, and I will just bring you up 

to speed on where we are in Anbar Province. At the time, Fallujah 

was in control of ISIL. Fallujah is still in control of ISIL. I made 

33

clear then that our advice to the Iraqis was not to move into 

Fallujah, it was to set a cordon. And that cordon remains in place 

although it is fairly loose. 

Second, we wanted them to hold the provincial capital of Ramadi. 

So far they are still holding the provincial capital of Ramadi. What 

has changed significantly in Anbar is a very sophisticated attack 

that happened late last month on Al-Qaim, the strategic border 

crossing in Anbar, which again proves that ISIL is really an army. 

It is a militarily capable force. It was a multiple day assault. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And to your written testimony, ISIL also 

generates $12 million a month through illicit business in Mosul. 

That is a lot of money for terrorists. Quite an economic entity. 

Mr. MCGURK. They are a self-sustaining organization. And what 

we had seen in Mosul for some time was a bit of a modus vivendi 

in which they were in control of the city at night but they were not 

openly in control. And that was why the assault into Mosul last 

month did catch everybody off guard. 

We saw some indications of it coming. As I said, we had sources 

on the ground who told us about 3 days before that they were seeing indications of it coming. But we did not envision the assault 

nor the collapse of security forces up there. I will say I have had 

a number of conversations with the——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am out of time. I apologize. I threw a lot 

of questions at you so that you could give me some written responses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I am out of time. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Albio Sires, the ranking member 

on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for our witnesses to have been here. Ms. Slotkin, I have been here since 2006, 

and I have come to hate the word ‘‘assess and train.’’ We seem to 

be assessing and training Iraqi soldiers, assessing the situation in 

Iraq, and I think the situation is worse than ever after spending 

billions of dollars. We train an army, they fire a shot at them, they 

run for the hills. Where did we go wrong with these people? We put 

all this money into training them and they can’t even defend a section of their own country? I just, it is mind boggling to me. 

Now we have this situation where we have ISIS moving in all 

sorts of direction. I am concerned that in Jordan, for example, we 

have about 2 million refugees, and if we have a situation where 

they destabilize Jordan, the whole area it is just a mess. What did 

we do with all that money that we put to train all these people? 

Where are these trained people that—and I have been here since 

2006 so it is not just this administration. I am talking from 2006 

on. 

Can you just, or Mr. McGurk, can you also assist me in understanding this? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Yes, so let me address the issue of the training. I 

think anyone who has watched the news or been a part of our efforts in Iraq was disappointed by what we saw in Mosul. And I 

think the biggest thing that we looked at and we were surprised 

by was the dissolving of, frankly, four Iraqi divisions up and 

around that area and some areas where they did not fight, in contrast to western Iraq where they were putting up a serious fight. 

34

And rather than a lack of capability, I think what we believe is 

that they just lacked either the will or the direction to fight. So either they, as Brett described there was a snowballing effect and 

they out of fear stripped off their uniforms and turned, or they 

waited for direction from Baghdad that did not come and therefore 

departed. 

We don’t believe they lacked a basic capability. It is that at the 

end of the day they did not have the will or direction to fight in 

that part of the area. That is critical for any future plans we decide 

to pursue in Iraq. We have to understand whether the partner in 

Iraq that we would be working with has the will, the direction, the 

capacity to fight, and that is why we have folks on the ground right 

now trying to figure that out. But I mean it is not that it is not 

frustrating. It, of course, is. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, we spend billions of dollars on a group of people 

that are not willing to fight. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I don’t think we can say that about all the Iraqi 

security forces. We see them attempting to take offensive action in 

Iraq as recently as this week. So it is not a blanket statement you 

can make. As Brett said, in western Iraq there is still areas that 

are——

Mr. SIRES. But there were four divisions though. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. There were four divisions. That is correct. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. McGurk? 

Mr. MCGURK. Let me just add a couple points. First, the leadership and the command in Mosul of these units have all been fired. 

We immediately were in conversations with Iraqi leaders, security 

and political leaders, in the wake of Mosul and recommended a 

wholesale change in the command. New commanders have been appointed. Those are commanders we know very well, they are also 

quite effective. 

Iraqis, just in the past month in terms of fighting units, they 

have suffered almost 1,000 killed in action, and they are holding 

a line, and they are beginning to conduct some very rudimentary 

offensive operations to clear some highways. I will not underestimate the extreme challenge here, but what we saw in Mosul was 

not indicative of the force as a whole. 

We are finding that the units, many of them are balanced. There 

is about an average—I was just on the phone with our folks out 

there today. The composition of the force is about 55 percent Shia, 

about 23 percent Sunni, by and large, and what we have found is 

that within the units themselves there is no fracturing among sectarian lines within the units themselves. 

Now, there are very incompetent and incapable units with very 

poor leadership, there is no question we found those. But we have 

also found extremely capable, extremely proficient and extremely 

dedicated units, and it is in our interest, I believe, to invest in 

those units. We should not write off what happened in Mosul and 

write off the entire security force overall, because that would not 

be either an accurate response to the overall situation and picture 

we are seeing nor, I think, would that be in our long term interest. 

Mr. SIRES. Can you talk a little bit about the direction they are 

going maybe toward Jordan and what are we doing to offset that? 

35

Ms. SLOTKIN. So obviously, particularly the news a couple of 

weeks ago about ISIL taking ground near the Jordanian border 

was we all look at that very closely particularly the Jordanians. I 

think what is important to remember is the Jordanians are a very 

solid, capable force that is laser focused on this issue. 

They have moved troops to the border in order to reinforce their 

side of the border, and then the United States has a robust relationship with Jordan that is only strengthened, frankly, in the 

wake of everything that has gone on in Syria. So there is quite a 

significant amount of interaction on a daily basis with the Jordanians, but we obviously watch that with keen interest. 

Mr. SIRES. I am sorry I have run out of time. But I wanted to 

ask you about Camp Liberty, but I ran out of time. Chairman, 

thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will let the witness respond to your question there. 

Mr. SIRES. Can you talk about a little bit about Iran using this 

situation to attack Camp Liberty? 

Mr. MCGURK. Very briefly, we are watching Camp Liberty extremely closely. It remains our goal to get all of the members and 

residents of Camp Liberty out of Iraq. We are working that extremely hard. We have some leads with other countries and third 

countries. We also are going to do all that we can to make sure 

that they remain safe. 

And I can assure you that in all my conversations with Iraqi 

leaders, even in the midst of this very urgent crisis I raised the 

issue of Camp Liberty in making sure that the residents there remain safe. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Certainly. We go now to Mr. Chris Smith of 

New Jersey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

very important hearing, and welcome to our two distinguished witnesses. Let me ask you if I could, some experts argue that 10,000, 

at least 10,000 U.S. counterterrorism forces should have remained 

in Iraq but the President and Maliki both chose otherwise. In retrospect, did that contribute in any way to ISIL’s emergence and the 

current situation on the ground as it exists today? 

Secondly, Secretary McGurk, you said that a formal request for 

assistance was received in May. And my question would be whether any informal requests through other avenues including from the 

Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. made before that and how do you define formal request? I mean if certain individuals are asking for 

help, what modality needs to be employed in order to say that they 

have actually asked? 

Thirdly, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as we all know, was in United 

States’ custody and was released. When he was released he told the 

American guards who were from New York, so that is perhaps 

what he meant or could have had the double meaning of we will 

come get you 9/11-like, he said, ‘‘I will see you in New York.’’ We 

know that he now as emerged as the leader of ISIL, or ISIS, and 

obviously has posed an enormous threat to life and liberty of Iraqis, 

to Christians, and perhaps even to the United States. 

36

And my question is, especially in light of what has happened 

with Guantanamo, where as a result of the 2012 intelligence legislation it was required for the administration to tell us how many 

of those who were released from Gitmo went back into battle—and 

the report suggested that of the 614 that were released, 104 were 

confirmed to go back into the battle against Americans and our allies. Seventy-four probably went back but they couldn’t confirm it, 

for a total of 178 which is a huge number of potential American 

and allies’ death to service members, and we had them in custody. 

So the question there with regards to Bakr al-Baghdadi, did we 

in any way see this coming? Why was he released to be allowed to 

go and re-form or to form ISIS and to do the terrible things they 

are doing today? 

Mr. MCGURK. Let me, first, on the formal, I am not playing with 

words on formal or informal request. The conversation, I can just, 

it kind of goes like this. You will sometimes hear from an Iraqi official they want direct U.S. air strikes. You then talk about this is 

what that would mean, access to your air space, et cetera, and then 

it is like, well, wait, let us find a way for us to do this on our own. 

And so that is why we worked with the Caravans and the Hellfires. 

The formal request very clearly—access to air space, direct U.S. air 

support—came in May. Very clear and unequivocal, that came in 

May. 

I do not have information on the release of Baghdadi, but I can 

obviously get back to you on that. And again, in terms of 2011, I 

can just speak to my own experience on this. I was out of government. I came into the process extremely late. We had a legal requirement that SOFA would have to go through the entire Iraqi 

Parliament, and I can report from my own experience that none of 

the political blocks in the Parliament were going to support that 

request given our own requirements, so therefore it was just not 

possible for us to stay. 

The rise of AQI, as I think I testified in my last hearing here, 

it really regenerated in Syria and on the battlefields and battlegrounds of Syria. And so that is where we saw the massive regeneration, the massive influx in foreign fighters, and then we started 

to see it come back into Iraq over the course of last spring and 

summer. So that was really what led to the regeneration of alQaeda in Iraq which we now know as ISIL. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Secretary, if I could ask you—and I appreciate 

that and if you could get back on al-Baghdadi I would appreciate 

that. The Iraqi requests started coming in in August 2013 for assistance. Is that true? 

Mr. MCGURK. Yes, for enhanced assistance in terms of sharing 

information, in terms of enabling some of their units, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Did we respond to it in an affirmative way? 

Mr. MCGURK. We responded immediately. We set up intelligence 

fusion sharing centers. We helped with the Hellfire missiles precision strikes. We helped them in terms of training forces on the 

ground, the special operations——

Mr. SMITH. Because I am almost out of time, are there items or 

requests that went unfulfilled? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again other than this most recent request in May, 

in fact, in January we got a list of requirements and things that 

37

they wanted. We have fulfilled every single piece of that list. And 

I can answer in writing a very detailed response. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could, I would appreciate that very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida, subcommittee 

ranking member of Middle East and North Africa. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk 

about our regional partners and it is a really simple question. We 

talked a lot about Jordan and the threats that Jordan faces, and, 

Ms. Slotkin, you spoke about that. And Chairman Ros-Lehtinen 

and I were there recently and we appreciate that. 

I would like to move beyond Jordan and talk about our regional 

partners in the Gulf and the question is really simple. Who is concerned, what are they doing about it, and who may be concerned 

but is not helping and perhaps may even be making things more 

difficult? 

Mr. MCGURK. I will let Elissa handle some of this. I can just say 

the conversation has shifted, I think, over the last 18 months 

from—there used to be a conversation when you would talk about 

this rise of very extreme, virulent al-Qaeda type groups that in a 

second war, we will be able to take care of those groups once Assad 

is gone. 

I think the conversation now is that, obviously, these things 

would have to be done in parallel. There is a really renewed focus 

on ISIL. Secretary Kerry, when he was in Iraq last month, immediately then went to Paris and held a meeting with the Foreign 

Ministers of Jordan, UAE and Saudi Arabia, and then went on to 

Riyadh. And we found a really new emphasis, a new coalescence 

in terms of views of how we have to go about this very serious 

threat of ISIL. 

ISIL took a town in Anbar Province called Rutba, which has an 

open highway. It is a very small town. They don’t have a large 

presence there, but it has an open highway to Saudi Arabia, and 

that is obviously a very significant development. So the Saudis are 

very focused on this as are the Emiratis, and certainly, certainly 

as are the Jordanians, and we work with them every single day on 

it. 

And the cooperation we have had in terms of Iraq, in trying to 

think about how to squeeze ISIL, squeeze its resources, its manpower, is at a new level now than it was, I think, even 6 to 8 weeks 

ago. 

Elissa? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So I will just add to that that the folks that we 

have added, the Department of Defense have added into Iraq, have 

come from the CENTCOM region and we are in regular consultation with all of the Gulf countries, particularly those who host our 

troops. Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and of course Saudi Arabia, I have 

seen, have pledged significant amounts of humanitarian aid for the 

situation in Iraq. So I do think people are aware of it. 

And I think the thing that is critical going forward on all of these 

questions is that we are going to need a regional approach to this 

problem. There is no way—the ISIL threat, it is like air in a balloon. If you squeeze one part all of the air goes to the other side, 

you squeeze that one. So we will need all of the partners in the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\072314\88829 SHIRL
38

gion who are, like anyone, concerned about this issue to play a role 

in countering this threat. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Can I just follow up? If I understood you correctly, 

and just to characterize your comments, the Emiratis and the 

Saudis are very concerned and are doing something about it to be 

helpful. The Qataris are aware of it. Can we talk a little more particularly, frankly, in light of—and Ms. Slotkin, I will direct this to 

you—in light of a very large arms deal that was announced with 

much fanfare, tell me what more the Qataris are doing besides 

being aware of ISIL? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So I know that Secretary Kerry has had a significant amount of phone conversations with all of the Gulf allies on 

how to get more engaged. I don’t think other than remaining in 

close contact with them that there is anything that anyone is doing 

right now because we are still trying to get a handle on the threat 

and what to do about it in a coordinated way. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Are there any funds coming from Qatar or any of 

the other countries to support ISIL or any of the other groups in 

the region? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Yes, I have been asked this question a couple 

times. To our knowledge right now, and again the intelligence community is assessing that no states, regional states are sponsoring 

ISIL now. 

Mr. DEUTCH. That is not what I asked. Right. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I can’t speak in this forum to groups within these 

countries, but the states themselves are not supporting ISIL. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher 

of California, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, 

and Emerging Threats. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Maliki hasn’t done a 

good job, has he? He hasn’t done a good job, has he? He has made 

things worse, hasn’t he? 

Mr. MCGURK. We have serious concerns about the effectiveness 

of the Government of Iraq. I would just add, we had an election on 

April 30th, and they are now establishing a new government. So 

that is where the process stands now, and whether or not the 

Prime Minister can achieve a third term is something that remains 

in question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we have not, however, officially suggested 

that he leave, or have we unofficially suggested to him that it 

might be time for him to visit some of his money in Dubai? 

Mr. MCGURK. Let me also just back up in fairness to the Government of Iraq. They also face a tremendously difficult situation. The 

30 days before they had an election in Iraq there were 53 suicide 

bombers in Iraq blowing up mosques, marketplaces, parades, fairgrounds, playgrounds. Any country facing that level of violence, 

and that is all from ISIL, is going to face extreme difficulty because 

ISIL is trying to tear apart the political fabric of the country. So 

all the leaders are struggling with this extremely difficult situation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will accept that we cannot just blame 

Maliki himself, but he has not provided the leadership that would 

be necessary to overcome what could be inherent problems with 

39

having a country called Iraq made up of that territory and those 

peoples that now compose that territory. That territory was devised 

and put together by European imperialists who decided that would 

be what the country of Iraq would look like. 

Let me just say that as far as I am concerned, the United States 

should not be having to limit itself and limit what solutions we can 

possibly have based on what the British Empire determined 100 

years ago. And it all flows back to those people. So with that said, 

I would hope that we would be open to situations like having a actual Kurdistan exist, maybe a Balochistan as well. There used to 

be a country named Balochistan, and the British decided to cut 

that in two and split that up. 

And the Kurds have always deserved to have their own national 

identity, and until we do I happen to believe that no kind of leadership that we could put into place in Iraq is going to be successful. 

Maybe it is too much, even if Maliki was the best it might not be 

enough because that may be an ungovernable creation that our 

British friends gave us as a present when they exited as world 

leader. 

One other issue that I would like to mention. When you said that 

we are watching very closely what is going on with the MEK and 

Camp Liberty, it is not enough. It is not enough. The last time we 

were watching very closely, and hundreds of those people have 

been murdered. We are talking over the years where we watched 

and the Iraqi army went in and murdered those people. 

And we are looking for someone to take them. Why aren’t we deciding to take them? They are vulnerable. They are people who we 

have had to deal with. Is it our Government that we will, are we 

just—and I know I have a resolution, Mr. Chairman, suggesting 

that we take these people in. They are going to be murdered otherwise, so why are we just watching? Why aren’t we moving beyond 

that and moving them out? 

Mr. MCGURK. We are working, as our senior advisor for MEK 

Resettlement, Jonathan Weiner, is working, he is actually on a 

flight tonight on this issue, working to find again more third country settlement options. One particular lead, we are hoping that a 

country that has already taken a significant number will take more 

and perhaps a substantial amount more. So we are working these 

leads very aggressively and I am happy to follow up with you with 

a more detailed briefing on where that stands. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would be very appreciative if you 

could follow up on those details with me. But also let me, Mr. 

Chairman, just for the record again state it would be better, these 

people have relied on us. We made a deal with them. They have 

provided us some very important intelligence information and activities over the years. 

If other countries will not permit them to come in, it might be 

in our moral interest as well as our interest of having other people 

trust us in the future just to take them into the United States as 

refugees. And if there is any group of people in the world that are 

at risk and are refugees it would be these folks in Camp Liberty. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We go now to 

Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

40

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by 

welcoming a colleague from across the pond. Ian Austin is a Member of Parliament from Great Britain who is here today. Welcome. 

He is part of a program shadowing Members of Congress, and we 

welcome you. 

Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. And I want to 

say first that I think, like most Americans I am very concerned 

about the unfolding situation in Iraq. And the rapid events of ISIS 

is incredibly disturbing, particularly following the loss of more than 

4,000 American lives during Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, I 

think we must also remain mindful, not only of the sacrifices of our 

brave men and women in uniform and the sacrifices they have 

made in Iraq, but the dangers that surround any further military 

involvement. 

It was reported recently that a classified military assessment of 

Iraqi security forces showed deep infiltration by Sunni extremist 

informants and that Shiite forces remain dependent on Shiite militias trained in Iran. And this poses, I believe, a very significant 

risk to U.S. military personnel advising Iraqi security forces. 

The situation in Iraq is a problem that requires a political solution, and in June, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the formation of a new government in Iraq that is inclusive of all parties 

and stakeholders is an essential prerequisite to offensive military 

action by the United States. Secretary Kerry said that it would be 

an act of great irresponsibility to order offensive action without a 

stable government. 

So I have, really, two questions in light of that context and in 

light of your testimony. First, to you, Mr. Secretary. You spoke 

about this functioning federalism which, I think, has some very significant appeal. And my question, really, is what is your assessment of the capacity of the Iraqis to proceed with that sort of 

model, the willingness to proceed particularly since it involves the 

devolution of power, and what are the first, kind of key first steps 

that we should be looking for or we should be supporting for that 

to go forward? 

And then secondly, would you comment on the humanitarian situation in Iraq? We are hearing reports of deliberate targeting of 

women and girls in Iraq, horrific sanitary conditions, and more 

than a 1.2 million Iraqis being displaced. Are international organizations or the Iraqi Government working effectively to mitigate 

these conditions? And if you could talk about kind of what the current humanitarian situation is. 

Mr. MCGURK. I am happy to. First, let me address the humanitarian situation, and also it gets to Congressman Deutch’s question 

on the Saudis because I forgot to mention one thing. 

In the wake of Secretary Kerry’s trip to Riyadh, the Saudis put 

$500 million into the U.N. organizations that are managing the humanitarian response in Iraq. And we work very closely with those 

organizations, and that contribution was both welcome and essential. So it is a point of how we have some coalescence in the region, 

and that was very critical. The humanitarian situation remains 

quite serious, and I can get you all the statistics and everything 

we are doing because I don’t want to take too much of your question time. 

41

In terms of the willingness of a functioning federalism, it is all 

within the Iraqi Constitution, and it is pretty much spelled out. So 

I think there is a growing recognition that a model like this is both 

appealing because it conforms with the new realities on the ground. 

As I said, local actors, tribal actors, are not going to be able to 

defeat ISIL on their own. I have examples of that in my testimony 

where, just over the last 6 weeks, some tribes have risen up to 

fight ISIL, and ISIL has responded with tremendous and brutal 

force. They are killing Sunnis wherever they go where Sunnis disagree with them. 

In Mosul, when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gave a speech at one of 

the oldest mosques in Mosul, that was made possible because ISIL 

killed all the moderate clerics who were in that mosque before ISIL 

moved in. So there is a recognition from the local side that they 

need support to grow their own security forces. They want to be in 

control of their areas. 

And there is a recognition from the center that the army cannot 

be reconstituted to take control in these areas, so you have to have 

a cooperative federalism model. It is also something that we can 

fully support, and I think help enable. The Iraqis are trying now, 

working to reconstitute the units that dissolved in June, and are 

now training about 10,000 of those soldiers who either fled from 

their posts or, significantly, one-third of those soldiers were on 

their R&Rs during that time, and most of them have come back. 

The Iraqis are working to retrain them, to put them through a 

3- to 4-week training program, again something that we can help 

with. But everybody recognizes you cannot then reconstitute the 

structure on a structure you had pre-Mosul. It has to be smarter 

and more adaptive to realities, and because it is within the constitutional framework, there can be a fairly broad consensus for 

that model. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio, chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this very important hearing and we appreciate our panelists 

being here today. There is, quite frankly, a great deal of skepticism 

in how this administration is overseeing the unraveling of Iraq. 

Really, I think, from the start I think we are all aware that the 

President was anxious, desperate to reduce our involvement in 

Iraq. He had made promises about doing just that and I think 

there was a kind of a scramble for the door there from the very 

start. 

I have been to Iraq a number of times. I chaired the Middle East 

Subcommittee in the previous Congress. And I think we have 

known, I mean it was always the plan, it was always assumed that 

we were going to have a military, a U.S. military presence there 

following the war and it was for a number of reasons, principally 

to secure the gains that had been made at such a high cost of 

American blood and treasure. 

And of course we know that there was a failure to reach an 

agreement on the status of our forces. Afterwards there was a lot 

of debate on how much of an effort was actually made in securing 

42

that agreement. But whatever the case is there was a failure to secure it and virtually all U.S. troops were pulled out. 

Many of us, some who are no longer in Congress, some who are 

still here, some on this committee, some not, many of us predicted 

not exactly what would happen but pretty much what would happen, and the unraveling and the chaos and the tumultuous situation that we see in Iraq now was predicted by so many people. 

My first question would be, what difference would a U.S. military 

presence there have made? And how much confidence can we have 

in the very administration that made that decision to pull all U.S. 

troops out who is now making the decisions to salvage what is left 

of Iraq at this time? 

Mr. McGurk? Or Ms. Slotkin? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Sure, I will take a first jab at it. I do think it is 

important again to review the history, and both Brett and I worked 

on the original 2008 SOFA with Iraq which did say that by the end 

of 2011 that we would be out of Iraq. So that timetable was set 

back in 2008. And I know there was quite a bit of discussion and 

debate about what should happen at the time in 2011 about a follow-on agreement, but I really do think the point that Brett made 

is critical. 

The Iraqi leaders could not get it through their Parliament. Unlike what we have in Afghanistan today, we had Iraqi leaders at 

that time saying, I don’t think it is necessary. We don’t want you 

in. And they weren’t inviting us in. They are a sovereign country. 

So we made the decision to cease negotiations because we didn’t 

have will on the other side. That is a critical factor. 

Mr. CHABOT. It is certainly a factor. But the United States is a 

pretty substantial country on the globe, and we had a lot of involvement there and our officials were meeting with their officials 

and there were relationships, and yes, they certainly had to agree 

with it. But the effort that was made and ultimately the decision 

to pull all the troops out, I mean it is mind-boggling to think looking back where we are now and how different things probably 

would have looked had we done something different. 

I have only got 1 minute left so let me shift gears to one other 

thing. With what is happening with the Christians especially, I 

know there is persecution going on with lots of other people besides 

Christians, but this convert or die mentality that is now in action 

wherever ISIL is in control is something that, I mean you think almost 2,000 years ago in the Roman persecutions these were decisions that people made back then and in the modern world that 

people are faced with those kinds of decisions. 

So I would just urge the administration to work with any resources we have available to us to push back on that with every 

fiber that we have as a nation. And if you want to comment on that 

I would welcome it. 

Mr. MCGURK. I would just say, Congressman, I agree with you 

100 percent. Just last week I saw Bishop Warda in Erbil and also 

I saw the Chaldean Patriarch in Baghdad discussing this very 

question. The Christian enclaves in northern Iraq, they are looking 

for some resources to provide local security, control. They are now 

in areas controlled by the Kurds. 

43

We have discussed this with the Kurdish regional government, 

about how we can incorporate individuals from these areas to provide security in their local areas, such as a police force just to provide security on the streets, and that is something we are discussing. But this has the attention of the United Nations Security 

Council, it has the attention of the entire world. 

As I said, the entire Iraqi Parliament today, again its first real 

session, they have had have stood all in solidarity with the Christians in Iraq. This is something that both reveals the true nature 

of who ISIL is. It is not a tribal uprising reflecting legitimate grievances. It is a vicious terrorist organization with a 7th century ideology that nobody accepts, and it has to be uprooted and defeated. 

But I agree with you 100 percent, your comments, and I will also 

follow up with you more and specifically on the Christian question. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Brad Sherman, ranking 

member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. When we conquered Germany and Japan after 

World War II, we were not embarrassed to by occupying those 

countries. We stayed as long as we needed to stay. We wrote the 

Constitution for Japan, and we very slowly turned over power to 

the right people. In Afghanistan, and especially in Iraq, we were 

embarrassed to be there, defensive as to whether we were somehow 

imperialists. And we were so anxious to turn over the government 

that we got Maliki and Karzai, neither of which would sign a Status of Forces Agreement with us just to illustrate one of their many 

faults. 

Ms. Slotkin, the New York Times reported on the front page that 

the Iraqi security forces are so deeply infiltrated by either Sunni 

extremist informants or Shiite personnel backed by Iran that any 

American assigned to advise Baghdad’s forces could face a risk to 

their safety. Is that accurate? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So I just want to caution that the report is draft 

classified and that represents a leak of information, from someone 

who seems to know something about it but not clearly to have read 

the full report. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Put aside the exact phraseology. How dangerous, 

and we are in a known classified situation here, how dangerous is 

it for American service personnel to be advising Iraqi units? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. That is exactly what we went over there to try and 

assess. Those are draft, they are classified, and I am not able to 

get into the details right now. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. It was a threat when we were there, and with 

170,000 troops the insider threat is always a threat and we would 

have to either work to mitigate it or not work with units if we 

thought it was an overwhelming threat. 

Mr. SHERMAN. There is this idea that we should bomb ISIS. How 

important is it that we have reliable ground spotters to make sure 

we are bombing the right folks and not bombing civilians? Can we 

run a bombing campaign without anybody we trust on the ground? 

44

Ms. SLOTKIN. I mean the United States does not indiscriminately 

bomb targets. We have a rigorous procedure that involves having 

verification of the targets we are trying——

Mr. SHERMAN. Do we need humans on the ground for that procedure to work effectively? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. It is significantly better if we have reliable folks on 

the ground to give us verifiable information. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And the Iraqis. First, do the Iraqis have the technical expertise to be those spotters? Do they have good people that 

can tell us where to bomb and what to bomb? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. There are some very capable Iraqi units that would 

be capable of doing that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And then if the New York Times is correct, however, they may deliberately give us the wrong coordinates because 

it may meet the political needs of either the Sunni extremists or 

the Shiite extremists that we bomb civilians. So we don’t know unless we know both the technical competence and the political objectives whether we can rely on those spotters. 

Mr. McGurk, does Maliki have to go? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again there is an ongoing process to form a new 

government. Maliki’s party won about 91 seats. You would have to 

have 165 seats to form a government, and it remains to be seen 

whether or not that can happen. I would also add that, were we 

to take a position on such a thing, it would obviously not be either 

in our interests, or it would dramatically effect the process. 

This is a uniquely, uniquely Iraqi process with Iraqi political dynamics, and the outcome will reflect that process. The new Speaker 

of the Parliament, for example, is someone that nobody would have 

picked to be the Speaker of the Parliament. He kind of came out 

of nowhere, built the coalition, did the politicking and built a very 

broad coalition among Sunni, Shia, Kurds and everybody, and won 

an overwhelming vote——

Mr. SHERMAN. Has Maliki announced positions that would seriously entice Sunnis and Kurds to believe that they would get a fair 

shake under a third term for Maliki? Has he publicly announced 

a platform that has serious appeals, makes serious concessions to 

those other two communities? 

Mr. MCGURK. He has a platform that has all of those principles 

in it. It is just difficult after 8 years, and given the kind of, a lot 

of the bad blood that has developed, and the mistrust that which 

makes it very difficult. But a lot of his platform——

Mr. SHERMAN. So he has got some great vague platitudes in his 

platform that nobody believes. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this very informative hearing. Mr. McGurk, in your written testimony you 

commented about the state of U.S. intelligence. In advance of the 

fall of Mosul and this most recent ISIS offensive, you said ‘‘In the 

earliest days we had to acknowledge that we were operating in a 

fog.’’ You also say that intelligence collection after the fact has improved. 

But I am troubled by the fact that we were operating in the fog 

in the first place. Because in February, you testified here and you 

45

told us exactly what ISIS wanted to do. Take control of western 

Iraq, challenge the Iraqi Government for control of Baghdad and 

foment the sectarian conflict. For most of the past year, ISIS has 

already been in control of about half of Mosul. There were plenty 

of other clear signs that ISIS was a rising threat, really, over the 

past year, 11⁄2 years, 2 years. We have had eyes watching what was 

going on in Syria and surely watching the Iraqi and Jordanian borders. 

So knowing all this and knowing all that we did of what you testified in February, why weren’t we doing more to collect intelligence all along? Please help us understand what led to the decision not to have robust intelligence collection efforts against this 

terrorist group. 

Mr. MCGURK. Well, as I did testify, we began to move assets into 

the theater. What my testimony is speaking to is the immediate 

crisis response. And in the immediate days after Mosul, it was fog 

and rumor and friction and chance as you get into in these circumstances. And what I was trying to get at in the testimony is 

that it was very difficult for us to know specifically what was happening. 

And it was very difficult for us to know the extent of ISIL’s advance southward, down the Tigris River Valley, which is why, in 

a meeting with the President in the earliest hours of this crisis, the 

decision was made immediately to significantly surge U.S. air assets over the skies of Iraq. Again, to go from one a month to 50 

a day including manned aircraft, and that was something that the 

Iraqis also welcomed. 

In response to an earlier question, I just want to say the Iraqis, 

despite whatever may have happened in 2011, since this crisis, we 

have been embraced. Our presence has been embraced from top to 

bottom and they are actively seeking our assistance. To have U.S. 

military assets in the skies of Iraq is something that was extremely 

controversial even as late as last fall. 

Right now they welcome us there. They want us there. And it is 

a very different situation than it was, even when I was here testifying in February, in terms of the Iraqi appetite for our direct support. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And here is the thing. Folks in South Carolina and 

folks I talk to all over the country are concerned of what is going 

on in Iraq because we lost so many men and women there. Not 

only lost in the loss of lives, but lost in their ability to be productive citizens and being, whether it is PTSD or whether it is an actual physical injury, why did we lose those men and women and 

turn around and lose control over an area? 

And we can watch and tell the heat signature, the plume, what 

rocket launcher it came from and where it shot down a plane in 

Ukraine, but we spent a lot of money, a lot of effort in Iraq and 

yet we are blind? We are in a fog? I just find that hard to believe, 

especially with so much going on in the region. With what was 

going on in Syria and what ISIS and ISIL were doing, huge columns of vehicles headed toward Mosul? How did we miss that? 

And so that is a rhetorical question I don’t expect you to answer, 

but I think it is important. I think Americans are going, how did 

46

we miss this and why did we spend so much money and loss of life 

in Iraq to see what is going on now? Why can’t we do more? 

And I noticed in your statement that you said we have set up the 

JOC in Baghdad and Erbil. And I am glad we have, I just wonder 

why it wasn’t set up sooner. You said, I think, 6 weeks ago it was 

set up. This thing has been going on for awhile, so why didn’t we 

work with the Iraqis to try to thwart that? 

I am concerned about our friends in the Kurdish region. I am 

concerned that they are going to get surrounded. We didn’t lose a 

single American life in the Kurdish region during the Iraq war, not 

a single American, because they are friendly. So I want to ask this 

about the Kurdish region. What is the administration’s position on 

Kurdish oil exports and what actions are we advising American energy companies that might be operating with the KRG to take? 

Mr. MCGURK. Our position on energy exports from Iraq is very 

clear. We support getting as much oil out of Iraq as possible and 

on to international markets, from north to south, and we also support doing that in a way that reinforces the overall stability of all 

Iraqi regions. 

We have an obligation to say, when people ask, that there is 

legal risk for taking oil without an agreement. We worked very 

hard to broker an agreement and actually had an agreement on the 

table that was a very good one as early as 4 months ago that would 

have gotten all of the oil out of the Kurdish north flowing and on 

to international markets, and also had revenues coming from the 

south to the KRG. 

That agreement didn’t succeed for a number of reasons, and one 

of which is that we are in the middle of a high political season in 

Iraq. It was an election season. You had an election on April 30th 

and now you are working to form a new government. I remain confident that in the process of forming a new government we can 

work with all sides to have a solution to this very important issue. 

The budget that is being debated in the Parliament right now in Baghdad is about $120 billion budget. There is about $17 billion 

there for the Kurdistan region, and we want to make sure those 

resources get to Kurdistan. We have been very clear that the decision the Prime Minister made to cut off salary payments to the 

Kurdish north because of its oil dispute is completely unacceptable, 

and should be reversed. We have made that very clear. And so 

again, we are working very closely with our Kurdish partners in 

the north, and also with the government in Baghdad to find a solution to this issue. And through the process of forming a government 

we have real opportunity to do so. 

Mr. DUNCAN. My time is expired. I thank Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield for minute? Because 

I wanted to follow up on a specific statement. What I want to follow up on was the comments you made about having eyes in the 

air and the difficulty of that. 

Now in August 2013 that is when a request was made originally 

by the Government in Iraq for assistance. In March 2014 they actually delivered an official letter to the White House asking for help. 

It is certainly true that originally they wanted armed drones to do 

this work, but that was a negotiating position and they swiftly fell 

back to the position of, okay, you won’t give them or sell them to 

47

us, then can you use them in order to hit these jihadist units? And 

all of this incurs long before June when Mosul falls, right? 

So I just wanted to put that in context, unless there is something 

I don’t understand, Mr. McGurk. But that is from the entreaties or 

the discussions that I have had, that was my understanding of this, 

we were trying to get these drone strikes on these units even before they came over the border in order to give some kind of cover 

for the infantry on the ground. 

Mr. MCGURK. Again, the sequence was helping the Iraqis with 

their Hellfire strikes with the information and the fusion cells we 

set up, and then moving—the request for our direct support came 

in May. And I think as Elissa has spoken to, our ability to do anything effectively requires a much more granular picture on the 

ground. Frankly, we have that picture now. We did not have that 

picture as early as March. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, as expressed, we don’t understand why 

you wouldn’t. Because you have also got signals intelligence, you 

have got human intelligence. And frankly, you had a green light 

there for eyes in the air once they delivered a letter to the White 

House of an official request in March 2014. So this doesn’t add up, 

but I will go to Dr. Ami Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

witnesses. I think it is disingenuous for us to lay what is happening in Iraq as a failure here in America or as a failure of any 

particular administration here in America. I think our troops did 

everything within their power to give Iraq a chance and we shed 

blood. We spent billions of dollars to give Iraq a chance. 

One of my staff members is an Iraq war veteran, a wounded warrior, Matt Ceccato, and just chatting with him, as veterans all 

around this country are saddened by what they are seeing in Iraq, 

because they did lose their colleagues. They did lose many men and 

women, as we all did, in Iraq. But we gave them a chance. We really did. It is also tragic to see what is happening to some of the civilians that served side by side with our troops supporting our efforts in Iraq and the danger that they live under. 

So we really do have to do everything that we can to try to ensure their safety and serve their visas as we can. But this isn’t a 

failure of an American administration. This is a failure of Iraqi administration. And I think everyone in this body would be consistent, but this is a failure of the al-Maliki administration. There 

were Sunni tribal leaders that fought side by side with us in the 

surge that were made promises that were broken by al-Maliki, systematically dismantling some of Iraq’s own defense forces in a way 

that we saw what happened in Mosul, and they fell apart. 

Now I think, Ms. Slotkin, in your own statement you said there 

is no military solution in Iraq. You indicated that the Iraqi people 

must do the heavy lifting on their own. Can you expand on that 

and tell us what you think that heavy lifting would be? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Well, I think Brett’s spoken to some of the ideas 

that are currently being batted about in Baghdad to sort of get toward that political solution. I mean the point that I would make 

as we look toward any potential decisions the President makes for 

future action is we couldn’t solve the Iraqi political problems for 

them when we had 170,000 troops. We couldn’t have solved them 

48

if we had kept in 10,000 troops in 2011, and we are not going to 

be able to solve them through our military support today regardless 

of what we decide to do. 

The Iraqis have to get at the underlying political differences in 

their system. ISIL is extremely capable, extremely dangerous, but 

they are getting tacit support from the Sunnis on the ground in 

these areas. And it is critical that the central government solve 

those problems so that those Sunnis turn away from ISIL and toward their government. 

Mr. BERA. And Mr. McGurk, would, in your assessment, if a new 

Iraqi Government was a more inclusive government that gave 

equal say to the Kurds and the Sunnis and gave them a voice, do 

you sense that some of our former allies and some of these tribal 

leaders would take a different view on ISIL? 

Mr. MCGURK. Yes, but I think we have to be very clear that ISIL 

is a military force, and so we have seen tribes try to take it on, 

and they failed. We trained about 1,000 Fallujans in 3 months of 

training, with the Iraqis in 3 months of training. And in their first 

engagement, trying to move into the northern reaches of Fallujah 

a couple months ago, they lost. That is because ISIL is a highly effective, sophisticated military organization. It is far better than the 

al-Qaeda in Iraq that we fought. And in order for the awakening 

really to get moving in those days, it took a lot of effort on our part 

to degrade that network, which then allowed the awakening and 

the tribal network to really rise up and fight it. 

So I think it has to be taken in parallel. There will have to be 

some military pressure against ISIL. At the same time, there has 

to be a new government with political accommodations made to isolate ISIL from the population. But they have to run in parallel to 

be effective. 

Mr. BERA. So if we are thinking this through strategically, if a 

new government forms in Iraq that is much more inclusive, the 

Sunnis within Iraq become much more open to not supporting ISIL, 

our allies in the region, potentially, from the Sunni side can also 

provide some support as well as looking at ways to cut off the funding and support of ISIL. Would that be a logical thought through 

scenario? 

Mr. MCGURK. Yes. And I would just add, I don’t think Sunnis 

support ISIL. And there was an election on April 30th in which 

ISIL said anyone who votes, we are going to kill you, they were 

very clear about that, and in Ninawa Province alone we had almost 

a record turnout, a 1.1 million people, all Sunnis, voting for new 

leaders. 

But ISIL threatens, they intimidate, they rule by brute force, and 

so that is one reason why they need to be confronted and isolated. 

But yes, that is a sequence. First, we have to continue to find ways 

to pressure ISIL, but a new government providing a new platform, 

and also with new regional engagement. And we will hope very 

much that when there is a new government, and there will be, that 

the regional capitals fully embrace that government, so we can 

really make some inroads in regional integration, which has not 

made many inroads over the last couple of years. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Dr. Bera. 

Mr. Kinzinger? 

49

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point 

out I am a veteran of Iraq. I spent a lot of time in Balad and it 

is sad to see this gone now. 

I will be honest with you all. I think with this, I mean everybody 

is kind of not saying it, but what it seems like is the administration is just paralyzed. They just don’t know what to do. There is 

this fear of getting involved in Iraq again and getting sucked into 

Iraq with this reality that the worst case scenario in the Middle 

East is playing out right before our eyes and, frankly, this administration bears some responsibility for that. 

I would also like to remind folks that in America we threw out 

the Articles of Confederation. We had Articles of Confederation, we 

threw them out and drew up our Constitution. Political solutions 

are not something that we can put in the microwave and expect to 

happen in a very short amount of time. This takes time. 

And what we are seeing right now with the encroachment and 

the growth of ISIS or ISIL, whatever you want to call it, is the 

worst case scenario and therefore we have to have a political solution before we do anything. I would much rather see a flawed Iraqi 

state in which we could then work a political solution than to see 

ISIS in a capitulated Iraqi state. 

Mr. McGurk, the chairman touched on this. Does a March 2014 

request exist to the White House for what could be included as air 

strikes? 

Mr. MCGURK. I will check on all the correspondence we have 

had. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I mean you would know if a March 2014 letter 

was hand delivered to the White House requesting assistance for 

the Iraqi Government, right? 

Mr. MCGURK. I have a letter from May. I have a letter from May 

in which there is a very clear and specific request. I think a lot of 

correspondence before then again was not——

Mr. KINZINGER. So you don’t know of this existing, so you can get 

back to me if it exists, in fact, if there is a March 2014——

Mr. MCGURK. I will get back to you and go chapter and verse 

with all of the correspondence we have had with the Iraqis on this 

question. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Okay. And then another question, we talk about 

how we didn’t have the intelligence picture. And as somebody that 

flew ISR it is fairly easy to get that quickly. We should have had 

an intelligence picture from when the Iraqi Government was asking us for assistance in August. That should have been the time 

at which we said let us get this granular picture. But now we have 

it. 

So we have the official request in May. We have a granular picture now. What is the hold up? And I think what the answer is is 

not so much that we are still waiting for a political solution. Again 

I think it is this idea that the administration simply is paralyzed 

and doesn’t know what to do. Meanwhile, that vacuum is being 

filled by Iran and by Russia providing equipment to the Iraqi Government at a time when we are sitting around saying, well, I can’t 

believe they are taking this assistance. But they are fighting for 

the survival of their very way of life. 

50

So this is time where we have to say, look, we are the United 

States of America with a very robust military capability, surely we 

can have the intelligence if we decided that May was the time we 

were going to start looking at this, surely in 3 months we could 

have figured out a picture and begun to get engaged at that point. 

I also want to talk about the issue of Hellfire missiles. A Hellfire 

missile has a warhead of 20 or 18 pounds depending on what kind 

of a missile it is and what its target is. These Cessnas that have 

been retrofitted in Iraq, I don’t know how many they can carry but 

I guess it is not that many. An Apache helicopter carries, I think, 

16 of these Hellfire missiles. 

The idea of an Apache helicopter, one, taking out an entire camp 

of ISIS or ISIL is unrealistic with 16 of these Hellfire missiles. So 

the idea of a Cessna with one, maybe two, Hellfire missiles being 

the thing that destroys these camps in Syria and in Iraq is crazy. 

I think we need a robust air strike campaign on behalf of the 

United States. 

When our troops on the ground get engaged in combat we are 

very good. The Marines and Army are very good at fighting off the 

enemy. But the first thing they do is call for robust air support to 

help them win that engagement. This idea that the Iraqi military 

melted away or that the Iraqi military can take back ground with 

a Hellfire missile is unrealistic when our own troops, who are very 

well trained and who have a great background and know how to 

fight wars, call on A–10s, F–16s, B–52s, B–1s to come in and do 

close air support in order to retake ground. 

So I just am saying that I am renewing the call to the administration for massive manned military air strikes to push back this 

very, very bad cancer that is encroaching on the Middle East and 

also to target those in Syria, to understand that the Syrians are 

a very good fighting force and ISIS is getting their training in 

Syria and then spilling it out to the rest of the place. 

So I do appreciate you all’s service to your country. I appreciate 

you being here. I know it is a tough time, but with that I yield 

back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kinzinger. 

Ms. Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the panel 

for being here. I think two or three questions. First, could you explain what makes the ISIL terrorists such a greater threat than 

the other terrorists that we hear about all the time? And what is 

the most immediate threat to the United States and to our allies? 

Second, I have heard a lot of questions which I think are appropriate as to what did we know, what could we have done maybe 

to have avoided the threat of ISIL in Iraq and in Syria. 

My question is how far back should we go? Could you give me 

your opinion of the war in Iraq, the invasion of 2003, and how that 

relates to the rise of ISIL? Because I think there are many of us 

in this country who think that was an act of malfeasance by our 

country, by our President at the time who is not the current President, and by this Congress, to send our country to war in Iraq. 

So I would like you, if you could answer those two questions, and 

if you have time to explain to me the difference between what 

might be some people say is paralysis versus first doing no harm? 

51

Ms. SLOTKIN. Sure. So I can speak to the terrorist threat and 

why ISIL is particularly different, why we are paying such close attention to it. I think it is the territory they now hold; the self-financing that they are capable of; not getting donations and living 

off of donations, but the self-financing, self-sustainment; the span 

of control; the capability of some of their fighters, they are very, 

very experienced and war-tested. 

And then the number of Western passport holders that we know 

have traveled to Syria and are engaged with both ISIL and other 

groups there, the ISILs stated intent—we are coming for you, 

Barack Obama, rhetorically—and then what we know to be active 

plotting in Europe. 

So all those things in combination make them, I think, probably, 

it is safe to say, one of the most capable and the best funded group 

in the region right now, and that is what makes it such a particular concern. 

Mr. MCGURK. I can talk a little bit about the history, although 

the questions you ask are really questions I think historians will 

sort out. But ISIL is a group that we know, it is al-Qaeda in Iraq. 

Its first leader was Zarqawi. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war. 

Zarqawi was kind of the leader who really focused on this effort to 

spark sectarian conflict. 

If you go back to their writings at the time, in 2004, it might 

have looked preposterous at the time, but his plan has always 

been—and I testified to this in some detail in my hearing here in 

February—to establish a state in Iraq and Syria. That has always 

been his focus. 

And he said we are going to do it three ways. We are going to 

attack the Shia majority in Iraq consistently, we are going to attack their marketplaces, their mosques, their playgrounds until 

they respond. And then he says we will unite the Sunni ranks behind us. That has always been his strategy. He also will attack any 

Sunni, tribal sheik, cleric, anyone who disagrees with him. That is 

very clear in his doctrine. 

And also he will attack Kurds, to tear open that very narrow fabric which exists in the disputed territories in northern Iraq. That 

was his stated strategy in 2004, it is now the strategy of Abu Bakr 

al-Baghdadi. So we know this organization. We fought against it. 

We know what their ideology is. What is particularly scary about 

it now is that it basically effectively controls the state, and it has 

ambitions to take the mantle of the global jihad away from alQaeda central and Ayman al-Zawahiri. So that is why it is a significant threat, and that is why we are here. 

And we thank you again for the time to testify about the situation today. And that is why we look forward to consulting with you 

to get a handle on it over the weeks and months ahead. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I am not sure if you answered my question about 

the war in Iraq. 

Mr. MCGURK. I have to say, Congresswoman, I will let the historians sort out what happened over the last 12 years. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Madam Chair, I waive the rest of my time. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Frankel. 

Mr. Cook of California. 

52

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, Ms. Slotkin, 

I apologize. I am usually the one that asks the question about the 

role of Qatar and you give me the same answer. And I understand 

what is going on. But I did, I am very, very concerned about Maliki 

and his credibility which to me is absolutely zero. 

We have got the folks that are representing Camp Liberty, 

Ashraf, and what has happened in the past and you cannot overlook that. But what scares me even more was ISIL, ISIS, and the 

fact that they went in there and they defeated four divisions. In the 

history of the United States Marine Corps, the Marine Corps, the 

U.S., has never had four divisions in one place at one time. They 

had six in World War II. They had three on Iwo Jima. 

Since 1775, an organization like that has never, and you had four 

divisions? And you have a group that had pickup trucks, AK–47s, 

and what have you? It just shows that in terms of at least from 

a military person, the total lack of credibility in the Maliki government, and obviously they don’t have any trust in the military in 

the functioning or lack of functioning of federalism. 

So I am very, very pessimistic of the future in terms of reconstructing the military, particularly when Maliki and whoever is in 

there, if they are going to continue to go to the Iranians for the 

Revolutionary Guards, the Quds force, et cetera, et cetera, et 

cetera. And with Hellfire missiles falling in the wrong hands, I am 

just very, very nervous about this whole thing. 

It has been touched on a little bit, but I think from the United 

States that once again we have to recognize the changing geopolitical situation. It has already been discussed about Jordan and 

I think you are absolutely right. If we are not ready to defend Jordan or be there for them, I think we are going to be in serious trouble. I am a strong, strong supporter of Kurdistan. We have to recognize that and the point has been made about not one person, 

military person was killed in Kurdistan. 

The other one I want you to—and I have been bloviating, but I 

want to get your take on Turkey on how in the past they might 

have been an influence because they surround this area. And Turkey lately, and obviously Turkey is a big, big player where they are 

also a member of NATO, and the fact that some of their behavior 

with the Muslim Brotherhood is very, very scary. Could you address that please? 

Mr. MCGURK. Turkey remains a close partner of ours. And yesterday, in fact, at the State Department, we had almost an all-day 

dialogue with a very senior delegation from Turkey about a whole 

host of issues including ISIL. We recognize broadly that in order 

to really squeeze ISIL, I mean when we focused on al-Qaeda and 

Iraq back in the 2007–2008 time frame we called it an Anaconda 

strategy to squeeze their finances, their foreign fighters, everything. 

And it is really three prongs. First, you have to shut off the infiltration networks, and Turkey plays a big part of that. But Turkey 

will remind you that a lot of the source countries in which global 

jihadist fighters are coming into Turkey and then entering in Syria 

also have to do their part. We have to stop these people before they 

get on the airplanes, and then stop them if they do make it into 

Turkey, before they get into Syria. That is critical. 

53

Secondly, denying them a safe haven in Syria. And that is why 

we are focused again on training the moderate opposition, and finding a way to control space to ISIL and Syria, and then helping 

Iraqis control their sovereign space in Iraq. That is extremely difficult, but that is the three-pronged approach that we have to try 

to take against this. 

And the conversations yesterday with the Turks, led by our Deputy Secretary Bill Burns and their Under Secretary Feridun 

Sinirlioglu, were focused upon that, and I think we have a fairly 

common understanding of the way forward with the Turks on this. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I don’t think I have much more to add other than 

I think they have been living with the threat emanating from Syria 

for a long time. They are extremely focused on it. They are extremely focused on what is happening in Iraq, and as a NATO ally 

we are talking with them every day. So I feel confident we know 

what they are focused on. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. I plan to beat the clock, if you could just comment again on the Quds Force, the Revolutionary Guard and their 

influence right now and whether they have replaced the American 

military completely. 

Mr. MCGURK. We remain the partner of choice for the Iraqis. I think there is no question about that. They have $11 billion into 

the Federal Reserve and our FMS account, including about $193 

million just last week. Again, I was there during this crisis and 

there was a major vacuum, and Iran has stepped up in some ways 

to fill the vacuum in ways that we made very clear to the Iraqis 

were not particularly helpful. 

Mr. COOK. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COOK. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome to 

our panel. I have to say that in listening to many of your answers 

I hear a lot of aspirations and I share them too, but I am not quite 

sure whether they are realistically achievable any more. For example, Ms. Slotkin, you made a pretty forceful statement in response 

to one of my colleagues’ questions that there is no substitute for a 

strong central government located in Baghdad. 

Well, Ms. Slotkin, we have been there for 12 years. We have poured $1 trillion into the country. We have lost precious men and 

women in fighting there. What, pray tell, do we, how does one 

achieve this strong, central, effective, functional government in 

Baghdad? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I think this is what the Iraqis are grappling with 

right now. And as they form their government they will have some 

fundamental questions that they have to answer about the future 

of their state. Brett has talked about some of the ideas that are on 

the table. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I know. But I guess my question carried with it 

the inference that maybe we need to reassess. The Vice President 

of the United States wrote an op-ed piece before he became Vice 

President, with Leslie Gelb, roundly dismissed at the time, in 

which he said, frankly, what ought to happen in Iraq, what is likeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\072314\88829 SHIRL
54

ly to happen as well is the sort of segmentation of Iraq into three 

autonomous zones, a Sunni zone, dominated zone, a Shia dominated zone and a Kurdish dominated zone. 

Well, looking at the map today that may be looked upon in retrospect as a more prescient view than was accepted at the time. 

Maybe we have to give up on the idea, after 12 years of trying, on 

a strong, central, functional government that holds sway over the 

whole country based in Baghdad. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I can’t speak to the retrospective piece, but I can 

speak to what it would mean right now if somehow we decided to 

give up on a strong government in Baghdad, centered in Baghdad, 

who is in charge in the Sunni dominated area? Some very, very 

scary people. And so while I think the idea may be interesting on 

paper, I just think in reality, based on who is in charge in these 

large swaths of the country right now, it is a much less favorable 

option than having a strong government in Baghdad. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course, I take your point. I mean the question 

is whether we should continue to pour blood and treasure into that 

hope. At what point do we recognize that we are going to have to 

at least modify that hope because it is not going to happen? Or not 

going to happen anytime soon, realistically. Because if we continue 

to pursue a policy however noble and desirable that is not realistic 

and is going to get us in a lot of pain and difficulty, that is not a 

good foreign policy. 

Mr. McGurk? 

Mr. MCGURK. If I could just make one point, Congressman, I 

think what I laid out in my opening testimony is a way forward 

that is focused upon the hard realities on the ground that we face 

now, that is within the fabric of the Iraqi Constitution, that can 

harness their very significant national resources to empower local 

communities in order to deny space to these terrorist groups. And 

that is a model on which recognizes the principle of devolution of 

authority and federalism, which is embedded in the Iraqi Constitution. 

Were Iraq to wish to develop more regions such as the region 

that exists in the Kurdish region, there is a process for doing that 

through the Iraqi Constitution. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But Mr. McGurk, again I agree with you that 

that ought to be how it works. But the Maliki government has significantly alienated huge swaths of its own country and in the process has opened the door for receptivity to ISIS. That is one of the 

reasons they have had so little difficulty in addition to the collapse 

of the four divisions which we helped train and equip. 

But they have lost a huge amount of political goodwill, if they 

ever had it, amongst their own countrymen, and how do you restore that in a time frame that stabilizes the situation and can 

forcefully push back ISIS? 

Mr. MCGURK. Well, one way to deal with that was over, we had 

to make sure the election happened, and happened on time. That 

is something that we focused very hard on over the last 8 to 10 

months. The election did happen. It was a credible election. Again 

14 million Iraqis turned out to vote. 

The Iraqis are now forming their government on their constitutional timeline. They chose a speaker. That kicked off a timeline 

55

for 30 days to choose a President. Once there is a President there 

is a 15-day clock to name a Prime Minister, and then 30 days to 

form a cabinet. And we will get through, the Iraqis will get through 

this process along their timeline, and they will come out of it with 

a new government. 

And again we remain hopeful that that government will reflect 

a fairly broad consensus among the principal groups. Right now the 

presidency, for example, is a choice. The Kurds are coming up with 

their nominee for the presidency, and we hope to have that done 

soon, and then that will kick off the timeline to choose the Prime 

Miniser. That happened to be in this political vacuum period in 

which they have to form a new government, but once they have a 

new government it will begin a process of a very genuine dialogue 

about these very important issues you face, and I hope that with 

this committee we can be a part of that dialogue and inform them 

as best we can. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, my time is up. I just hope 

that the State Department and the Pentagon both hear bipartisan 

skepticism. Goodwill, hope you are right, but the skepticism being 

expressed in this committee today is very bipartisan. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. And now we turn 

to Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. McGurk, in violation 

of U.S. and U.N. Security Council sanctions, what material support 

is the Maliki government receiving from Iran currently that you 

know of? 

Mr. MCGURK. The question of sanctions under those provisions 

is something we are looking at very closely because it is a very 

complicated question, actually. 

Mr. PERRY. All right, then just tell me what kind of material support you know of and then we will try to figure it out from there. 

Mr. MCGURK. Well, it is another question I think I would like to 

maybe follow up with you in a closed session and we can discuss 

it in some detail. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. 

Ms. Slotkin, do you know? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Sir, I really do think in a closed session we can 

much more specifically answer your question. 

Mr. PERRY. All right, I get your point. Well, knowing that Iran 

is supporting the insurgency in Yemen, is the Yemen model as 

sponsored in some sort by the President, is that realistic or viable 

for Iraq? Isn’t it fairly complicated, knowing that Iran is essentially 

an adversary, an enemy of the United States that we are barely 

working with on a treaty regarding their nuclear program which 

many Americans, myself included, disagree with? 

I mean what position do we put ourselves in and how can we 

trust the Maliki government to move forward knowing they are 

complicit and relying on Iran, and can we expect the folks in Camp 

Ashraf to receive better treatment knowing that they are collaborating, the government is collaborating with Iran than they are 

now? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So I would say, I want to make sure I understand 

your question about the Yemen model and whether, it seems like 

56

you are implying that the Iraqi Government is completely under 

the sway of the Iranians. 

Mr. PERRY. No, I don’t think it is completely under the sway. I 

think that considering the Yemen model as viable in Iraq is myopic 

and irresponsible, and knowing that we are working at cross purposes even mentioning that is, kind of indicates cluelessness at the 

point of the administration, in my estimation. I just want to get 

your feeling on it. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Again I am sorry. I am not sure I am completely 

understanding your question. If the question is could the Yemen 

model work in Iraq, if that is what you are asking——

Mr. PERRY. Is it viable? Could it work? Yes, it could work if we 

had different people in Iraq in power and a different circumstance, 

in my opinion. But that is not the circumstance. So is it viable 

now? Do you see the Yemen model as viable now in Iraq? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I think, if I understand what you mean by Yemen 

model, meaning working very closely with the central government——

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Ms. SLOTKIN [continuing]. On a program, I think that first of all, 

right now we are working with the Iraqis on the ground. We have 

people there that need, our own people that need security, and we 

rely on the Iraqis to provide part of that security in Baghdad. 

Mr. PERRY. We understand that. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I think what we are trying to figure out is the answer to that question. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. By sending folks out and understanding the Iraqi 

security forces and whether they are viable. 

Mr. PERRY. Seems a little irresponsible to come out with those 

kind of statements when you are trying to understand the circumstance. But moving on. 

So Japan and Germany, essentially defeated by coalition forces 

including the United States, probably didn’t want us to stay if they 

would have had their choice. And I wasn’t around then and I suspect you weren’t either. But let me ask you this. What responsibility does the administration have, understanding they disagreed 

with our actions, the United States Government’s actions in Iraq, 

and I am respecting that, but what responsibility do they have to 

secure the gains of the previous or any administration? Do they 

have any? It is an opinion question for you. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Do the Iraqis have a——

Mr. PERRY. No, our. What is our administration? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. What is our responsibility? I mean——

Mr. PERRY. Do we have any? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I mean we have invested incredible amounts of 

blood and treasure. 

Mr. PERRY. Right, right. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I mean my husband is an Army officer. We met in 

Iraq. It is an extreme, as a country we have invested so significantly in that country. So of course we are invested in making sure 

that it continues as a viable state and doesn’t become a breeding 

ground for terrorists. 

57

Mr. PERRY. So having spent time there as I did, do you believe 

circumstances on the ground would be different had we maintained 

a SOFA? And using the excuse, and I see it as an excuse that the 

government couldn’t get itself together enough to get support for it, 

we get that. They didn’t want us there. Well, that is a big surprise. 

Didn’t we have some responsibility to make sure it happened? I 

mean the President has got a pen and a phone. If he would have 

said we are staying, what are you going to do about it, what things 

would be different? Do you think things would be different now if 

we would have stayed in some fashion, providing some security, 

providing some intelligence, providing some oversight of a fledgling 

government in a very difficult circumstance that we earned a victory for and literally almost installed piece by piece? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I think that things may have been different, but 

I don’t know that we wouldn’t be in a similar situation to where 

we are today based on the fact that we still lack political accommodation at the heart of it in Baghdad. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Perry. 

And we turn to Mr. Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Mr. McGurk, you said, ‘‘Our objective is 

to ensure that ISIL can never again gain safe haven in western 

Iraq.’’ In your opinion, has ISIL, ISIS, whatever we want to call 

them, today operated with lightning speed? 

Mr. MCGURK. It depends on how you characterize lightning 

speed, Congressman. But——

Mr. WEBER. In your opinion, would you characterize that as 

lightning speed? 

Mr. MCGURK. Their advance through Mosul, I think, even caught 

them off guard, frankly. 

Mr. WEBER. So Baghdadi could have taught Hitler something 

about blitzkreig, wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. MCGURK. I am not sure quite how to answer that question 

but——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. MCGURK [continuing]. ISIL has proven to be a very effective, 

capable——

Mr. WEBER. Do you remember how Ted Deutch asked you today, 

how confident are you the Shiites can withstand repeated attacks? 

In your exchange with him, do you remember that question? 

Mr. MCGURK. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Here is my question for you. How confident 

are you that Camp Liberty can withstand more attacks? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again, I want to mention I visited Camp Liberty 

a number of times. 

Mr. WEBER. Have you ever stayed there? 

Mr. MCGURK. Well, I have not stayed overnight there, but I have 

stayed, and I have lived in trailers under repeated rocket attacks, 

so I do know what that feels like, and I have discussed that with 

them. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you think they will all be killed before or after 

Baghdad falls? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again Congressman, I think that is a bit of a hyperbolic question, so all I can say is that they are——

Mr. WEBER. But you don’t think it is a real threat? 

58

Mr. MCGURK. They are located on the airport facility. They are 

located very near where our people are located and watched very 

closely. 

Mr. WEBER. You don’t think it is a real possibility? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again, I am happy to come address the specific security apparatus we have at the airport during——

Mr. WEBER. Okay, well, do we just write them off? 

Mr. MCGURK. Certainly we don’t write them off. It takes a substantial amount of our time and energy every day focusing on the 

question of the MEK, and we have a senior advisor at the State 

Department who does this full time. 

Mr. WEBER. In your remarks earlier you said, let me tell you why 

this matters, one of the statements you made. Does Camp Liberty 

matter? 

Mr. MCGURK. Yes, of course it matters. And that is why, again, 

we have a senior official at the State Department dedicated to this 

issue full time reporting to the Secretary, and he will be on a plane 

tonight to——

Mr. WEBER. Does it seem odd to you that we have got some, in 

the current calamity on the border, this crisis on the border we 

have got some 60,000-plus crossing our southern border and getting 

‘‘refugee status’’ or asylum over here, but we can’t get the same 

thing for Camp Liberty? Does that seem odd? Is that ironic? 

Mr. MCGURK. As I think, Congressman, the administration has 

made a decision to bring in up to 100——

Mr. WEBER. Oh, they have made a decision all right. 

Mr. MCGURK [continuing]. Up to 100 residents of Camp Liberty 

into the United States, and we believe that is a significant decision 

which also should enable other countries to do the same. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you see all the yellow jackets behind you? Have 

you seen those? Okay. Do you think that is an important issue for 

them? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again, it is a very important issue to us. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, the actions don’t seem to follow up that idea. 

You and I talked back on the February 5th hearing about T-walls 

and they began to be put in place for a short time and then seemed 

like they ended pretty quickly thereafter. 

I would say not only is it an important issue for those who are 

here to support some action on the administration’s part to help 

Camp Liberty, but obviously it is also important for Camp Liberty, 

and I think the administration has let them down. Somehow we 

need to make that a priority. What is the answer for those Camp 

Liberty residents? How do we make this a priority before it gets 

so bad that there is no hope for them? What is the answer to that? 

Mr. MCGURK. We are determined to do everything we can to get 

them out of Iraq. Their safety will depend on their getting out of 

Iraq. And that is why we have to find third countries to take them. 

We have made the decision to take in 100. 

Mr. WEBER. Should we encourage them to go over to Mexico and 

come up through the southern border? 

Mr. MCGURK. Again, if the Mexicans were willing to take a number of residents we would certainly support that decision, as we 

would any other country around the world. That is why we literally 

have a senior adviser who is focused on this question. He is on an 

59

airplane tonight. He has gone to countries throughout Europe, 

Scandinavia, East Asia, everywhere, and we are making some 

progress. 

But we need to keep at it, and we need the support from the 

international community. That is why we have put $1 million into 

a new U.N. trust fund, so even countries that might not have the 

resources are able, and able to take these people in and bring them 

to safety. 

Mr. WEBER. Ms. Slotkin, I have 30 seconds left. What do we need 

to do? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Sir, we are trying to figure that out right now. 

Mr. WEBER. You are trying to figure that out? How long have 

they been over there? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. They have been over there since mid to late June. 

And I believe it is important to have a prudent, thoughtful, responsible approach before we just jump in. As someone who has 

worked——

Mr. WEBER. It is not going to be very prudent if they all get 

killed before we do something now is it? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Sir, I think that it is critical that we have a 

thoughtful regional approach to this problem before we jump in. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I hope you will encourage the administration 

to get real thoughtful real fast. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber. 

And pleased to yield to our new member of our committee, Mr. 

Clawson of Florida. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Those from Camp Liberty, thank you for coming. 

You have made your point with the newest congressperson here. 

The two of you, thank you for coming, and thank you for your service to our country. And I am sure that this is not an easy moment 

for you, and it is never easy to be the point of the spear in this 

kind of situation, so I respect you for coming and speaking straight 

and ask you to speak straight to me too. 

To use your words, Mr. McGurk, there is some hard realities 

here, right, and I cannot overestimate those realities. People are 

dying and these are people that don’t deserve to die. And we have 

been there for awhile. It feels like a perilous situation to me as our 

enemies consolidate friends, allies, and territory which will certainly someday threaten our friends—Israel—and maybe even us, 

if I am getting the drift of what is going on here as the newcomer. 

And then in that backdrop it feels like we have bet on a team 

that is divided, right, maybe artificial, artificially put together, and 

a coach that we and you as an administration don’t have full confidence in. That sounds like a bad situation for us to be in. As I 

hear the talk today, it also feels that this lack of leadership therefore causes a deterioration in safety, and where there is a deterioration in safety there is even a deterioration in culture. People losing lives in their own culture feels like a bad situation and it 

threatens us in the longer term, if I am capturing correctly what 

is going on here. So in that vacuum of chaos, you all are making 

decisions that will affect us eventually and people on the ground 

immediately. 

60

For my constituents, I think what would be good would be two 

things. Number one, each of you give me a very brief summary for 

those that aren’t experts, that don’t know all the missiles, that 

don’t know all the things involved here. What is your summary 

way forward? Where is the administration taking us? I don’t want 

to get into partisan bickering, I just want to understand where we 

are going and where we will be 6 months from now. 

And then secondly, I would like to understand what can this 

committee can do to help save lives and protect people? I am not 

interested in assigning blame. I think, Mr. McGurk, you said it 

best. History will sort that out. I think it is more helpful if you tell 

us where we are going, and if we like that path how we can help 

to get us there. In laymen’s terms so I can understand it and therefore take it to my constituents. I know this question is a little different than most, but does it make sense to you two? 

Mr. MCGURK. Yes, Congressman, I thank you for the very 

thoughtful question, and again, I think explaining this to your constituents is critical about why this matters. And a lot of the history 

on Iraq, I think it can have a clouded view upon why this really 

continues to matter to the United States. 

Mr. CLAWSON. But I want you to look forward with me. 

Mr. MCGURK. So let me just say three things. First, when this 

crisis began, as I stated in my written testimony, we immediately 

had to get a very precise, very accurate eyes-on picture on the 

ground. And I just want to speak from my own firsthand experience. 

President Obama immediately ordering a surge of intelligence assets, moving an aircraft carrier into the Gulf, ordering special 

forces to go on the ground to get an eyes-on picture. That was all 

done—there has been a lot of talk about the 2011 SOFA. That was 

all done under another permanent agreement we have with the 

Iraqi Government called a Strategic Framework Agreement. That 

is a permanent framework agreement which allows us to assist the 

Iraqis in ways that protect our interests. That is number one. We 

could get a clear picture of what is happening on the ground. We 

are getting that now, and it will become clearer over the days 

ahead, particularly through the assessment that is being undertaken by the military. 

Second, we had to get the political process on track. Iraq just had 

an election. Fourteen million Iraqis turned out to vote, almost a 62-

percent turnout. A higher turnout than most elections all around 

the world. That showed the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people. We can’t let them down. They want to see a new government 

formed, a new Parliament has just convened in Iraq with 328 members. They are now working to form a new government. We have 

to be behind them as they do that, and encourage them to do so. 

And as soon as that new government is stood up, and it will be 

stood up, we need to embrace it and give it every chance to succeed 

under our Strategic Framework Agreement because it is in both 

their interests and ours, and it is also in the interest of all that 

we have sacrificed in Iraq. 

So that in a nutshell, we have to get a better picture on the 

ground, better eyes on to know exactly what is happening and we 

are doing that. Secondly, we have to get the political process on 

61

track which reflects not just the political elites but the aspirations 

of 14 million Iraqis who voted. And once that government is stood 

up we need to embrace it, and give it every chance to succeed. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CLAWSON. So in summary, we wait until the new government is formed and then give that government full support? 

Mr. MCGURK. We are not waiting. We have people on the ground 

now doing significant things under the Strategic Framework Agreement, which exists with the future Iraqi Government and the current one and the one before that. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCGURK. So we have people on the ground now doing——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And now we will turn to Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania, and after that Mr. Collins of Georgia. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, the two of 

you. Thank you for being here. Unfortunately, and I don’t mean to 

be facetious, but you two have drawn the short stick to be here and 

put up with us. And as I tell individuals that come and testify, you 

should be accommodated for that in your reviews. It is a tough 

group here. 

But I think we all have one intention in mind, it is just a different way that we seem to want to go about it. The issues, there 

is no question, complex is not enough of a word to explain what is 

going on over there. And I understand that the two of you have 

been over in Iraq and so you know firsthand what things are like. 

I visited there twice, short periods of time. 

Ms. Slotkin, Mr. McGurk, you can respond to this if you would 

like to, several moments ago you stated that there would be no difference if troops were left in Iraq, 10,000, just pick a number, but 

troops left there would have no impact on what is taking place in 

Iraq now to repel ISIL. Did I understand that correctly? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So let me clarify because this just came up a couple 

of minutes ago as well. So it is not that there would be no difference. I don’t know exactly how it would have been, but I know 

that it wouldn’t have forced the Iraqis into a political solution that 

only they can make. 

Mr. MARINO. None of us know how it would have been, but I am 

glad you clarified the political statement. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. It is the political piece and that is critical. 

Mr. MARINO. Yes, it is critical. But I somewhat disagree with 

that assessment because I have read and studied this extensively, 

probably not nearly as up to date as the two of you are, but I have 

been reading military reports, listening to experts from generals to 

commanders to tacticians, et cetera, and they disagree with that 

assessment. 

If there would have been troops left there—and make no mistake 

about it, a lot of this is Maliki’s fault. But I was reading an article 

in The New Yorker that said if troops would have been left there, 

first of all, it would have had an impact on Maliki that they probably could have clipped his wings on preventing him from doing 

what he should have done and didn’t do, but it also would have an 

impact on ISIL as well. 

So could you please tell me what the difference is now since 

President Obama has sent some troops over there now? If not leavVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\072314\88829 SHIRL
62

ing troops there would really not have made a difference, what is 

the intent then behind sending troops now? Would that not make 

a difference? Do you understand my question? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I believe so. 

Mr. MARINO. All right, thank you. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. First, I just want to clarify that we have sent in 

an additional, it is up to 775 troops. 

Mr. MARINO. Right. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. 475 of that total are for the security of our people 

and our facilities. 

Mr. MARINO. The Embassy, the airport, et cetera. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Exactly. The other 300 are there to assess and answer those very questions, right. And I think the important thing 

that has changed since even just a year ago is the threat from ISIL 

that that poses to us, to our allies, to our partners, and the importance that puts on pushing back on them. 

So I think if your question is what more could we do, we should 

have left troops and now we are considering putting them back in, 

we are trying to figure out whether additional folks on the ground 

would help in that fight. 

Mr. MARINO. And I am ambivalent on this as well because I don’t 

want to see another American come home in a body bag. I have 

been on the ramp and saw the ceremonies where two people were 

sent back to my state and it is something that I do not want to 

experience again. But we did have the civil war under control by 

the time the troops left Iraq. Do you agree with that assessment? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I agree that the sectarian violence that had been 

raging in Iraq at the height of the war was significantly diminished, significantly, by the time that we departed. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. McGurk, do you have any comments on my 

questions? 

Mr. MCGURK. I just want to say, first, it is a tremendous honor 

to be before this committee all the time. The breadth of this committee, and the veterans, and everything else, it is a tremendous 

honor to be here and to discuss this with you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Mr. MCGURK. And I think again, 2011, we just, the requirements 

to get something through the Iraqi Parliament was not possible, 

but we still had the Strategic Framework Agreement. And where 

we are now is that we have been fully embraced to do training, to 

do advising, to do all sorts of things, and what we are undertaking 

at the direction of the President is a very careful review of what 

we can do to be most effective. So I think, hopefully, in our future 

conversation, we will have more a concrete way forward on terms 

of what we have decided will be the most effective because that is 

the conversation that is ongoing now internally. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARINO. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Marino. 

And Mr. Collins of Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. And 

looking back, I am not going to do that especially with my experience, but I will just say this in reference to my friend from Pennsylvania. I have been there when they were put in body bags, and 

63

I am appalled at the fact that we did so little in the SOFA agreement and do not accept the political answer that politically we 

couldn’t have got it through. Because also there was a political 

issue here at home in which the President had made a promise to 

get out. 

And so there was political aspects on both sides, so let us not kid 

each other at least in this committee that we are doing that. So I 

will be honest about that and I won’t go back. But I want to go 

forward and look at this, because that is very much of a concern 

for me for the price that, madam, you shared, maybe your own husband in being over there. We spent a lot of blood and treasure, and 

to leave it like it is now is very, very concerning for those of us who 

were there. 

Going forward is a concern for me and one other part is the 

March, in Iraq. Iran has used its close relationship, frankly, with 

Iraq and it was growing toward the end anyway to use airspace to 

fly weapons to Hezbollah and other partners in their fight in Syria. 

The U.S. has time and time again asked Iraq to stop allowing Iran 

to use their airspace. What is the most recent activity the Obama 

administration has taken to have Iraq cease these flights? 

Mr. MCGURK. Congressman, we continue to discuss that issue in 

some detail with the Iraqis. It is a very complicated question because it is unclear in terms of what is on specific flights, and the 

Iraqis aren’t going to completely shut down their airspace. It is an 

ongoing conversation. Again it is a conversation that contains some 

sensitive information, which I would be happy to follow up with 

you in a different setting. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I agree, and there is a lot of conversation that 

might not be needed to have here in an open forum such as this. 

But I will also say there is a lot of things we are dealing with the 

Iranians on right now that there could be some issues that we 

could use and pressure points and other sides that I am very concerned about their continued involvement in this basically messed 

up soup of Syria. 

I want to move though to the AUMF. I want to move to the 

President’s 775 men, which 475 of course are there for additional 

Embassy security and advisors to the Iraqi army. Under what authority is the President deploying this force? 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So as part of our, the 775 in total were notified in 

the three War Powers Notifications that came over to the Hill. 

Mr. COLLINS. All right. Using in, so Article II still adheres to the 

War Powers Resolution. They have been there for roughly 30 days 

at this point. After we are at the 60-day mark, which authorizing 

force will the President use? Is he going to try and use Iraqi AUMF 

or is he going to try to use the GWOT AUMF? Which one is going 

to, because I mean which one are we looking to use? Catch one of 

you. 

Mr. MCGURK. I will just say, Congressman, exactly what the 

President said, that any future decisions regarding our military 

posture in Iraq will be done in very close consultation with the 

Congress. And obviously one of those issues to be discussed will be 

the specific legal authorizations through which the administration 

determines the President has that authority. 

64

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, so at this point in time though the question 

would had to have come up that we are about 30 days away from 

using this. So the question would have had to at least be we have 

thought about this, which, are you going to come back and ask for 

a new authorization? Are you just going, this at some point in time 

has to be asked, and basically just saying, well, we will think about 

in 30 days, frankly, is not satisfactory to me. 

Mr. MCGURK. Again, Congressman, there is an number of legal 

authorities through which the President is able to deploy military 

force around the world. The specifics in this case are something 

that will be determined both within the administration, and also 

in very close consultation——

Mr. COLLINS. Well, let us discuss the Iraq AUMF for just a second. If he intends to use the Iraq AUMF, at what point does the 

Iraq AUMF without congressional repeal or at some time in not 

using it, when is it after this, this administration chose to withdraw in 2011, the authorization is still valid, or are we just going 

to keep it for ad infinitum or are you going to go to the GWOT? 

I think there needs to be, this is an honest question that needs to 

be discussed. How long are we going to have that on the table? 

Mr. MCGURK. It is also an issue, it is a legal issue which I would 

defer to the lawyers in the administration to provide specific answers. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I am sure they are not going to beat down 

our door to come talk about it at this point, so that is why you are 

here unfortunately for that. And like I said, this is just concerning. 

I mean again I believe we left with no real strategy. We are now 

having to deal with it. And for those of us who did deal with it on 

the ground are very frustrated about it. 

And one last thing before, again I appreciate you coming up to 

the Hill. We are just going to have a difference of opinion. I know 

you are limited by what you can or cannot say, which is understandable but not satisfactory. But to the Camp Liberty supporters 

in Iraq, look, I want to tell you each, the State Department and 

any other agent, the United States needs to continue to employ all 

necessary means to protect those there. It is our obligation, it is 

our right. 

And frankly, studying it forever is not the option. That needs to 

stop. The next time I hope someone comes to this committee they 

are actually saying, here is what we are doing not that we are looking at it. Because that is very disingenuous in a lot of ways because we have been looking at it for a long time now. 

But with that I think there is a lot of big questions here, Madam 

Chair, that are left, especially concerning use of force. And I would 

like to have a healthy discussion about that and not just a, well, 

we will get to it later because there is a lot of legal options. I am 

an attorney as well, so yes, there is a lot of legal options here, but 

we need to decide what are we going to do it under and not just 

make it up on the fly because we are not sure what to do. 

Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Collins. Thank you, 

Mr. Engel. Thank you for the panelists and the audience and the 

media. With that our committee is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

66

f


88829n.eps
67


88829m.eps
68

f


88829m-2.eps
69


88829c-1.eps
70

Representative in Congress from the State of California, entitled ‘‘Iraq Threat As-

[NOTE: Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a 

f sessment,’’ is not reprinted here but is available in committee records.]

Æ


88829c-2.eps