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

i 

56–005 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–101] 

U.S. MILITARY REDEPLOYMENT FROM 

IRAQ: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 

MIKE CASEY, Professional Staff Member 

ROGER ZAKHEIM, Professional Staff Member 

CATERINA DUTTO, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, October 21, 2009, U.S. Military Redeployment from Iraq: Issues 

and Challenges ..................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 ................................................................................. 33 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009 

U.S. MILITARY REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ: ISSUES AND 

CHALLENGES 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................ 2 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Estevez, Alan F., Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics 

and Materiel Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense ...................................... 8 

Flournoy, Hon. Miche`le, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 4 

Gainey, Lt. Gen. Kathleen M., USA, Joint Staff, Director for Logistics 

(J–4), U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................... 10 

Winnefeld, Vice Adm. James A., USN, Joint Staff, Director for Strategic 

Plans and Policy (J–5), U.S. Department of Defense ........................................ 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Flournoy, Hon. Miche`le, joint with Vice Adm. James A. Winnefeld, Lt. 

Gen. Kathleen M. Gainey, and Alan F. Estevez ......................................... 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Skelton ....................................................................................................... 53 

(1) 

U.S. MILITARY REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ: ISSUES 

AND CHALLENGES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, October 21, 2009. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. 

Today, the committee meets to receive testimony on the status 

of the U.S. military redeployment from Iraq, issues and challenges. 

Our witnesses today are the honorable Miche`le Flournoy, under 

secretary of defense for policy, Vice Admiral James Winnefeld, director for strategic plans and policy, which is the J–5, Mr. Alan 

Estevez, the acting deputy under secretary of defense for logistics 

and materiel readiness, and Lieutenant General Kathleen Gainey, 

the director for logistics, which is known as the J–4. 

And, General Gainey, I believe this is your very first time in appearing before this committee. We certainly welcome you. 

This is the second full committee event on this subject. The first 

was a classified briefing on July the 22nd of this year, and I doubt 

it will be our last. 

Right now, the United States has over 120,000 combat forces in 

Iraq. Under the current plan, we will end the year with 11 combat 

brigades, totaling somewhere around 100,000 personnel. In August 

2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end and our military presence in Iraq will consist of six Advise and Assist brigades, with 

about 50,000 American military personnel. 

Reducing our military presence by over 50,000 people and thousands of vehicles in just a few months, while simultaneously closing bases, consolidating headquarters, continuing to conduct both 

combat and training operations, will not be a simple undertaking. 

Such an enormous operation, conducted in a complex environment, demands extensive planning and inspired execution. Assuming this phase of the redeployment goes smoothly, we will slowly 

withdraw the remaining brigades until we meet the terms of the 

U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and there are no 

U.S. military personnel on January 1, 2012. 

This period and the period immediately afterward could well provide a jarring transition. For starters, the Iraqis will have to as-
2 

sume full responsibility for internal security, and there are questions if they will be fully capable in that area by the time we leave. 

We have provided the Department with the requested authority 

to transfer some current U.S. military equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and I hope our witnesses will address how that 

process will work, in particular, how we will ensure that this process will not hurt the National Guard’s capability to respond to disasters and other emergencies here in the United States. 

I hope that they will take a minute to discuss potential future 

requests for assisting of the Iraqis. I hope our witnesses will also 

take a moment to discuss how Iraq will be provided protection from 

external threats and how long such a commitment might last. 

Our military command in Iraq will also be transitioning a number of responsibilities to the United States embassy and the government of Iraq during this point. Some of these, such as providing 

protection for provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs), may be relatively easy to move to the State Department. Others, however, 

such as providing for the training of Iraqi police or resourcing future military assistance through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 

or Foreign Military Financing (FMF) process may prove more challenging for the State Department to—and its ability to manage. I 

hope our witnesses can take a moment to lay out what major functions will have to transition, how this will happen, how it will come 

to pass. 

This is ongoing process. I don’t think anyone on this committee 

thinks it will be the last hearing on this subject. We have been involved in Iraq for a long time, as you know, and I believe we will 

be involved there for a long time to come. We owe it to those outstanding and brave men and women who have given their lives to 

get to this point to make sure that we get it right. 

Now, while this may not be our last hearing on Iraq, it is the 

last hearing for Alicia Haley, one of our able staff, and we wish her 

well in her future endeavors as she goes to another position within 

the Administration. 

Now I turn to my good friend, Buck McKeon, the ranking member and gentleman from California, for comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this very important hearing. And I join you in welcoming 

our witnesses and thanking you all for being here today. 

We have made remarkable progress in Iraq. Violence continues 

to stay at a level comparable to 2003. The provincial elections earlier in the year were a success, and the SOFA agreement has held 

together. 

Most recently, in June, the Iraqi Security Forces assumed primary security responsibility within Iraqi cities, and U.S. combat 

forces departed the last remaining cities. As I had previously stated, the question we face in Iraq is not whether we have won the 

war, but whether we will win the peace. 

We heard encouraging testimony from General Odierno last 

month. While he acknowledged that security is improving, he cau-
3 

tioned, ‘‘It is not yet enduring,’’ and noted that, again, ‘‘There still 

remains underlying unresolved sources of potential conflict.’’ This 

is what he calls drivers of instability. And that is what we need 

to keep an eye on. 

With national elections set for January, a referendum on the 

SOFA on the horizon, as well as other significant, unresolved political hurdles like the status of Kirkuk, there are many unknowns 

that will determine the prospect of enduring domestic peace in 

Iraq. 

The President’s February 2009 plan calls for a dramatic reduction to the U.S. footprints in Iraq by August 2010. By next summer, the President plans to decrease our troop strength by 60 percent, in addition to closing bases and moving materiel out of theater. 

There seems to be widespread agreement that a peaceful national election in January is critical for Iraq’s emerging democracy 

and the successful implementation of the President’s redeployment 

plan. Last month, General Odierno was hopeful that the election 

will occur on time, if we get the election law passed. 

The London Times reported yesterday that the Iraqi parliament 

is now talking about delaying the elections in January. Yesterday, 

President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to his redeployment 

timetable. 

I am concerned that if the national election is, indeed, delayed, 

the President’s timetable for redeployment offers General Odierno 

little room to maneuver. Do we have contingency plans in the event 

the security situation demands revisiting the August 2010 

timeline? This plan arguably made sense in February. Does this 

still make the same sense today? 

Many of us here have consistently held the position that scheduling troop withdrawals in Iraq should be based on the conditions 

on the ground. The standard should continue to be that we do not 

draw down forces if it means sacrificing security. I hope our witnesses will affirm their commitment to that standard. 

As we begin executing the President’s redeployment plan, we 

also need to keep an eye on the future. This leads me to concerns 

about the normalization of our relations with Iraq. After all we 

have invested in Iraq, we should be taking steps to ensure that we 

pursue a robust security relationship with Baghdad. 

Our increase in combat forces was not the only reason the surge 

was successful. Rather, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus 

knew how to leverage our presence to ensure Iraqi leadership made 

the right choices. I am concerned that we may be retreating from 

this posture too quickly in an effort to normalize our relationship 

with Iraq. 

In particular, we need to keep an eye on how our military in Iraq 

hands over responsibility to our embassy in Baghdad. Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq (MNSTC–I) has a critical role in developing and sustaining the Iraqi Security Forces. We 

need to make sure that the embassy is ready for the handoff. 

As General Odierno emphasized last month, this is an embryonic 

democracy. While the situation in Iraq has improved, I think it is 

fair to say the situation is far from normal. So long as we have a 

force presence in Iraq, our leadership should continue to involve 
4 

itself in Iraqi political affairs to ensure the right decisions are 

made. Robust engagement seems to be the key to a redeployment 

plan. 

I look forward to a candid discussion on these important issues. 

Again, thank you for being here this morning. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from California. 

One statement has been furnished from the witnesses. As I understand it, it is a consolidated statement. However, I understand 

that each of you will be testifying this morning. But we will begin 

with the under secretary. 

Madam Under Secretary, we welcome you again. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHE` LE FLOURNOY, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Chairman Skelton, Representative 

McKeon, and distinguished committee members, we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

We have briefed the committee in July on the President’s Iraq 

drawdown strategy, and we are pleased to be able to follow up 

today to discuss the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) continuing 

efforts to draw down equipment in Iraq. 

As you know, on February 27th of this year, the President announced that, in accordance with the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, 

he would begin a responsible drawdown of our forces in Iraq. He 

directed a fundamental change of U.S. military mission. By August 

31, 2010, U.S. forces in Iraq will complete the transition from combat and counterinsurgency activities to a more limited mission. 

We will shift to focus on training and advising the Iraqi Security 

Forces, conducting targeted counterterrorism operations, providing 

force protection for U.S. personnel and facilities, and supporting civilian agencies and international organizations in their capacitybuilding efforts. 

We have continued along the timeline laid out by the President. 

On June 30th of this year, as you know, U.S. combat forces repositioned out of Iraqi cities. And for the first time, Iraqi forces assumed responsibility for security within cities, villages and localities across the country. 

The ISF have performed quite well since June 30th of 2009, and 

to underscore what General Odierno told you in his recent testimony, the security situation in Iraq continues to improve, despite 

a few high-profile attacks. Our initial force repositioning also 

helped to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we remain committed to the timeline agreed upon in the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement. 

While the Iraqi security forces have improved greatly in recent 

years, they still require our sustained support. The global economic 

turndown has driven down the price of oil, causing budget shortfalls for the Iraq government. These shortfalls have resulted in hiring freezes and hindered some of the ISF’s ability to field critical 

equipment. Much remains to be done to enable the ISF to assume 

full responsibility for internal security by December 31st of 2011, 
5 

when the security agreement comes to an end and the drawdown 

of U.S. forces is slated to be complete. 

Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF–I) assesses that, in order to 

maintain stability when the U.S. drawdown is complete, the ISF 

must at a minimum have the capacity to secure its population, conduct internal defense, and conduct basic external defense. Over the 

past several years, the government of Iraq has steadily increased 

its capacity to fund its own defense needs. 

In 2005, the Iraqi government was only able to contribute $2.4 

billion of the cost of funding the ISF. In 2009, the Iraqi government 

contribution increased to $9.6 billion. 

Nonetheless, without our assistance, the ISF will not be able to 

develop the needed capabilities and address their remaining budgetary and equipment shortfalls within the necessary timeframe. We 

believe that increasing ISF capabilities is the best way to ensure 

that our hard-fought security gains in Iraq will not be lost as we 

draw down. 

And to that end, MNF–I has developed an ISF equipment requirements list, and the joint staff has revalidated that list to develop solutions that address Iraqi shortfalls. 

To assist the ISF, the Administration has requested the authority to provide the government of Iraq with unlimited excess materiel. This includes everything from commercial trucks to individual 

clothing and equipment, such as helmets and body armor. We have 

also requested the authority to transfer non-excess equipment, such 

as pistols, cargo trucks, up-armored Humvees, and we would like 

to thank the committee for including this authority in the authorization bill. It will certainly help to ensure that the ISF can fulfill 

their mission by the time the U.S. forces depart, an absolutely vital 

step towards the goal of a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq. 

Given the government of Iraq’s budget shortfalls and the ISF’s 

requirements, the Iraqi government may ultimately require additional assistance beyond the transfer of excess and non-excess 

equipment. We are still evaluating how much and what type of additional assistance may be needed, and we look forward to coming 

back to you at a future date with a plan in those areas. 

In order to balance our own needs with those of the ISF, as well 

as the needs of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), which 

we are also seeking to address, the Department has established a 

very robust process to determine which equipment it can appropriately transfer. 

A core principle in our decision-making is that equipment will 

only be considered for transfer if it is not needed by U.S. forces in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. As plans for the transfer of non-excess 

equipment to the Iraqi and Afghan security forces are refined, DOD 

will also work with the military services to manage the cost of replacing that transferred equipment. 

The financial requirements associated with the replacement of 

transferred equipment will be part of the Department’s normal 

budget development process. In that process, we will be taking into 

consideration the timing of the transfer of equipment and the urgency expressed by DOD components for reimbursement or replacement. 
6 

This committee has previously and again today expressed concern about the impact on Reserve component of transferring nonexcess items. And we are pleased to report that Reserve component 

equipment will not be used as a source for ISF requirements. In 

fact, Reserve units serving in Iraq are being offered the opportunity 

to take theater-provided equipment back to their home station to 

fill any authorized shortages. 

Ultimately, the ISF will only be effective if they are viewed as 

legitimate across Iraqi society. And to help ensure that the ISF remains a non-sectarian, nationalist element, loyal to the government 

of Iraq, we are tying continued ISF assistance to their non-sectarian performance. 

Let me close with a word on the equipment drawdown. As President Obama has directed, by August 31st of 2010, we will seek to 

reduce our footprint in Iraq to a transition force of no more than 

50,000, and we have already begun that drawdown. Over 143,000 

troops were serving on the ground in January of this year. We are 

now just under 120,000. 

Needless to say, the challenge of drawing down our troops is paralleled by the challenge of drawing down all the equipment that is 

not appropriate for transfer to the ISF or the Afghan National Security Forces. At the moment, roughly 3.3 million pieces of equipment remain in Iraq. Although some of this equipment will be provided to the ISF to help improve their capabilities, the vast majority of the equipment will remain with U.S. forces and will either 

be returned home or transferred to Afghanistan. 

DOD and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) have been planning this equipment drawdown for over a year. We have now begun 

to execute it. The services have all identified which pieces of equipment are not mission-essential and can therefore be retrograded 

early. And this way, we will be able to draw down the equipment 

gradually as the troops draw down. 

Throughout the equipment process—drawdown process, the relevant DOD components will be meeting on a regular basis to resolve various issues that will inevitably arise during this very complex logistical operation. 

Let me close by emphasizing that we continue to plan for and implement a responsible U.S. drawdown, one that advances our goal 

of a stable, sovereign, and self-reliant Iraq. We are continuing our 

efforts to train and equip the ISF so they can effectively defend the 

Iraqi people and protect Iraqi institutions by the end of 2011. 

We are also committed to conducting the drawdown of troops, 

equipment, and materiel in a manner that addresses the needs of 

our own military and our obligations to the American taxpayer. 

While doing all of this presents significant challenges, we are confident that we are making progress towards our goals on the 

timeline laid out by the President. 

Again, I am happy to take any questions on potential developments in Iraq that may—we may need to respond to and as we refine and adjust our plans going forward during the question-andanswer (Q&A) period. And I want to thank you for allowing us to 

testify today. We look forward to working with this committee on 

these issues as we move forward. 

Thank you. 
7 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Flournoy, Admiral 

Winnefeld, Mr. Estevez, and General Gainey can be found in the 

Appendix on page 37.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Admiral Winnefeld. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. JAMES A. WINNEFELD, USN, JOINT 

STAFF, DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY (J–5), 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member 

McKeon, members of the committee, good morning, and thank you 

for the opportunity to meet again with you to discuss progress in 

executing the President’s strategy for a responsible drawdown in 

Iraq. 

I would first like to tell the members how thankful we are for 

the support we have received from the committee, especially with 

regards to the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA). I would like to publicly congratulate your staff members for their hard work and significant contributions to our 

progress. They have done a really, really good job. 

Since our last hearing in July, U.S. Central Command and MultiNational Forces of Iraq have remained on track to meet the President’s guidance for the responsible drawdown. In March of this 

year, when we spoke to you, the coalition footprint in Iraq was 

141,000 troops. When I spoke to you in July, when we spoke to you 

together, it was 132,000. And by the end of this month, we expect 

our footprint to be approximately 120,000. We also have our first 

two Advise and Assist brigades on the ground doing the work they 

were designed to do. 

A commensurate reduction in the number of bases we occupy has 

put us ahead of the schedule outlined earlier for you this year. We 

have 35,000 fewer contractors on the ground in Iraq than we did 

in January of this year. And based on the security gains made to 

date, as you have heard recently, General Odierno decided to offramp a brigade combat team (BCT), the 1st of the 10th Mountain, 

scheduled for deployment to Iraq on January 1, 2010. This will 

move us towards the 10 brigade combat teams at the time of the 

Iraqi elections, well on our way to the 6 Advise and Assistance brigades that we plan to have on the ground by September 1, 2010. 

Next spring, MNF–I will begin to redeploy forces in a manner 

that General Odierno describes as thinning the lines. This will enable MNF–I to redeploy their remaining brigade combat teams battalion by battalion through the summer of 2010. This approach will 

allow MNF–I to maintain key partnerships with regional leaders, 

particularly in Iraq, for the maximum time possible, while reducing 

the force to 50,000. 

MNF–I is currently planning for the final phase of the drawdown 

after September 1st of 2010. This plan, which will be completed in 

this spring timeframe—late winter, early spring—will ensure the 

successful execution of training and assistance operations after 

September 1, 2010, and ultimately the transition to a strategic 

partnership with Iraq. 

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Security Forces, which we will refer to as 

ISF, have come a long way since the security agreement was signed 
8 

in November of 2008, and we have witnessed a number of operational successes, of which you are aware. These include our successful withdrawal from the cities to which the chairman referred 

this past June, which provided a significant psychological boost to 

the Iraqi security forces and, contrary to some reports at the time, 

actually helped cement our relationship with those forces. 

And as horrific as the attacks on August 19th were, we saw in 

their aftermath an Iraqi Security Force that was capable enough 

to conduct a thorough investigation and flexible enough to adjust 

their procedures to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence. 

Thus, we are seeing an Iraqi Security Force that is increasingly 

independent of U.S. support and assistance. However, the ISF still 

have a long way to go to achieve the capabilities and capacities 

they need, including rounded-out internal security forces and a 

foundational external defense that will allow our complete drawdown by December 31st of 2011. 

The government of Iraq will not achieve these capabilities without the continued dedicated support of MNF–I and the rest of the 

U.S. Government. The legislative authorities recently granted to 

the Secretary of Defense to transfer excess and non-excess equipment to the Iraqi security forces are absolutely essential and very 

much appreciated in meeting the identified capability requirements 

that we have. 

In conclusion, through the efforts of U.S. Central Command and 

MNF–I, in concert with Embassy Baghdad, we will continue to 

plan and execute a responsible drawdown from Iraq that ensures 

we meet the objectives outlined by the President. As General 

Odierno pointed out during his recent testimony, concerns remain, 

including Arab-Kurd tensions, the election process, which we have 

been watching unfold over the last day or so, government capacity, 

and the potential for interference from violent extremists. 

Nonetheless, we do remain on track, and we intend to continue 

the drawdown in a manner that protects our military forces and civilians, exercises good stewardship over the resources provided to 

us, does not jeopardize the readiness of our military as we reset, 

and leaves a stable, secure, and self-reliant Iraq as a long-term 

strategic partner to the United States. 

Once again, thank you for the support you have provided and 

that you have consistently provided to our soldiers, sailors, airmen 

and Marines, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very 

much. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Winnefeld, Secretary 

Flournoy, Mr. Estevez, and General Gainey can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, thank you. 

Mr. Estevez. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN F. ESTEVEZ, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LOGISTICS AND MATERIEL 

READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and discuss the Department of Defense’s ongoing efforts to withdraw U.S. assets from Iraq. 
9 

In my capacity as the acting deputy under secretary of defense 

for logistics and materiel readiness, I am responsible for developing 

overarching logistics policies for the DOD to include the logistics 

policies which are supporting General Odierno’s drawdown strategy 

for combat forces in Iraq. 

Given the President’s decision on troop strength reductions, a 

concerted effort is ongoing in the Department to assess and synchronize logistics drawdown actions and policies to fully support 

the drawdown strategy. Having said that, the Department’s mission is not only focused on systemically and responsibly drawing 

down our forces, supplies, and materiel in Iraq, but also on fulfilling U.S. combat equipment requirements in Afghanistan and on 

providing equipment capabilities to the Iraqi Security Forces and 

the Afghan Security Forces. 

The magnitude of our logistics challenges associated with successfully supporting these mission requirements is enormous. 

Today in Iraq, we have over 289 of the 495 forward operating bases 

remaining to turn over, roughly 3.3 million pieces of equipment, 

49,000 sea-land containers, 34,000 short tons of ammunition, 22 

supply support activities, and 21,000 short tons of supplies. 

The good news is, we know how to do this. We know how to redeploy. We have been doing it as part of our force rotations for six 

years, and we have the capacity. DOD and the Multi-National 

Forces–Iraq, in coordination with the military services, have 

proactively developed and integrated and coordinated logistics, 

plans, policies, and direction to ensure the systemic and responsible 

drawdown of supplies and major end items in Iraq. 

In 2008, the military services reduced the amount of equipment 

and supplies flowing in to theater and instructed units to start 

shipping non-critical items out of Iraq. The Department directed 

the departing units to follow a four-step disposition process for 

drawing down excess supplies and equipment. 

The four-step disposition process that is in effect and being executed today is to consume, redistribute, transfer, and dispose. The 

responsible drawdown actions that we have taken to date have 

been accomplished while retaining logistics flexibility to adjust to 

operational changes in mission requirements. 

Excess property in Iraq is being reviewed against combat equipment requirements in Afghanistan and DOD’s overall requirements. The Department, in coordination with the General Services 

Administration (GSA), which is responsible for the transfer of excess property to state and local entities, has established a process 

that would allow state and local entities the opportunity to screen 

excess property in Iraq prior to it being transferred to the Iraqi 

government. 

However, it is unlikely that much of the property is suitable for 

state and local agencies based on the property’s operational condition or items that are—meet foreign specification standards, in 

other words, are running on 220 volts rather than 120. 

The military departments continue to emphasize the importance 

of maintaining property accountability and visibility throughout 

the equipment drawdown and retrograde process. Weekly seniorlevel video teleconferences between the Iraqi theater and Department have proven invaluable in synchronized coordinating and fa-
10 

cilitating solutions affecting the successful execution of the overarching drawdown mission. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee. The Department is achieving logistics 

unity of effort in executing the President’s directive to systemically 

and responsibly draw down the size of U.S. forces in Iraq. 

We have a plan for the equipment coming out of Iraq and have 

been working this for many months. We are tracking drawdown 

progress against specific goals and will provide whatever policy assistance is required to meet the President’s timelines. With continued support from this Congress, the Department can execute all of 

the required drawdown tasks. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you or members 

of the committee may have. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Estevez, Secretary 

Flournoy, Admiral Winnefeld, and General Gainey can be found in 

the Appendix on page 37.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Lieutenant General Gainey, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. KATHLEEN M. GAINEY, USA, JOINT 

STAFF, DIRECTOR FOR LOGISTICS (J–4), U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

General GAINEY. Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, 

and distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and 

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and to discuss 

the Department of Defense strategy and ongoing initiatives to responsibly draw down from the United States assets from Iraq. 

I am Lieutenant General Kathleen Gainey, director of logistics on 

the Joint Staff. As director of logistics, I am the principal adviser 

to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the entire spectrum of joint 

logistics, to include reviewing the logistics policies and processes 

that are guiding the drawdown strategy in Iraq, as well as the 

Joint Staff lead in the effort to equip the Iraqi security forces. 

Mr. Chairman, we have been redeploying significant amounts of 

forces out of Iraq and Kuwait for each of the past six years. The 

Department of Defense has been planning for and executing the 

mandated drawdown of forces from Iraq for over a year. The planning and execution have been a coordinated effort among Multi-National Force–Iraq, the services, the Department of State, Central 

Command, and its components. 

Central Command, through its service components, is orchestrating the process that determined the responsible drawdown 

strategy and additionally has positioned teams in Iraq whose primary focus is providing on-site assistance for the drawdown. Those 

teams, in concert with their parent service, have identified materiel 

and equipment no longer required to support operations in Iraq 

and can either be re-postured to support operations in Afghanistan 

or sent back to the United States. 

My assessment concludes that the process guiding the drawdown 

and the strategic transportation infrastructure in Iraq and in Kuwait are sufficient to fully support the drawdown strategy. If needed, we have the option to direct the flow of some equipment 
11 

through our regional partners’ ports, such as those in Jordan and 

Turkey. 

A key component of the drawdown strategy is the development 

and the use of metrics to measure our progress toward the required 

posture for the 31 August, 2010, and beyond. The various components within Iraq and Central Command area of responsibility 

(AOR) have established milestones, such as total containers or 

numbers of vehicles on hand. 

To chart their progress relative to that end state, these leading 

indicators enable commanders to grade themselves and gauge their 

progress against this established goal. As you heard in testimony 

from Secretary Flournoy earlier, it is an essential element of our 

drawdown strategy, is equipping Iraq’s security forces. As the Joint 

Staff lead, I am responsible for overseeing the process of equipping 

the Iraq Security Forces, a process involving Multi-National Force– 

Iraq, Central Command, Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

(DSCA), the Joint Staff, the services, and the National Guard Bureau. 

This calculated process, which includes validating requirements, 

adjudicating risk to the services, developing sourcing solutions, and 

we have reached a successful conclusion and the recommendations 

were brief to the Joint Chiefs two days ago on 19 October. 

Of the approximately 1,000 equipment categories, 42 percent 

were sources from service-declared excess equipment, and 51 percent were recommended for sourcing through sale from stock. The 

remaining 7 percent represents roughly $233 million in equipment 

and requires the Secretary of Defense to direct the transfer under 

the authorities provided to us by section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act. 

During our last testimony before this committee, a chief concern 

was the potential impact to the National Guard and the ability to 

respond to domestic incidents. I am pleased to report that we were 

able to arrive at a previously stated recommendation and that for 

sourcing Iraqi Security Force without having to expend National 

Guard Reserve component equipment. 

Additionally, National Guard Reserve component units currently 

serving in Iraq have the opportunity to take theater-provided 

equipment back to their home station to fill any authorized shortages. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the committee. We firmly believe that the description of 

the drawdown as a responsible drawdown is fundamental to this 

process, and we understand the criticality of good stewardship and 

property accountability of United States assets in Iraq. And therefore, we are diligently tracking drawdown progress against specific 

goals. 

At the same time, we are also focused on doing everything within 

our power and the authority to enable the Iraqi Security Force to 

operate effectively once the drawdown is complete. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you or members 

of the committee may have. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Gainey, Secretary 

Flournoy, Admiral Winnefeld, and Mr. Estevez can be found in the 

Appendix on page 37.] 
12 

The CHAIRMAN. General, thank you for your testimony. 

Admiral, it was kind of you to compliment the committee for our 

work and for what we have done for the young men and young 

women in uniform. And I think you specifically spelled out the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act that we just 

passed a few days ago. 

Back on July the 22nd, Madam Under Secretary, we asked that 

the Department of Defense provide our committee with a copy of 

up forward 0901, which is, so the members will remember, the 

order that lays out the organizations and responsibilities for various functions in how the redeployment will work. Despite repeated 

requests by our staff of the Department of Defense, then up forward 0901 has not been provided, nor has there been a legal reason 

given for not providing it for us. 

Now, we pass legislation based upon testimony, based upon briefings, based upon documents, and all of this goes together to put us 

in a position to receive compliments like Admiral Winnefeld just 

gave us, on putting out good legislation. But this one piece of legislation which is highly important on redeployment from Iraq thus 

far, unless you are willing to give it to us this morning, has not 

been furnished. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Sir, I am—we are quite happy to bring that 

Operations Plan (OPLAN) over to you to have staff brief you on the 

details—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And you will leave it with us in our classified—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY. And I regret that we were not more responsive to your request earlier. But what we would like to do is come 

over and share it with you, brief you on it, and we can work out 

the details of how it should be handled in declassification. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the details are not just come over and show 

it to us and walk back with it. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I understand. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are very responsible in this committee, and 

we are—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I understand. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Responsible in classified material, 

as you know. It is some 400 pages long. And come over—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I understand. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. And give us a rough look at 400 

pages is pretty difficult. And we would expect full cooperation. And, 

really, is there some reason—I mean, we really want to know. I am 

not trying to be difficult. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. There is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I just really want to know. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. There is no intention to keep the information from you at all. And, again, we want to be responsive to your 

request. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that was July the 22nd. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I understand. I think it was recently 

brought to my attention, and we want to make sure that we are 

responsive to your request as soon as possible. So I don’t have it 

physically with me today, but I can promise you that we will get 

it over—— 
13 

The CHAIRMAN. You will bring it over and leave it with us in a 

classified manner so we will have the time to go through the 400 

pages. Is that correct? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have this article that was written in the London Times yesterday. The title is ‘‘Violence Threatens Barack Obama’s Pledge to 

Pull Troops Out of Iraq.’’ And what they are basically saying is 

that they are threatening to move back the election from January. 

The election can’t be held until their parliament passes an election law. And Al Qaeda doesn’t want to have an election, and they 

want to do what they can to disrupt it. General Odierno feels that 

he needs to keep his troops there 30 to 60 days after the election 

to ensure a peaceful transition of government. 

Do you have any intelligence showing that—or any feeling that 

the election is going to be postponed? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Let me start by saying, you know, the 

drawdown plan that we have is conditions-based. And it creates 

multiple decision points for re-evaluating and, if necessary, changing our plans based on developments on the ground. 

Although the government of Iraq’s self-imposed deadline of October 15 for passing the elections law has passed, we judge that the 

Council of Representatives (COR) still has another week or two to 

come to some kind of agreement on an elections law before it will 

put the early January date in jeopardy, in terms of the election 

commission’s ability to actually physically execute the election. 

If a new law with open lists is not passed, the fallback option for 

them is to return to the 2005 election law, which is based on a 

closed list system, and that—but that could be still used for upcoming elections, and the COR would simply have to vote on an election date. 

If that law is not passed in the next two weeks, they will be looking at slipping the date to later in January, which would still be 

compliant with the constitution, but would be later than originally 

planned. In that instance, MNF–I would need to engage with the 

government of Iraq to do some contingency planning on how to secure the elections at a later date, and that might well have implications. 

But I just want to reinforce right now, on the ground in Baghdad, here in Washington, just yesterday, our focus is on trying to 

stick to the current election timeline. The President personally impressed upon Prime Minister Maliki the importance of sticking to 

the constitutionally specified timeline for the Iraqi elections, and 

we are putting all of our diplomatic effort towards that end. 

That said, of course, we will have contingency plans to adjust, if 

necessary. But right now, we are using all of our diplomatic and 

other leverage to try to make sure the elections happen on time. 

Mr. MCKEON. We won’t be forcing General Odierno to withdraw 

our troops if they don’t hold the election in a timely manner? We 

will still be flexible and allow him to keep the troops there to provide the national security, so they don’t put themselves at risk in 

trying to rush out in a couple-month period? 
14 

Secretary FLOURNOY. The drawdown plan is not rigid. It is conditions-based. It leaves room for re-evaluation and adjustment, in 

terms of the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 

2011. So if need be, we will re-examine things based on conditions 

on the ground. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ortiz. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Estevez and General Gainey, one of my concerns has been 

who will make the decisions about what equipment would be reset 

into the Army or the Marine Corps versus what will be provided 

to the Iraqis. And what are the criteria for those decisions? Because we do have—and I have no idea, of the 3 million pieces of 

equipment, how many of those have been damaged and how much 

of that equipment belongs to the Reserves or how much of that 

equipment belongs to the National Guard? 

And specifically, what are the Army’s plans for theater-provided 

equipment in Iraq, especially the rolling stock in the inventory? 

And what is going to be brought back to the United States for 

reset? And what would be used to replenish preposition stock? And 

that has been a problem for several years. 

And in regard to reset, what has been done to increase the depot 

capacity in preparation for the potentially huge influx of equipment 

from Iraq? Is our depot industrial base ready? Is it getting ready 

to accept some of this equipment? And maybe both of you can at 

least enlighten me a little bit. 

General GAINEY. Congressman Ortiz, thank you very much. The 

items to determine what is retrograded back, and what remains 

with the Iraqis as a possible item for transfer, that decision is 

made by the services. They look first at their equipment shortfalls 

back here in the United States and what the requirements are for 

our services back here. 

They meet those needs first. Then they can identify that equipment which is excess, which they have done. Those items are predominantly what we are looking at to transfer. 

There is also items that we have—what we call long in supply. 

And so those items are then categorized for sale from stock, because we have sufficient back in the United States to sell from our 

stocks here. 

Then that last category is that non-excess. That is that seven 

percent that I talked about. And those are critical items to allow 

the Iraqi Security Forces to be stood up at a stage which they can 

then do internal defense and basic self-defense. 

Those items are the ones that we have identified that the services feel that they can assume risk in to their readiness and have 

designated those items as acceptable to transfer to meet the requirements of the Iraqi Security Forces. 

For the depot capacity, we feel that the depot capacity we have 

today is sufficient. We have the plan in concert with the retrograde 

coming out. The retrograde will not negatively affect any of the 

depot workloads. We will adjust workloads given the requirements 

of what we have to reset to meet the force generation model to send 
15 

forces back over and to make them ready for any future contingency. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. If I could just add on to what General Gainey said, 

Congressman, the vast majority—the vast, vast majority of the 

equipment coming back will go back to U.S. forces. The stuff that 

we are transferring, there was a small amount of what we would 

call military green equipment that is going to be transferred to the 

Iraqis. 

The stuff that is coming back will go through, as General Gainey 

alluded to, the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process for 

Army equipment, so that will go into depot, depending on the status of its repair requirement, and then flow back into the Army 

forces based on their need, and eventually everything will flow 

through. It will probably be about a two-year process after we draw 

down before we have run everything through the depots, in order 

to get back into a full capability. With that said, the capacity is 

there to meet our force requirements while we are still repairing 

equipment through the depot process. 

Mr. ORTIZ. One of my concerns has been that Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the past raised concerns that there 

was no complete inventory of the United States equipment, and the 

property books of many units were incomplete. And although when 

we had General Odierno come and testify, he suggested that they— 

that an inventory had been completed at the time of his testimony. 

And this bothers me whether it is completed or it is not. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. In fact, it is completed. With that said, we are still 

going through processes, and things are found on forward operating 

bases (FOBs) that, you know, we should have had on the books. 

But we have gone through a definitive process with MNF–I and 

U.S. Army Central Command. We have weekly video teleconferences (VTCs) while we go through these numbers, and they are 

going out and ensuring that everything is captured on the property 

books. 

So that, you know, from July through late August timeframe, in 

fact, there was an uptick in the number of items that we said we 

had in Iraq versus a decrease while we were retrograding out. And 

that was because of the process of capturing those items onto property book. The 3.3 million number, which is down from 3.4 million, 

because we have pulled equipment out of Iraq, is a good number 

for us to work with. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess it was a year or two ago, getting a status of the Iraqi 

troops, and we were talking about, well, they are pretty good at 

fighting, they are pretty good at this, pretty good at that. There are 

a number of things that were the last things they had to learn to 

do or that they didn’t have capabilities. And, one, they didn’t have 

much in the way of air support. Two, logistically, they weren’t 

strong in that area. And then, three, medically, they didn’t have 

the kind of medical resources that we had. 
16 

Have we made some progress in those areas? Are the Iraqi troops 

able to at least make some efforts at air support, their own logistics 

and medical? 

And then the second question would be, the equipping of Iraqi 

troops, which apparently we are doing, are we getting paid for that, 

or is this just a freebie? Thank you. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I would say that the Iraqi Security Forces 

have come a long way in the last year, since you asked that question. I don’t have any specifics at my fingertips in terms of exact 

numbers of aircraft and medical units and the like. 

I can tell you that, since we talked to the committee in July, that 

the Iraqi Security Forces operational readiness—the number of 

their units that have come up to operational readiness rating one 

has gone up by about 15 percent, just in that short period of time, 

which is indicative of pretty good progress. And that is the army. 

The Ministry of the Interior (MOI), the internal security forces, 

have almost doubled the number of units that have come up to that 

operational readiness, that the precise numbers are classified, but 

I can give you those percentages. 

Mr. AKIN. Does that include, then, the logistical piece? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. They are getting better at the logistics. And 

among the exact numbers of increasing up to operational readiness 

rating one (O.R. 1) includes command and control (C2) units and 

logistics units and the medical units. So they are improving. They 

are not anywhere near where they need to be for us to draw down 

completely, but they are definitely making progress. I would say 

the aviation piece is the hardest, but they are even making 

progress there. 

Mr. AKIN. Good. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Congressman Akin, if I could jump in there, Army 

Materiel Command has helped the Iraqis stand up repair capability 

at Taji. They are using that capability. Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA) is now in there working with them so they have a distribution depot warehousing-type capability to go with that. They were 

over here, looked at our capability, so we are helping them grow 

their logistics capability, has been in progress. 

Mr. AKIN. Good. Do they have software and all to start to be able 

to track some of that all? Yes. And what is the story on equipping 

their—are they paying for the troop equipment that we are giving 

them? What are those? Are those uniforms and flak jackets and 

weapons and all our—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Sir, it is—— 

Mr. AKIN [continuing]. Weapons and all our—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY. It is a mix. Some of the items that we are 

transferring they are getting gratis. Some of the items we are 

transferring they are paying to refurbish. Some of the items that 

they are buying—particularly the major weapons systems—they 

are using—we are doing foreign military sales (FMS) to the Iraqi 

government. So it is really a mix, depending on the item. 

Mr. AKIN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 
17 

And I want to thank our panel for being here. 

Ms. Flournoy, I was lucky enough to start off in local government. And I think what we are seeing now around the country is 

sort of what I saw way back when, which is that almost every state 

and almost every city’s revenues are down. And the things that 

they would have liked to have bought new, they are in many instances buying used or looking through the government surplus for 

these things. 

I very much remember after Katrina getting then-Chief of Naval 

Operations (CNO) Mike Mullen on the phone and informing him 

that almost every hospital in coastal Mississippi had gone underwater, that every generator in coastal Mississippi had gone underwater, and that we had a desperate need for things like tents to 

take the place of the hospitals, desperate need for generators. And 

I remember him saying something to the effect that, ‘‘We don’t 

have any. They are all in Iraq and Afghanistan.’’ 

Something like Katrina is going to happen again, whether it is 

man-made or the hand of God. And to that point and knowing what 

a big problem the lack of electricity was, the lack of just shelter 

was, to what extent are you taking those things that the military 

says they don’t need anymore, putting them online for, number 

one, other government agencies like Homeland Security, but beyond Homeland Security, in a tiered manner much like we do with 

the DRMO, the defense reuse management office? To what extent 

are you making those things available to cities, states, and counties, and coming up with some sort of plan to get them back? 

Because I can assure you that—and I will give you just one for 

instance. The 8th 90th engineers had already done their hitch in 

Iraq in 2003. By the time they returned to Mississippi, they had 

left every piece of equipment behind. Now, they did a magnificent 

job after Katrina with only 60 percent of the equipment they 

should have had, but the fact of the matter is, they only had 60 

percent of the equipment they should have had. 

I heard what the general had to say, but my gut tells me that 

two or three years from now, I am going to be looking at an episode 

of ‘‘60 Minutes’’ that shows me billions of dollars of equipment that 

got left behind in Iraq that is probably going to end up on the 

world market, may end up in China or some other place. 

What steps are you taking to alleviate some of these problems up 

front? Because it did happen when we left Panama. It did happen 

when we left the Philippines. Heck, it happened when we left 

Vieques. We left a lot of good stuff behind. 

So what extent are you taking, thinking with that line of 

thought, that a five-kilowatt (kW) generator in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, at the firehouse after Katrina, that is a big deal? It may 

not be a big deal to you right now, but I can assure you, under 

those circumstances, that is a big deal. What are we doing to make 

this equipment that we think of as little stuff, but to a city or a 

county is a big deal? What are we doing to make it available to 

them? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Congressman, if you don’t mind, I will take that 

question. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sure. 
18 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Let me start with the accountability. As I said to 

Congressman Ortiz, we have gone out, got things on our property 

books so we know what we have. If it is standard military gear and 

it is not excess, we are bringing it back, running it through the 

depot process, ensuring that the force—and I mean the total 

force—Guard, Reserve—has what they need on their books. 

For non-standard gear, which includes commercial generators 

and the like, if it is excess to DOD requirements in Iraq, we are 

going through the same process we would go through in the states. 

And we have worked through this with GSA and the National Association of State agencies that draws equipment from our DRMOs 

in the states—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. So for clarification—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Yes. 

Mr. TAYLOR [continuing]. Any state surplus office could go online 

and will be made aware of what is potentially going to be left behind in Iraq? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. What do they do then? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. If they see something they want, they can put a 

claim against that. They would have the same 14 days that they 

would have here to say, ‘‘I want that.’’ They can get more information about it. For example, you know, the generator could be 220, 

and they could decide they don’t want it. 

After that 14 days, if they want it, they would have another 14 

days to arrange through the forwarder that the state association 

has to come and claim it in Iraq. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Do you have—if my office wanted to take a 

look at that master list of what you have available, what is—or if 

a state surplus office wanted to look at it, what is that site? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is a—and I will have to get you the exact site, 

sir, but it is a rolling number, of course, because as we close FOBs, 

forward operating bases, things become available. And that is when 

we post that out there, through an e-mail of, ‘‘Here is the list of 

equipment that is available at this particular site that is going to 

become available.’’ 

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you have someone from your office get in 

touch with mine? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Before I call on Mr. Hunter, Madam Under Secretary, let me ask, 

on page six of the written statement furnished to us, it says that 

we have made continued support of the Iraqi Security Forces contingent on their non-sectarian performance. Now, I suppose that 

means contingent upon the Shiites not shooting the Sunnis. How 

will we make judgments on this? Have we placed any other conditions on future assistance? Tell us about it. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Well, I think this is something that we are 

in dialogue with the Iraqi government about and Iraqi commanders 

about on an ongoing basis, that we are supporting the development 

of the ISF towards a certain set of objectives. And one of those is 

making sure that the military is truly representative of Iraq. It is 
19 

a national institution. It is not a tool that any one individual or 

party or person in power can use for sectarian aims. 

We continue to monitor that. In many instances, we have had 

many opportunities to work through specific issues. And, frankly, 

the Iraqis have been very responsive over time on this point. They 

understand that the only way we can get the support here to support them is to demonstrate that they truly are a non-sectarian institution, so we continue to bring that home at every level, from 

the tactical all the way up to the headquarters here in Washington 

when we have interactions. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we do see some sectarian performance, what 

do we do? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Generally what has happened is the ambassador and General Odierno have called the government and the 

military on the issue, immediately gone in to discuss it with them, 

and worked out remedial steps to either, you know, isolate a unit, 

to step in and deal with a situation, and so forth. They have also 

taken very proactive initiatives, such as initiatives to try to get the 

ISF, for example, and the Peshmerga working much more closely 

in border areas where the two forces come up against each other. 

And so I think they have done both reactive steps and proactive 

steps. But, again, we have seen—we have—you know, we have 

seen a decrease, a decline in that kind of behavior over time. And 

so that is the good news. It is something we need to keep—continue 

to be watchful for, but it is something that has been very well-managed to this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there is a severe sectarian act, at what point 

do we say, ‘‘Sorry, we are out of here’’? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Well, you know, again, I think, you know, 

I don’t want to speculate on exactly what could provoke that kind 

of thing. What I can say is we take it very seriously, we have taken 

it very seriously, and we—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the important thing is—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY [continuing]. And the trend has been increasing. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Is, do they take it very seriously? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. They certainly understand, when this 

has—you know, in the instances this has happened, the reaction 

from us has been very swift and very clear. And it has had impact. 

So I don’t think there is any question in the minds of the Iraqi government where our red lines are on this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, panel, for being here today. The first question is, 

is there any correlation between a troop drawdown in Iraq and the 

ability to surge troops in Afghanistan? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. There is not a direct correlation in the 

sense that we are making judgments about the debate that is going 

on right now, the discussion, if you will, about the strategy for Afghanistan and tying that directly to the drawdown from Iraq. We 

have adequate capacity right now to do what we believe—whatever 

decision the President makes on Afghanistan, well within the current drawdown plan for Iraq. 
20 

So there is no direct tie between the two, where, you know, you 

can’t do this unless you do this. That is not happening right now. 

Mr. HUNTER. But it obviously will alleviate strain on the overall 

strength—— 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Health of the force, I think, sir, is the real 

impact that—you know, that—if you were to keep more forces in 

Iraq and you plussed up in Afghanistan, of course, you would be 

imposing more health of the force risks on the force, but I don’t— 

we are not in that situation right now. And the chairman is in very 

close consultation with the service chiefs to make sure that we 

keep that in mind at every step. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. What force would you say in Iraq right 

now are actual combat forces, compared to combat service support? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. What percentage of approximately 120,000 

people? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. Yes. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I don’t have an exact number. I mean, it 

all varies, of course, between—— 

Mr. HUNTER. What would you guess? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Well, we have 11 brigade combat teams 

(BCTs). So in terms of combat troops on the ground, you multiply 

that out, and you, you know—about 4,500 troops per brigade combat team. And then, of course, there are a lot of other forces over 

there that I would qualify as combat forces, to include the Special 

Operations Forces (SOF) we have over there. So we can get you a 

more detailed number on that. 

Mr. HUNTER. As you withdraw then, do you draw down the same 

amount of each type of force, meaning, do you pull out service support last? Do you pull out combat guys first? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Well, it is not an exact, you know, one-toone correlation—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Right. 

Admiral WINNEFELD [continuing]. That, you know, perfectly even 

glide slopes coming down. 

Mr. HUNTER. In general, what would you do? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. In general, I think, you know, General 

Odierno has pointed out that he wants to thin the lines, come out 

battalion by battalion within the brigade combat teams that are 

there in order to get down to the six Advise and Assist brigades. 

We have very difficult decisions that we do make between—regarding enablers, in terms of making sure that we have got the correct balance of enablers between Iraq and Afghanistan. And those 

are drawn down, paced as required with the combat forces. And 

then the combat service support, there is a lot of base closure that 

has to happen and the like, and we need to provide for their force 

protection. 

So it is sort of a complicated animal. And I would say it is not, 

you know, a straight-line glide slope coming down for those forces 

together. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Snyder, please. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 
21 

Mr. Hunter began a discussion of a topic I wanted to ask about. 

I want to come at in a little bit different way. Last week, we had 

a very good hearing on Afghanistan policy. And one of the witnesses was General Jack Keane, that you all know retired at the 

end of 2003. And in his testimony, I was actually shocked by what 

he said, and I am going to read what he said. He said, ‘‘It is a fact 

that Afghanistan, beginning in 2002 and increasingly so in 2003, 

became a secondary priority in the war in Iraq. Indeed, it remained 

as such until this year, 2009, when only now we are beginning to 

shift our priority effort from Iraq to Afghanistan. As such, as a secondary effort, despite the addition of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces and resources, Afghanistan has always been 

operating at the margin and in most of those years below what was 

required in forces and resources.’’ 

That is what General Keane had in his written statement, and 

then he testified to. There were a lot of us who had been confused, 

I think, for some years about, at what point did Iraq become the 

priority, when we all said—and as a legislative body and American 

people were united in our resolve to take down the Taliban and go 

into Afghanistan. But one of the things we said was we were not 

going to abandon Afghanistan again. 

General Keane, who was involved in the highest levels of leadership, said we started abandoning Afghanistan at the end of 2002. 

That certainly wasn’t part of our discussion in the months leading 

up to the debate over the Iraq war resolution. It certainly wasn’t 

the discussion, as the years went by, that we had abandoned Afghanistan. 

Admiral, you, in response to Mr. Hunter, said we have adequate 

capacity to do both. What if things really go badly in Iraq and 

President Obama, who has already made the decision—he has already sent in 17,000 additional troops, has changed the leadership 

in Afghanistan, and clearly is making Afghanistan a higher priority—what if he were to decide we need to, in the secretary’s 

words, be flexible, we are going to have to put troops back in? 

You say we have adequate capacity. We didn’t. We didn’t for six 

or seven years. If we had it, I don’t know where they were, but we 

certainly didn’t as a country respond to the need in Afghanistan. 

What assurance do we have that we have adequate capacity should 

we decide that we needed to return troops to Iraq? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Well, I would say right now our principal 

focus right now is to make sure that Iraq goes on the same trajectory that it is on and that we don’t have to confront that decision. 

And so far, by every indication—and General Odierno, I think, was 

quite eloquent a week or so ago in describing how, even though 

there are concerns and there are potential drivers of instability, 

that Iraq is on track and that he and his partnership with the embassy over there are determined to keep it on track. 

If there are probably scenarios out there—and I don’t want to 

speculate in public on what those might be—that could cause you 

to need to, you know, delay the drawdown a little bit or make the 

hump a little bit further out in the planning cycle there, but I believe that we, with the 10 brigade combat teams we will have on 

the ground early next year, that General Odierno has a very capa-
22 

ble force on his hands to handle any number of contingencies that 

could arise. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, and—you know, and I accept your reassurance. It is just I would hate to see us having this discussion several 

years from now that says, well, when we shifted the priority to 

have General Jack Keane to come back and testify, whoever else 

was—maybe you—at a think-tank or some years from now and say, 

‘‘Well, we began shifting our priority, and things didn’t go well, and 

we didn’t have the resources,’’ because that is clearly what has occurred. And it has only been—we finally got the attention—as 

President Obama came in and said we were going to put more 

troops in Afghanistan. 

Madam Secretary. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I just wanted to—you know, we are very 

cognizant of the fact that we do not want to take our eye off the 

ball in Iraq. And I can assure you that we are having—the secretary continues to have equally—you know, equally frequent video 

teleconferences with General Odierno and the team on the ground. 

The deputies committee meets every other week on this. We are 

monitoring this as closely as we possibly can to make sure that we 

are getting after any kind of inkling, any kind of instance of—indicator of instability as soon as it occurs. 

The one thing I will say that I am hearing more and more from 

Iraqis is that a growing confidence that, despite the efforts of Al 

Qaeda in Iraq, remnants of the insurgency, they are trying very 

hard to try to spark sectarian reaction in—with their attacks. It is 

not working. 

The groups that they were able to provoke and incite before have 

opted to participate in the political process. And that is the greatest insurance we have against the kind of scenario that you are 

worried about. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. Thank you for your service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I call on Mr. Wilson, let me ask—the GAO 

tells us that the Iraqis have approximately $48 billion in the bank. 

And with that as a background, what additional funding is planned 

to request for the purpose of training and equipping Iraqi Security 

Forces, especially in light of the fact that they have these oil revenues, Madam Under Secretary? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Sir, I can’t give you a firm answer yet. We 

are in the middle of an interagency discussion developing our proposal to you for a long-term approach to transitioning our relationship with Iraq to kind of a normal security assistance relationship 

over a multi-year period. There will be DOD elements of that plan, 

State Department elements of that plan, and certain assumptions 

about what the Iraqis themselves will pay for. 

We will come back to you when we have a clear sense of our bottom lines on that. And I expect that will be sooner rather than 

later. But I don’t have specific, you know, answers for you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that is what our colleagues will ask, 

members of this committee, particularly with a pretty large bank 

account like that. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today. 
23 

And, Secretary Flournoy, thank you so much for your comments 

in that we certainly can count on General Odierno. We have excellent military leadership in Iraq. And I am just so proud of his service, and I appreciate your recognizing that. 

As a representative of Fort Jackson, Parris Island, the Beaufort 

Marine Corps Air Station, I am grateful for the success in Iraq. I 

also agree with President Obama. He met yesterday at the White 

House with Prime Minister Maliki. The Washington Examiner reports today, ‘‘We have seen in the last several months a consolidation of a commitment to democratic politics inside Iraq.’’ I think the 

President is absolutely correct. 

And it is startling. I have a first-hand knowledge to it. My son 

served in Iraq. I have a nephew currently serving in Iraq. We have 

a very humble member of Congress here who didn’t identify himself, but Congressman Duncan Hunter served in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And, Admiral Winnefeld, General Odierno has confirmed before 

this committee that the relationship between the Multi-National 

Forces–Iraq and Iraqi Security Forces are actually far more positive than the media portrays. What is your assessment of the relationship? What measures can be taken to further improve communication and cooperation? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I would certainly agree with General 

Odierno that the relationship is good. I think those of you who 

have been to Iraq have observed that personally. It has gotten better over the years. 

When I was operationally assigned in the North Arabian Gulf, I 

observed it personally within the Iraqi navy to include different 

sectarian people inside the same unit, cooperating together with 

each other, and also cooperating well with us, as we taught them 

how to protect their oil platforms. 

General Odierno has reflected recently on how the—both the 

withdrawal from the cities and the August bombing have tightened 

that bond between us. He will speak eloquently of the close cooperation we have with the Iraqi special operations forces and continually successes, daily and weekly successes in rolling up extremist elements that threaten the Iraqi government and Iraqi stability. 

So, you know, every now and then, there might be a little friction 

that you would expect to happen when such large forces are intermingled with each other, but the partnership is close, and it is instructive that that close partnership where we have been embedded 

with them for several years now has really paid off. 

So I think that we have never had a better partnership with 

them. They have confidence in us, in our—that we are going to 

stick to what we say we are doing and turning responsibility over 

to them. 

Mr. WILSON. And two months ago, I had the opportunity to see 

a joint operating center at Al-Nasiriyah and to see the Iraqis and 

Americans working together. And, Secretary, indeed, they are stopping the sectarian violence. It was so inspiring. And I was happy 

to see the special forces were using M249s made by FN Manufacturing of Columbia, South Carolina. So this is good. 

And, General Gainey, as a 31-year veteran of the Army National 

Guard and Reserve, I am really grateful that the Guard and Re-
24 

serve have served with extraordinary distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do you see the potential for their use, Advise and 

Assist? Also, will advanced equipment—does redeployment be sent 

back to armories within the United States? 

Additionally, I know unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been 

shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. And I would hope, as we need reinforcements in Afghanistan, that more equipment would be sent 

to Afghanistan. 

General GAINEY. Sir, the National Guard and Army Reserve and 

all forces Reserve have performed incredibly well. They are truly 

part of the total force. As far as their equipment, they will redeploy 

with their equipment that is there. Forty-six percent of the equipment that is over there, you know, is unit equipment and will redeploy with their forces. 

Of specific, National Guard has—of the total equipment there, 

only four percent of that is National Guard equipment. And for the 

Army Reserve, it is 16 percent. Most of the Marine Corps equipment is already redeployed. 

To your question on equipment that is being transferred, we 

have already redirected several units and equipment over to Afghanistan to include clearing equipment for roads, you know, the 

Huskies and cargo vehicles, automation equipment, communications equipment, et cetera. So as equipment is freed up and identified for use over in Afghanistan, that process happens all the time 

and is ongoing today. 

Mr. WILSON. And I want to thank you. And on behalf of military 

families, thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the four of you for being here today. I just want to follow up a little bit on the National Guard and Reserve issue, if we 

could just get a little bit more from you folks. 

But before I ask you to elaborate a little bit more, I just want 

to thank my colleagues here who have a particular concern—we all 

do, but certainly Mr. Wilson does, and he has a personal connection 

to the National Guard, but also, Mr. Taylor, with what has happened on the Gulf Coast with the hurricanes and what have you, 

and, of course, in Iowa, when we had the great flood last year, we 

were able to utilize our National Guard for those emergency services, obviously, prior to, during, and after that flood. 

And so we can see the National Guard engaged in those domestic 

kinds of operations, as well as going overseas. I am really proud 

of the Iowa National Guard. Next fall, we are going to be deploying 

somewhere between 3,500 and 3,900 National Guard to Afghanistan. That was just made public today, I believe. 

But I do have a real concern, obviously, on the equipment front. 

I appreciate the answers that you gave so far today, but I want to 

give you an opportunity, Madam Secretary and General Gainey, to 

elaborate a little bit more, if you would, about bringing the materiel from the theater and back here to the United States, because, 

again, we have to make certain, I think, that we continue to equip 

our National Guard, not just for combat missions when called upon 
25 

to do so, but also for those domestic missions that they perform 

here. 

So spend a little time elaborating, if you would, on your testimony, Madam Secretary, and General Gainey, please. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Actually, I would like to defer to the general, as she is really working the details of this. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. But before the general speaks, may I put 

in a plug? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Please. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. And I would simply say that, during our 

testimony in July, we heard your message loud and clear, both 

from you and Mr. Taylor and others, that you were very interested 

in the National Guard and also the civilian capacity piece. 

And believe me: It was a real challenge for us to get through the 

Internet technology systems and the like. And my hat is off to General Gainey and her folks for really working hard. And we still got 

a ways to go on this, but we have heard you loud and clear, and 

we are determined to take your concerns into account. 

And I will turn it over to—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I appreciate that very much. 

General. 

General GAINEY. Yes, sir. Sir, all of the services are working very 

hard to continually review the requirements for our National 

Guard and Reserve units to look at what are their shortfalls and 

to identify if there is any equipment that is currently in Iraq that 

could be used to fill their shortages. 

As well, the services all look at that which is coming back 

through the refurbishment system of the depots to then fill the 

shortages where they had been directed to leave equipment in theater. They may not get back the exact same truck or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle or tank that they left in theater, but they will get one of those out of depot. 

Those pieces of equipment are identified for transfer back to the 

Reserve components to meet the requirements of their missions 

and our daily requirements. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I appreciate that, because on page five of your 

testimony, Madam Secretary, you said, in fact, Reserve units serving in Iraq are being offered the opportunity to take theater-provided equipment back to their home station to fill any authorized 

shortages. 

And what you are saying, General Gainey, is that those who previously were deployed to Iraq are also able, then, to replenish their 

sources, their equipment? 

General GAINEY. For that equipment that they had previously 

had to leave in theater, that is being filled more from stocks that 

are coming out of United States depot refurbishment facilities so 

that they can, you know, make best use of it immediately. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. 

Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
26 

General, let me ask. It is maybe a bit repetitious. Would you tell 

us again, in your opinion, how the American National Guard has 

performed in Iraq? 

General GAINEY. Certainly, sir. Sir, I had served over there as 

the director of resources and sustainment for Multi-National 

Force–Iraq, so I have personally seen the great work that the National Guard and all of our Reserve units have performed. 

As well, I have seen them perform in previous conflicts, as well, 

serving alongside them, particularly in Desert Storm. 

When you look at the total force, and you are forward-deployed, 

and you are expecting support on your left and right, you are not 

looking to see what unit they came from. You are looking to see 

that you have got a competent leader on your side and a subordinate that knows their job and is trained to standard. And that is 

what we have in our Reserve forces. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would say that about the National Guard? 

General GAINEY. I would, indeed, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when we talk to our National Guard units 

back home, what message can I tell them about redeploying the 

equipment back to them, resetting the equipment back to them? 

General GAINEY. Sir, you can tell them that the equipment is 

coming back, will be put through the refurbishment program. That 

equipment then will be balanced with the requirements for the 

forces that have to go back out to the fight. The services look at 

that and generate that equipment back out of the depots to the 

units that are the next to deploying. 

That may be a National Guard unit. That may be a Reserve unit. 

That may be an active unit. Those are the units that will be filled 

first with the equipment coming out of depots so that those units 

can train on that equipment prior to going back into the fight. 

As more and more equipment comes out of the depot, shortages 

will be filled in units that are still back in the United States that 

don’t currently have a deployment mission immediately on the horizon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was in Iraq during the Memorial Day recess, and so prior to 

the June 30th pullout, and met with General Odierno and Ambassador Hill in Baghdad. And one of the questions that I raised at 

that time was that Mosul, the second-largest city in Iraq, at I think 

a population of about 2.0 million, that was still had tremendous security concerns, that still was under Al Qaeda influence in a significant way, and I posed to Ambassador—I mean, Ambassador Hill 

or General Odierno, would they, in fact, ask for an extension of the 

June 30th deadline? 

And at that point, they told me, no, because they felt that the 

political considerations would outweigh the tactical considerations. 

And I, in fact, agree with them. Can you give me an assessment 

of Mosul at this point in time? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Mosul remains an area where we are 

still—where, you know, some of the insurgent elements are trying 

to kind of make a last stand, if you will, in terms of urban areas. 

So it remains an area of focus in the campaign. 
27 

That said, I think there has been substantial improvement since 

the period when you were there. I think you have increasingly effective Iraqi forces in the city. You have U.S. forces, when invited 

in, backing them up, providing support, doing joint operations with 

them, and so forth. So we have made progress. 

I think, again, most importantly, I would underscore the political 

evolution in the area. You have a population that is really in the 

process of turning against the more extremist elements and opting 

into the political process at the local level, the provincial level, and 

now in January with the—at the national level. 

I don’t know if you have anything to add to that, but it is still 

an area that we are keeping a close eye on. We are working it 

hard, but it is, you know, moving in the right direction. 

Mr. COFFMAN. In terms of redeployment, as far as equipment 

goes, can you give me a categorical definition as to what we are 

giving the Iraqis versus selling the Iraqis? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I would defer that to my colleagues. 

General GAINEY. Sir, I can’t give you a specific item, but I can 

tell you that the type of equipment that would be identified transfer might range from non-standard equipment, like generators or 

tents, to equipment that is that they are purchasing that is an enditem weapon system. 

They may also be purchasing some of the items where we may 

be using Iraqi Security Forces Funds (ISFF) to support them for repair or for training, also for possible repair parts. 

The types of equipment that we have identified for transfer that 

we are looking at today ranges everything from, again, tentage to 

perhaps the wheeled vehicles, ASVs, you know, armored security 

vehicles, Humvees. That is the sort of thing that, if it is excess, 

that is going to go ahead and be transferred. But most of the newer 

weapon systems would have to be purchased, that which could be 

an exportable version. 

Mr. COFFMAN. We are required by the SOFA agreement to have 

our forces out of Iraq by, I think, December 31, 2011. Will we have 

all of our equipment out of Iraq by December 31, 2011? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. I will let you answer that, General. 

General GAINEY. We have a process by which we are going to be 

bringing that equipment out and staging it in various locations. So 

we believe that we will be able to meet that requirement. There 

may be some items that might be in DRMO that we are still processing through that would not have totally departed the location. 

Does that answer the question, sir? 

Mr. COFFMAN. It does. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady, Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. And thank you all for being here 

today. 

I have had concerns about the rest time for servicemembers, 

some who have experienced three and four tours, and we know the 

impact on readiness and also the impact on our troops and their 

families. We know about the PTSD, the divorce rates, the increasing suicide rates, et cetera. 
28 

After the election, I know that we plan to redeploy 6,000 to 8,000 

troops. Will there now be an opportunity to provide these troops 

more dwell time at home? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I don’t have the exact numbers for you, but 

the answer is yes. And the Army is very, very focused on trying to 

get the boots on the ground versus the dwell time up to an acceptable number. 

And General Casey, of course, I believe would like to see a threeto-one ratio. It is going to be a long time before we can get there. 

The current goal is to get it to two-to-one. 

But, clearly, if the aggregate number of forces that are deployed 

outside the continental United States comes down, as it will significantly, then we should start to be able to build that dwell time 

back up, and we already are. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So you could tell a soldier and his or her family today that, if all goes according to plan, they can expect to have 

their loved one home more often between deployments? Is that 

something that—— 

Admiral WINNEFELD. A gradually increasing amount of time between home—between deployments will occur if all goes well, yes, 

ma’am. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. In addition to the force management piece, 

something that has helped in this regard has been the authorization to grow the force over the last couple of years and then the 

temporary authorization for additional 22,000 for the Army. All of 

that is designed to help reduce some of the pressure. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. But I am also wondering, do you have 

any idea of how many numbers of men and women will then be 

sent to Afghanistan? Or is there a guarantee that there will be 

some time back in the states? Are you able to do that? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. The decision on the force disposition in Afghanistan has yet to be made. The President is working through 

that. But I can tell you that, in the discussions, there is a very explicit addressal of the impacts of any options that we are considering on dwell time for men and women in uniform. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay, thank you. 

I also would like to ask about increasing numbers, the redeployment efforts. Will it cause contractors to stay longer? And will 

there be more of them? I know that we have had a decrease this 

year, but the GAO mentioned that they are expecting that we will 

actually have to increase or leave more contractors there to do the 

work as the troops leave. Is that what you are expecting, also? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The contractor number will continue to decrease. 

It will not decrease as rapidly as the force decrease. So, for a while, 

we were about a one-to-one ratio, maybe a little higher. By next 

July, we expect—or August, we expect to be about 1-to-1.5, so 

about 75,000 contractors to help us close those FOBs and help us 

redeploy equipment. And then that will also start to come down. 

So there is flexibility in that, but there will be a little higher 

number of a ratio of contractors, thought it will be an overall decrease in the number of contractors in Iraq. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. All right. And a question about the contractors. Who is going to be left behind providing accountability and 

oversight? 
29 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Joint Contracting Command Iraq/Afghanistan will 

still be in place. We are deploying additional contracting officers as 

we speak, in fact, to help us manage that. And they will have flexibility between Afghanistan and Iraq, with the number of contracting officers. 

In addition, we have required any units that are there now to 

have trained contracting officers, representatives to oversee our 

contracts. You know, there is a regimen, is that we put in place 

based on lessons learned. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay, thank you. 

And one last question. I understand that Iraq is interested in 

purchasing some pretty sophisticated equipment, tanks, F–16s. Are 

you concerned about the long-term stability of Iraq after the election? Are you comfortable with leaving in some advanced military 

equipment? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Again, I think that that will certainly be 

factored into any decision on major weapons sales going forward. 

But I think that we are on—given the path that we are on, we are 

on the path to having Iraq as a stable ally of the United States in 

the region. 

Should indicators change that we are on a different path, that 

would obviously have to be factored into our decision-making on 

weapons sales. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. If I had time, I would ask you to define stability for Iraq, given that they have other issues within, but thank 

you. And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank each of the witnesses for your testimony and certainly 

your service to our Nation. I apologize if my question is repetitive 

and was addressed before my arrival, but I do want to follow on 

with Mr. Coffman’s focus on the status of forces agreement. And 

specifically, my understanding is the plan now is that we will have 

roughly 100,000 troops through the election early next year and 

then to begin drawing down to roughly 50,000 by August of next 

year. 

The other vote that I guess still is pending or proposed is a vote 

on the status of forces agreement, that there be a referendum, and 

that if that was rejected, that we could perhaps have to withdraw 

all personnel and equipment within one year. So my, I guess, twopart question is, what is the status of that proposed referendum 

vote, as best we know it? And given the logistical challenge of just 

going from 100,000 to 50,000, if we were required to withdraw completely in a year of it being voted and denied, are we planning for 

that very challenging scenario? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Our understanding is—and this has been 

confirmed by a number of Iraqis—is that Iraqi politicians have 

pretty much put aside for the time being any plans to push for the 

referendum on the security agreement. So that is very good news. 

Should the referendum be held, though, and if U.S. forces were 

requested to leave before the end of 2011, they would have—still 

have a year to complete the drawdown from the date of notification 

by the government of Iraq. 
30 

But, again, you know, obviously, we would have to deal with that 

contingency, should it arise. Given the politics of the situation, we 

think that is an increasingly remote possibility, especially because 

we have worked so hard to be totally compliant with the terms of 

the agreement to date. And I think the Iraqi government is very 

satisfied that we are completely committed to implementing the 

agreement in full. 

Mr. PLATTS. I would agree that it is good news if they are not 

going forward with that. 

And maybe a quick follow-on then is, is there more definitive insights on the date of the election itself? Or is that still a work in 

progress with the council? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. The constitution requires that the election 

be held by the end of January. The Council of Representatives has 

not yet passed a law, either a new elections law or a vote to use 

the old elections law and set a date. Again, we are pushing very 

hard for that so that the commission has—the elections commission 

has time to actually do the logistics necessary. 

So we continue to push for a January date. That is still very 

much in the cards. I think if several weeks from now we are—have 

not made progress, then we will have to do some re-examining of 

our plans. 

Mr. PLATTS. Our planning for the withdrawal, once that election 

occurs, to get down to the 50,000 by August, is that assuming 2, 

3, 4 months of 100,000 level after the election because of—— 

Secretary FLOURNOY. General—yes—— 

Mr. PLATTS [continuing]. The past elections? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. General Odierno has asked for sort of a 

buffer before and after the election to keep our forces levels relatively stable during that time so that we can adequately secure 

the process and then actually ensure a stable environment for the 

seating of—you know, for the implementation of the election results, if you will. 

Mr. PLATTS. And our—the logistical planning is based on that assumption? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. PLATTS. Good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, thanks to each of the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Courtney, wrap it up. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Actually, I was just going to follow up with what 

Mr. Platts was just inquiring. I mean, the last time there was a 

national election, it was a pretty excruciating, long, drawn-out 

process of forming the Maliki government. And since so much of 

this time—or the drawdown sort of hinges on the election process, 

I mean, if we go through that again, where it is, you know, four 

months, six months before they finally get their act together in 

terms of forming a government, I mean, you know, is that going 

to bump back the drawdown? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. It is a really good question. General 

Odierno, as Ms. Flournoy mentioned, is looking for 60 days or so 

after the election. And the choice of that number is not based on 

the complete formation of the government. And, in fact, we are sort 
31 

of expecting that that government will take until potentially June 

to form. 

His desire for the 60 days is principally based on his assessment 

that, if there is going to be post-election violence, if the election is 

contested, that that violence would occur in the first 60 days. It 

would be very clear to us within the first 60 days if that were going 

to happen. He calls that the most dangerous time after the election. 

And once it appears that that is not going to happen—and, of 

course, that is what we hope for—then it will take the natural time 

to form the government, but he does not expect that there would 

be violence that would prevent him from recommencing, if you will, 

the drawdown to support it. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And when he was here last time, I mean, I sort 

of asked the question about the interaction between, you know, 

DOD and State as far as working together the way Crocker and 

Petraeus did. And I guess, you know, I mean, obviously, the political part of this is so critical to our military operations. 

I mean, I assume that that is still sort of a strong relationship 

and people are trying to, again, maximize that transition. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Yes. I think Ambassador Hill and General 

Odierno have been working very closely together. In fact, the drawdown planning—there is a whole civilian side to this. I mean, 

there—it is actually—they have developed a joint campaign plan 

for the coming period. And we are actively working a number of 

transition issues between DOD and State, in terms of handing off 

responsibilities, making sure that our military repositioning plans 

are absolutely in sync with the eventual footprint for the State Department, in terms of embassy consulates, teams, deployable 

teams, and so forth, so that is done absolutely hand in glove. 

And so I think that is something they are working daily. And, 

again, as we get a little more clarity on the details of that, we will 

be coming back to you to walk you through those plans. 

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

You may not have this information with you, but I am sure there 

is a list of functions that will be transferred from the United States 

military to the State Department and to other agencies. And I 

would ask if, Madam Under Secretary, if that information could be 

transmitted to us within a reasonable time. 

I know it might take some time to gather it all together, but I 

know that is coming. And it would be very helpful to our committee 

to see that information within a reasonable time. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Sir, we are developing that as part of—as 

sort of the conceptual basis for our fiscal year 2011 budget requests 

across the government on Iraq with regard to Iraq. And so in that 

sort of timeframe of developing that, we will get it to you as soon 

as we have a whole-of-government approach. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be very helpful. 

I think we on our committee wish to express our great appreciation to the young men and young women who serve with you and 

under you in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They 

are truly our national treasures, and it appears that the work and 

the efforts and the challenges that have been met in Iraq deserve 

a sincere compliment from us to them. So we wish them continued 
32 

success putting America in the position of redeploying, a very difficult challenge that we have faced through the years. 

So with that, we thank you for your testimony. We thank you for 

being with us. 

And, General, thank you for your maiden voyage to our committee. We will welcome you back again. 

Mr. Estevez, Madam Under Secretary, it is always a pleasure to 

have you. 

Secretary FLOURNOY. Thank you very much, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Admiral, thank you so much. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

(53) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SKELTON 

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that the bulk of the equipment being considered 

for transfer to the Iraqi Security Forces is Army equipment. What plans, if any, 

have been made to reimburse or recoup the Army for these losses? What effect will 

this have on Army readiness? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. OSD and the Joint Staff are working with Multi-National 

Force-Iraq and the Military Departments to finalize the initial list of equipment to 

be transferred to the Iraqi Security Forces. Although the list at this time is not 

final, it includes equipment from the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Each of 

the Military Departments is first, identifying any excess equipment, and second 

working closely with the DoD Comptroller to identify equipment proposed for transfer that is not excess to the Military Departments and for which reimbursement will 

be requested. The DoD Comptroller, working with the Office of Management and 

Budget, will determine the timing and submission of the reimbursement request to 

Congress. The Joint Staff has worked with each of the Military Departments and 

U.S. Central Command to ensure that as much equipment as possible will be transferred without impacting military readiness. 

The CHAIRMAN. How does the Foreign Military Sales program figure into the 

equation of providing equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces? Why are additional 

authorities being sought to do this? 

Secretary FLOURNOY. The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, and programs 

available under other authorities, will be used to provide defense equipment and 

services to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). The FMS program provides an important 

mechanism for the transfer to Iraq of major end-items, such as M1A1 Abrams tanks 

and C–130J aircraft. We will also be relying on other authorities, including those 

permitting the transfer of excess and non-excess defense articles under Section 516 

of the Foreign Assistance Act and Section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 to help the ISF develop the capacity to provide 

internal security and a foundation for external defense by the end of December 

2011. 

The authority the Department recently requested to transfer non-excess equipment to the ISF was provided in Section 1234 of the NDAA for FY10. We are not 

seeking any additional authorities at this time. 

Æ