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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–307PDF 2007

ECONOMIC AND MILITARY SUPPORT FOR THE

U.S. EFFORTS IN IRAQ: THE COALITION OF THE

WILLING, THEN AND NOW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9, 2007

Serial No. 110–38

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

ROBERT R. KING, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

OVERSIGHT

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CLIFF STAMMERMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

NATALIE COBURN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

PHAEDRA DUGAN, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ELISA PERRY, Staff Associate 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle East Affairs, Foreign Affairs, 

Defense and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service ......................... 6

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff, Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 26

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., Director, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The 

Heritage Foundation ............................................................................................ 48

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Kenneth Katzman: Prepared statement ......................................................... 9

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff: Prepared statement ........................................................ 28

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 51

(1)

ECONOMIC AND MILITARY SUPPORT FOR 

THE U.S. EFFORTS IN IRAQ: THE COALITION 

OF THE WILLING, THEN AND NOW 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William D. Delahunt 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. The hearing will come to order. If we could have 

that door shut over there. Thank you. 

Today we are looking at reviewing, if you will, the ‘‘coalition of 

the willing.’’ This is the term that the Bush administration coined 

in 2003 to refer to those nations that supported Operation Iraqi 

Freedom; in other words, the invasion of Iraq. 

According to the State Department, 48 countries joined this coalition and helped us in some way with troops, logistical help, economic assistance, or political support. This hearing will review the 

evolution of the coalition since its creation in 2003. 

From the outset of the war, we were told that other nations were 

providing troops to support our efforts. Well, how many actually 

did, and who paid for them? And how many of these troops were 

actually involved in combat operations? 

We will also examine the financial support that was pledged to 

Iraqi reconstruction efforts, and who delivered on those pledges. 

Now, some 4 years later, what has become of the coalition? Are 

other nations still willing to support us militarily in Iraq? Have nations been providing aid to Iraq? With the situation there worsening, who is still with us? 

We have had a series of hearings on foreign opinion about the 

United States. As my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, has noted, we have 

done everything but Antarctica at this point in time, and we are 

focusing on that very soon. 

But we repeatedly heard from well-regarded professionals who 

conduct surveys and polls that people across the globe no longer 

view the United States as they once did. They accuse us of hypocrisy. As others claim, we speak about the rule of law and talk 

about international cooperation, but our own actions say something 

different. 
2

Mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo has 

undermined our credibility as to the rule of law, and the war in 

Iraq demonstrates the extent to which we are willing to do it on 

our own. 

The limited support we have received in our course of action in 

Iraq stands in stark contrast to the Gulf War of 1991. In that conflict, we were reimbursed some $74 billion, in terms of 2007 dollars, from others for our efforts there. Now we practically shoulder 

the burden alone, a cost that stands today to the American taxpayer at barely under $400 billion, and obviously in terms of 2007 

dollars. And of course that does not include the nearly $100 billion 

more that will be needed to reconstruct Iraq, according to a survey 

done by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

And instead of roughly 160,000 coalition troops that joined the 

operation in 1991, the only large military contingent came from 

Great Britain, with 45,000 troops for the invasion. And since then 

coalition forces supporting peacekeeping operations have numbered 

no more than 24,000. 

One only has to examine or review or look at the two graphs to 

my left. One is the estimated cost to the U.S. taxpayers for a very 

revealing graphic, and next to that stands a graphic relating to 

United States military deaths. Some 299 died in combat or during 

combat in the first Gulf War, and today, tragically, American military personnel deaths are in excess of 3,300. 

And now even the residual support seems to be evaporating. Nations are pulling out troops. Current levels of coalition forces stand 

at about 12,600. Even the British, our staunchest supporter, recently announced that it is pulling out more of its troops. No more 

than 5,500 British troops will be left in Iraq come this fall. 

Where does this leave us? Standing alone. Standing alone with 

a troubled and disintegrating Iraq. 

Our witnesses today are Dr. Kenneth Katzman from the Congressional Research Service, Joseph Christoff from the Government 

Accountability Office, and Dr. Nile Gardiner from the Heritage 

Foundation. Welcome, gentlemen. 

And before I introduce these witnesses, let me turn to my good 

friend and ranking member, Mr. Rohrabacher, for any comments. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, the two of us are looking at the same world, but we are perceiving a far different message from what we are looking at. 

I know that we have covered, for example, at hearings, talking 

to us. And I don’t have this pessimistic approach that you seem to 

be portraying today. And I know that we have gone through all the 

polls to indicate how bad things are the last couple months. You 

know, I always say the polls are the grain of salt, and I think the 

election in France should tell us just that. 

I mean, we were presented by evidence to this committee just 

about 6 weeks ago, while the people of Europe were so disgusted 

with the United States. Yet, by a sizeable majority, the people of 

France just elected a pro-American candidate who pledged to what? 

To actually work closer with the United States of America, over the 

candidate who has taken a hostile position. 

So I think that sometimes we can talk ourselves into, again, the 

glass is half full or the glass is half empty, and talk ourselves into 
3

an analysis that, you know, while glum and pessimistic, may not 

be really the way things are going. For example, when we talked 

about, a few moments ago you talked about standing alone in a disintegrating Iraq, and some of our allies are now withdrawing some 

of our troops. What is clear to a lot of people who I have talked 

to is that in much of Iraq, there is a, you know, much of Iraq is 

pacified. And in those areas of pacification where there are not 

bombs going off every day, and where the people are not being brutalized, and our troops are not under attack every day; in those 

areas, a lot of those were areas controlled by the British and other 

of our allies. 

Yes, we were then carrying a heavy burden, but now they perhaps aren’t as needed as much as they were before. That is one 

way to look at it. 

Another way to look at it is everybody is trying to jump off a 

sinking ship. I think that we left out one factor there when we look 

at standing alone in a disintegrating Iraq. We are not standing 

alone. Not only do we have allies there—I think there are 12,200 

non-U.S. troops in Iraq today, and that is a pretty sizable force considering that most countries don’t have anywhere near the defense 

budget that we do, so that represents quite a commitment—but it 

also leaves out the fact that we are also standing beside millions 

of Iraqis. Millions of people in Iraq who are on our side, and many 

hundred thousand of them who are now in their armed forces and 

taking casualties at a much higher rate than our casualties. And 

to the degree that it hurts us every time we see one of our young 

people being killed over in Iraq, remember the Iraqi soldiers are 

losing at a much higher rate, and they have a much smaller country. And their families are at risk. 

So I think it is not an accurate picture for people to suggest that 

we are standing alone in Iraq, and forgetting about those sacrifices 

of the anti-radical Islamic and anti-Baathist Iraqis. They are doing 

so at tremendous risk and tremendous cost, and they deserve to be 

patted on the back, not ignored. 

And as far as the British, as they say, there are 7,100 British 

troops there. Thank goodness for the Brits. That is a heavy commitment for Britain. Britain had, I guess there were 2,000 British 

troops there before, and I am trying to figure out the exact number. 

Forty-five thousand? Forty-five thousand British troops there before. And now we are down to 12,000, and that is going to be going 

down to 7,100. I think that commitment by the British was a very 

fine commitment, and I am sorry that they are leaving a little 

early. But I agree with you and the critics of our policy that we 

should be expecting the Iraqis to step up. And perhaps that is what 

this signifies, is that there are Iraqis who are stepping up to this 

job, and that is exactly what we wanted them to do. 

And by the way, one other thing. Again, we saw the polls, you 

know, indicating——

Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield. You point to those 

charts——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, they were all over——

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. But those aren’t polls. Those are 

hard data. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right, yes. 
4

Mr. DELAHUNT. And the data, at least in the first one, because 

my eyesight is failing, indicates the American taxpayer——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are picking up this. 

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Has expended some 400 billion of their hard-earned dollars, while in 1991 it was $9 billion or $10 billion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. And we can talk about the costs, 

which there are costs to these things, no doubt. We will talk about 

that, and that is what this hearing is about. 

But when those charts were replaced by polling charts, as I say, 

it did suggest that the people of Europe were such a negative result 

that they were going to become anti-America; here they elect in 

France, which is one of the countries that was signified as really 

anti-American, a pro-American leader. 

But also, let me note this. As you stated in your opening statement, it was mistreatment of our prisoners in Guantanamo and 

elsewhere, Abu Ghraib, that has turned public opinion against us. 

You know, I am sorry, but we are up against an enemy that is 

slaughtering civilians by the hundreds every week. You know, hundreds of civilians are out-and-out slaughtered intentionally by the 

people that we are fighting in Iraq. 

And okay, I am not sure exactly how much mistreatment we 

have had at Guantanamo. We know we have had people there who 

Amnesty International, the Red Cross, everybody in there inspecting that. Most of the prisoners, most of the prisoners actually 

gained weight, et cetera. Abu Ghraib, some prisoners were mistreated, they were humiliated; that was all wrong. People were 

prosecuted for that. The prisoners who were being mistreated were 

former soldiers. And that doesn’t excuse mistreating people who 

are in your custody, but we are up against an enemy that slaughters thousands of civilians. 

And if people want to turn against us because of that, and basically then say, ‘‘Oh, we are the bad guy, and the guys slaughtering 

the civilians are wrong,’’ well, if that is the way the world things 

about it, I am not going to judge my decisions based on that type 

of value system. 

Now, today I am very anxious to hear about what has been going 

on. I know that there have been a lot of mistakes. In every endeavor that has ever been worthwhile, there have been a lot of mistakes 

made. And maybe we can correct those mistakes by shining light 

on them, rather than saying that the mistakes mean that we 

shouldn’t have started the endeavor in the first place. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, and I am going to yield some time to our 

distinguished colleague from Texas, Dr. Paul. But before I yield the 

time, I want to note for the record that it was good to hear from 

Mr. Rohrabacher his enthusiastic support for the French elections. 

It is really a remarkable day. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Vive la France. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be a little bit 

briefer on my statement. 

I would like to raise one point. It was in October 2002 that we 

had a crucial vote which transferred to the President the power to 

go to war, in contrast to the Congress assuming the responsibility 
5

and deciding one way or the other whether or not we should go to 

war. 

And I just want to pose a hypothetical question to those who supported the war at that time, if they had had a crystal ball and realized what the real cost would be. If we, on the House floor getting 

ready to vote, would have known how many men and women would 

be killed, how many dollars would be spent, how many innocent 

Iraqi civilians would die in the chaos that resulted in the Middle 

East in Iraq, the price of oil, the increase in the debt that we have 

accumulated here. If every Member of Congress knew what the 

real cost would be and where we would be after 41⁄2 years, I wonder how many of them would say, ‘‘Oh, sure, that is not a big deal. 

I will vote for it.’’

My prediction is that it wouldn’t get 10% of the vote. And I think 

that is what we are really dealing with. Of course, you say well, 

you can’t have a crystal ball, and that is true. But there were some 

analyses made by very important people, both in the United Nations who have been to Iraq before, as well as in our CIA, as well 

as in very important places in our Government, that suggested that 

this would not go easy. And their predictions came out much closer 

to being on target. 

But I have posed this question to several Members of the Congress, who are very, very energetic about the war. And they said 

well, if I knew exactly how much this would cost, I wouldn’t be able 

to vote for it. And I think that is the real issue. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. And now let me introduce our distinguished panel. 

Let me begin with Dr. Katzman. He is a specialist in Middle 

East Affairs at the Congressional Research Service. In this capacity 

he has served as a Senior Middle East Analyst for the U.S. Congress, with special emphasis on Iran, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf 

States, Afghanistan, and terrorist groups operating in the Middle 

East and South Asia. 

He has also written numerous articles in various outside publications, including a book entitled The Warriors of Islam, Iran’s Revolutionary Guide. 

Dr. Katzman earned his Ph.D. in political science from NYU in 

1991. Before joining CRS, he worked as an analyst at a private defense and intelligence consulting firm. From 1985 to 1989 he was 

a Persian Gulf Analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. 

Joseph Christoff is Director of the Government Accountability Office International Affairs and Trade Team. In this position he directs GAO’s work at U.S. agencies responsible for non-proliferation, 

export control, and international security issues. 

He also leads GAO’s efforts reviewing reconstruction and security 

issues in Iraq. Prior to this position, he managed GAO reviews that 

focused on the operations and programs of the Departments of Energy, Interior, and Transportation. 

He has a master’s degree in public administration from American 

University here in DC, and he received his bachelor’s from Miami 

University of Ohio, and is the recipient of numerous GAO awards, 

including the Distinguished Service Award and the Meritorious 

Service Award. 
6

Dr. Nile Gardiner is a director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. His key areas of specialization 

include the Anglo-U.S. special relationship, the United Nations, 

post-war Iraq, and the role of Great Britain in Europe, and the 

U.S.-led alliance against international terrorism and rogue states, 

including Iran. 

Before joining Heritage in 2002, Dr. Gardiner was a foreign policy researcher for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Working in her private office, he assisted Lady Thatcher with 

her latest book, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World. He received his doctorate in history from Yale in 1998. In addition, he has several other master’s degrees from Yale and Oxford 

University. 

Let us begin with Mr. Katzman. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH KATZMAN, SPECIALIST IN MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE AND 

TRADE DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Mr. KATZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to 

thank the committee for asking me to appear at this hearing on 

how the international community has been supporting the United 

States effort to stabilize Iraq. I would ask that the full statement 

be included in the record. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Mr. KATZMAN. And I appreciate your asking me here. 

I have been asked first and foremost to analyze how changes in 

partner contributions of troops and funds have, over time, affected 

the United States effort to stabilize Iraq, and to try to analyze the 

reasons for changes to the international level of effort in Iraq. 

I will first address the diminishing contributions to the peacekeeping coalition. As far as the original invasion force that entered 

Iraq in 2003, the bulk of the troops were from two countries: 

250,000 approximately were United States forces, and 45,000 were 

British. 

This is largely still the case in the peacekeeping mission: 145,000 

United States so-called boots on the ground today in Iraq, and the 

British are by far the largest non-U.S. foreign contingent at about 

7,100. However, foreign forces are now dwarfed by Iraqi forces, police and army, which now exceed 333,000 for both services. Although I will address a little bit about the contribution made by 

the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). 

According to one view, the reduction in international contributions reduces international force coverage in parts of Iraq, and presumably increases the burden on United States forces to provide 

peacekeeping strength in those areas. That view would interpret 

that thinning out of international forces as a difficulty. 

The administration view, on the other hand, is that the reduction 

of international forces is a sign of progress. According to the administration, areas of Iraq that have been turned over to Iraqi control are relatively stable, and ISF forces are increasingly capable 

of maintaining security without United States without foreign help. 

There does not appear to be clear and unequivocal support for either view, judging for evolutions in the patterns of violence in Iraq. 

We have not seen a noticeable upsurge in violence in the provinces 
7

turned over to ISF control since they were handed over; and thus 

far, four provinces have been handed over: Dhi Qar, Muthanna, 

Najaf, and most recently, Maysan Governorate was handed over by 

Britain, actually. 

Najaf has been considered to be relatively stable. It was handed 

over, as I mentioned. Yesterday, however, there was a bombing in 

Kufa, which in some ways might put a damper on that assessment. 

Kufa is very close to Najaf. Kufa is the city from which Moqtada 

Al-Sadr delivers his Friday sermons. So the bombing yesterday 

could have been a message to him, we don’t know. 

This observation might appear to support the administration 

view; the fact that the provinces that have been turned over are 

fairly stable. However, these cases do not offer clear indications one 

way or the other, because these provinces have been relatively stable all along since the fall of Saddam Hussein. 

Some might argue that partner forces were purposely placed in 

relatively safe areas where these forces would not take significant 

casualties. Many made that argument with respect to South Korea’s troop contingent in Irbil in northern Iraq. 

As we saw just today, however, Irbil has been considered relatively stable, but we had yet a major bombing in Irbil today, of 

the Kurdish Interior Ministry. Quite a surprise, I would say, in 

that Irbil has been very stable. 

As shown in my chart in my prepared statement, very few partner forces, coalition partners, are in the five most restive provinces: 

That is, Baghdad Province, Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Diyala, and 

Nineveh Province. The conclusion one could draw is that partner 

forces are not much of a factor on the actual battlefield per se, if 

one defines battlefield as combat primarily against Sunni insurgents. The bulk of actual combat is conducted by American forces, 

with the Iraqi security forces in a supporting role, and, I would 

argue, very much in the background on the combat. 

This is not to argue that partner forces are irrelevant. In 2004 

and well into 2005, there was a strong sense that the Basra 

Amarah area, policed by Britain, was quiet and stable. Britain was 

taking few casualties there, and it appeared to be relatively stable. 

However, a dynamic has now taken hold in the Basra area that 

has proved costly. Militia violence has contributed, I believe, to 

Britain’s decision to draw down in southern Iraq, and in turn, the 

turnover of bases in territory by the British to the Iraqi Government has emboldened Shi’ite militias to assert themselves there. 

Britain’s gradual turnover of territory in its sector is an important case study, because it shows how, as partner forces thin out, 

things might evolve. And social and political life, particularly in 

Basra, are instructive. We are seeing more fighting now these past 

few months among Shi’ite militias fighting each other, and we are 

also seeing growing Islamization of Basra and the surrounding 

areas. 

Another question that arises is why has the coalition diminished. 

Spain began a minor exodus in March 2004. There was a change 

of government there that did not agree with the original invasion. 

Other governments left after the December 2005 elections in Iraq, 

claiming that political transition was complete. Others drew down 
8

after claiming that their areas were secure, and they were no 

longer needed. So there are different reasons in each case. 

I will now turn very briefly to the issue of financial contributions, 

which is different than peacekeeping forces, because they are obviously far less risky. There is no actual blood at risk, only funds. 

And I would like to just briefly look at some of the Middle Eastern 

states, because that is the most instructive. Iraq is in a neighborhood where if you watch how its neighbors act, you might have indications as to the attitudes about how Iraq might evolve. 

Of the greatest significance I believe are the Persian Gulf monarchy states: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and 

Oman. All are led by Sunni Muslin regimes, although Bahrain’s 

population is majority Shi’ite. Although the Gulf States allowed at 

least some use of their facilities for Operation Iraqi Freedom, none 

contributed actual forces for O.I.F., or for post-Saddam peacekeeping. 

As shown in the table in my testimony, Kuwait is the only Gulf 

State that has fulfilled most or all of its financial pledges to Iraq. 

The other Gulf States, following the Saudi lead, appear to be holding back their funds until the Maliki Government completes the socalled benchmark measures of political reconciliation designed to 

ease the Sunni-Arab sense of humiliation and exclusion in Iraq. 

The United States has had somewhat more success in obtaining 

Gulf State commitments on debt relief, particularly from Saudi 

Arabia, which, in mid-April 2007, provisionally agreed to write off 

a large part of the $18 billion in Saddam-era debt owed to the kingdom. The converse is the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Iran is on the record for a pledge of only $10 million. However, 

Iran has, it is widely reported, and Iran has said and Iraq has said, 

that Iran has extended Iraq a credit line of $1 billion. The credit 

is being used to build roads in the Kurdish north, and a new airport near Najaf, a key entry point for Iranian pilgrims visiting the 

shrines there. Iran also reportedly provides cooking fuel and 2 million liters per day of kerosene to the Iraqis. 

Iran’s reasons for generosity are readily apparent. Iraqi politics 

are now dominated by pro-Iranian parties that subscribe, to greater 

or lesser degrees, to the ideology of the founder of Iran’s revolution, 

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Many of Iraq’s Shi’ite Islamist elite 

were in exile in Iran from the time of Saddam’s crackdown on

Shi’ite Islamists in 1980 until his fall in 2003. 

Some might argue that the current Iraqi political structure gives 

Iran strategic depth in Iraq, and it is in Iran’s interest to maintain 

Iraq’s current government in power, even if doing so involves substantial financial costs. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Katzman follows:]
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Dr. Katzman. Mr. Christoff. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH A. CHRISTOFF, DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE TEAM, GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

thanks for inviting GAO to this important hearing. 

My statement today is based upon prior GAO reports, as well as 

original research that we completed for this hearing. 

You asked us to provide information on three things: The number of coalition countries and troops in Iraq; the costs to sustain 

these troops; and financial support from international donors. 

In summary, here is what we found. First, coalition countries are 

currently providing 8% of all security forces in Iraq. Second, since 2003, the United States has spent about $1.5 billion to support troops from 20 other countries in Iraq. And third, Iraq can expect $15.6 billion from international donors. However, most of this assistance is in the form of loans that 

Iraq generally has not accessed. 

Let me discuss the first point about the coalition troop levels in 

Iraq. In 2003, the ‘‘coalition of the willing,’’ as defined by the administration, consisted of 49 countries, including the United States, 

that made a public commitment to the war effort. This commitment 

took several forms, including combat troops, over-flight rights, or 

humanitarian aid. 

Over time, the number of coalition countries supporting United 

States efforts in Iraq has declined. Both charts that we provided 

show that in December 2003, 33 countries were contributing 24,000 

troops to the effort in Iraq. Since then, coalition troop levels have 

declined by 48%. As of May 2007, 25 countries were contributing 

12,600 troops, and further reductions in coalition support are expected this year. 

In contrast, the United States has 145,000 U.S. forces in Iraq, or 

about 92% of all security forces. 

Despite the decline in coalition troops, three countries—the 

United Kingdom, Poland, and South Korea—lead operations in 

three of seven security sectors in Iraq. The United Kingdom leads 

coalition operations in southern Iraq. It provides the largest number of coalition troops, currently at 7,100. 

U.K. forces have conducted combat operations, trained Iraqi security forces, and sustained almost 150 fatalities. The U.K. will reduce its troop levels this year, but has pledged to maintain a presence into 2008. 

Poland leads operations in central-south Iraq, with 11 coalition 

countries under its command. The 900 Polish troops have conducted joint combat operations, trained Iraqi security forces, and 

provided humanitarian aid. 

And South Korea leads operations in northeast Iraq, with 1,600 

troops. They have provided medical, humanitarian, and reconstruction assistance. The South Korean Government intends to develop 

a timetable in 2007 for withdrawing its troops. 

Next, let me discuss U.S. assistance to coalition countries. Since 

2003, the United States has provided about $1.5 billion to support 

20 countries. According to DoD, these countries were not finan-
27

cially able to support their troops, or needed help in preparing 

their troops for deployment. About one-half of the funding directly 

reimbursed coalition countries for their support in operations in 

Iraq, and the other half reimbursed United States military departments for the costs they incurred to feed, house, transport, and 

equip coalition forces. 

In terms of allocations by country, $988 million, or about 66%, 

was used to support Poland and the 11 countries under its command. And in addition, $300 million supported Jordan for border 

operations and other activities. 

Finally, international donors have pledged $15.6 billion for Iraq’s 

reconstruction. The majority of the pledges—$11 billion—is available in loans, primarily from Japan, the World Bank, the IMF, and 

Iran. However, Iraq has only accessed $436 million in available 

loans. 

Iraq has been slow to access these loans because it lacks a system for approving loan-based projects. And in addition, we previously reported that Iraq’s large external debt, about $93 billion, 

may affect the country’s willingness to tap into additional loans. 

On the other hand, Iraq has received two-thirds of the $4.6 billion in donor-provided grants. Top grant contributors were Japan, 

the European Commission, and the United Kingdom. Grants from 

international donors have helped Iraq conduct elections, improve 

health and nutrition, and assist refugees. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christoff follows:]
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Christoff. Dr. Gardiner. 

STATEMENT OF NILE GARDINER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION 

Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rohrabacher, 

and distinguished members on the House Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human 

Rights, and Oversight, thank you for holding today’s hearing on a 

very important issue: The role of the international coalition in Iraq. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to present a brief summary of views, 

and submit my full prepared statement for the record. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Mr. GARDINER. It is fitting that today’s hearing is taking place 

immediately after the highly successful state visit to the United 

States of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Her visit to America 

was a powerful symbol of the historic strength of the Anglo-American special relationship, the most enduring and successful alliance 

in modern history. 

It is a partnership that must continue to flourish if the West is 

to defeat the scourge of global terrorism and defend the cause of 

liberty and freedom across the world. 

American and British forces are fighting side by side in the main 

theaters of the war on terrorism. The United States and the United 

Kingdom lead the global battle against al-Qaeda and state sponsors 

of international terror. Washington and London also stand at the 

forefront of international efforts to prevent the emergency of a nuclear-armed Iran, and Britain has doubled its naval presence in the 

Persian Gulf alongside the U.S. Navy as a warning to the Iranian 

regime. 

Over 45,000 British military personnel participated in the liberation of Iraq; by any measure, a huge contribution for a nation of 

Britain’s size. More than 7,000 British troops are still based in 

southern Iraq, and 148 British soldiers have sacrificed their lives 

there. 

The U.K. commands the Multi-National Division Southeast within the Multi-National Force, whose security responsibilities include 

Iraq’s second-largest city, Basra, with a population of 2.3 million. 

Since 2003, Britain has spent over $8 billion, or £4 billion, on 

Iraq operations. Prince Harry, the Queen’s grandson and third in 

line for the throne, will shortly be dispatched to Iraq, emphasizing 

the British commitment to the country. Prince Harry’s decision to 

fight alongside his countrymen in the face of mounting threats 

from insurgent groups is a commendable display of courage and 

leadership that underscores the continuing importance of the monarchy in the 21st century. 

More than 5,000 British troops are engaged in military operations against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, as part of the 

NATO-led international security assistance force, ISAF, and a further 1,500 are due to be deployed this summer. Fifty-three British 

soldiers have died in combat in Afghanistan since 2001. 

The English-speaking nations of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have contributed 23,000 
49

troops to the ISAF mission, making up nearly two-thirds of the 

36,000-strong NATO operation. 

There are currently 25 countries with forces in Iraq, in addition 

to the United States, providing a total of 13,196 troops. A total of 

272 coalition soldiers from countries other than the United States 

have been killed in Iraq. As well as the United Kingdom, the largest troop contributors are South Korea, Poland, Georgia, Romania, 

Australia, and Denmark. Poland commands the multi-national Division Central South, which includes the cities of Al Kut, Al Hillah, 

and Karbala. 

Over 40 countries have pledged reconstruction aid to Iraq, total- ing more than $8 billion. In addition, the Paris Club of creditor nations, which includes the United States, U.K., Russia, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland, have agreed to cancel 80% 

of Iraq’s $38.9 billion debt owed to those countries, with the remaining $7.8 billion to be rescheduled over a 23-year period. 

At its height in 2004, the Iraq coalition included 21 nations from 

Europe, and nine from Asia and Australia. Twelve of the 25 members of the European Union were represented, as were 16 of the 26 

NATO member-states. The opposition of French President Jacques 

Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to the United 

States-led liberation of Iraq should not be perceived as representative of Europe as a whole. Indeed, a large number of European governments backed the United States decision to liberate the Iraqi 

people. 

It is significant that Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder are no longer 

powerful figures on the world stage. A number of major pro-American leaders have emerged since the heated international debates 

over the Iraq War. Angela Merkel took over as Germany’s Chancellor in 2005. Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister of Canada in 2006. And Nicolas Sarkozy will become President of France 

later this month. 

The Senate and House decision to support a timetable for the 

withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq undermines and 

weakens the Anglo-American special relationship and U.S.-U.K. 

leadership on the world stage. The Senate and House votes send 

the wrong message, at a time when American, British, and coalition personnel are engaged in defending Iraq’s fledgling democracy. 

Congress is projecting a clear signal of defeat to America’s enemies in Iraq, and across the world, which undercuts the United 

States’ closest ally, Great Britain, as well as the Iraqi Government. 

This astonishing move will undermine morale in the international 

coalition in Iraq, and, if enacted, would make Britain’s position in 

southern Iraq untenable. 

In sharp contrast, Britain’s House of Commons has not voted for 

a timetabled withdrawal of British forces from Iraq, and both of the 

U.K.’s largest political parties, Labor and Conservative, remain 

committed to maintaining forces in the country. There is a clear 

difference between the resolve of Britain’s Parliament regarding 

Iraq and the defeatist approach of elements in the U.S. Congress. 

The war in Iraq is not only America’s war; it is Britain’s, too. 

And the United Kingdom has played a major role in bringing relative peace and stability to huge waves of southern Iraq in the face 

of intense meddling by Iran. 
50

I would like to emphasize that Britain is not pulling out of Iraq, 

as many have speculated. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in February that British troop numbers would be cut this 

summer from 7,100 to 5,000. This will allow Britain to send an additional 1,500 troops to southern Afghanistan, for a total of 7,000 

to fight the Taliban. The move is a reflection of mounting commitments in other theaters of the war on terrorism, as well as significant progress in training Iraqi security forces. It does not, as some 

United States politicians have claimed, represent a cut-and-run 

strategy for Iraq. 

Blair’s initial announcement has been ruthlessly exploited for political gain by those in Congress who saw it as a convenient battering ram to use against Washington’s Iraq policy. There is, in 

fact, a huge gulf between the long-term vision for Iraq of British 

defense chiefs, and the short-sighted approach adopted by anti-war 

politicians on Capitol Hill. 

Downing Street has flatly rejected a timetable for the complete 

withdrawal of British forces, and remains committed to working 

with Iraqi forces to advance security in the south of the country. 

Blair’s likely successor, Gordon Brown, has given no public indication that he will reverse British policy on Iraq. 

According to British defense sources, the U.K. plans to maintain 

several thousand troops in the country for another 5 years at least, 

with a projected battle group based west of Basra until 2012. 

In conclusion, the United States, Britain, and other coalition allies must remain united in their determination to continue the 

fight against terrorism in Iraq. An early withdrawal of British or 

American troops would have catastrophic implications for the future of the country, and would be seen by many Iraqis as a betrayal of trust. 

By liberating Iraq and removing one of the most brutal regimes 

of modern times, Britain and the United States made a powerful 

commitment to the future of the Iraqi people that must be honored. 

There should be no major pullout of allied forces from the country 

until key military objectives have been met, and Iraq is stable and 

secure. 

The United States and the U.K. share a fundamental national interest in remaining in Iraq to defeat the insurgency. The Middle 

East would view an early withdrawal as a humiliating defeat for 

the West and an emphatic victory for those who represent al-Qaeda 

in Iraq. A pullout would be an unparalleled propaganda success for 

a barbaric terror organization that has murdered thousands of 

Iraqi men, women, and children. 

The withdrawal of American, British, and other Western forces 

would pave the way for a civil war between Sunni and Shi’a 

groups, with bloodshed on a far great scale than witnessed so far. 

Hundreds of thousands, even millions, could be displaced by ethnic 

cleansing, leading to a huge humanitarian crisis. Large numbers of 

Iraqis would inevitably lose their lives. 

Iran would be a geo-strategic beneficiary of a British pullout 

from Shi’ite-dominated southern Iraq, where it already wields great 

political influence. A British withdrawal from Basra and a southern basis would create a power vacuum that dozens of Iranianbacked militia groups are ready to exploit. Tehran is already wag-
51

1The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational organization operating 

under Section 501(C) (3). It is privately supported, and receives no funds from any government 

at any level, nor does it perform any government or other contract work. The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the United States. During 2006, it had more 

than 283,000 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters representing every state in the 

U.S. Its 2006 income came from the following sources: individuals 64%; foundations 19%; corporations 3%; investment income14%; and publication sales and other 0%. The top five corporate 

givers provided The Heritage Foundation with 1.3% of its 2006 income. The Heritage Foundation’s books are audited annually by the national accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche. A list 

of major donors is available from The Heritage Foundation upon request. Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals discussing their own independent research. The views 

expressed are their own, and do not reflect an institutional position for The Heritage Foundation 

or its board of trustees. 2 British Ministry of Defence, Operations in Iraq: Key Facts and Figures, at http://

www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/UkMilitaryOperationsInIraq.htm 

ing a proxy war against United States, British, and Iraqi forces. 

There is growing evidence that Iranian factories, run by the Revolutionary Guard, are producing roadside bombs that are killing 

British soldiers in southern Iraq, and that Iran is actively financing and training Shi’a militias. 

Iraq today is the central battleground in the global war against 

terrorism, and, together with Afghanistan, is one of the only places 

in the world where American, British, and allied troops can actively engage al-Qaeda and its allies on the battlefield. Iraq tests 

the West’s resolve to confront and ultimately defeat the al-Qaeda 

threat, and this epic confrontation must be fought and won. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardiner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NILE GARDINER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, MARGARET THATCHER

CENTER FOR FREEDOM, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION1

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rohrabacher, and distinguished Members of the 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight. Thank you for holding today’s hearing on a very important issue: the role of the international coalition in Iraq. 

It is fitting that today’s hearing is taking place immediately after the highly successful State Visit to the United States of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her visit 

to the United States was a powerful symbol of the historic strength of the AngloAmerican Special Relationship, the most enduring and successful alliance in modern 

history. It is a partnership that must continue to flourish if the West is to defeat 

the scourge of global terrorism and defend the cause of liberty and freedom across 

the world. 

THE BRITISH CONTRIBUTION IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

American and British forces are fighting side by side in the main theaters of the 

war on terrorism. The United States and the United Kingdom lead the global battle 

against al-Qaeda and state sponsors of international terror. Washington and London 

also stand at the forefront of international efforts to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, and Britain has doubled its naval presence in the Persian Gulf, 

alongside the U.S. Navy, as a warning to the Iranian regime. 

Over 45,000 British military personnel participated in the liberation of Iraq, by 

any measure a huge contribution for a nation of Britain’s size. More than 7,000 British troops are still based in southern Iraq, and 148 British soldiers have sacrificed 

their lives there. The UK commands the Multi-National Division South East within 

the Multi-National Force, whose security responsibilities include Iraq’s second largest city, Basra, with a population of 2.3 million. Since 2003, Britain has spent over 

$8 billion (λ4 billion) on Iraq operations.2

Prince Harry, the Queen’s grandson and third in line to the throne, will shortly 

be dispatched to Iraq, emphasizing the British commitment to the country. Prince 

Harry’s decision to fight alongside his countrymen in the face of mounting threats 

from insurgent groups is a commendable display of courage and leadership that underscores the continuing importance of the Monarchy in the 21st century. 

More than 5,000 British troops are engaged in military operations against the 

Taliban in southern Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security As-
52

3 International Security Assistance Force Fact Sheet, at http://www.nato.int/isaf/media/pdf/

placemat—isaf.pdf 4The Brookings Institution Iraq Index, May 3, 2007, at http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/

iraq/index.pdf 5Georgia is planning to more than double its troop contribution to 2,000. 

6The Brookings Institution Iraq Index, May 3, 2007, at http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/

iraq/index.pdf 7See Nile Gardiner Ph.D., ‘‘The Myth of U.S. Isolation: Why America Is Not Alone in the War 

on Terror,’’ Heritage Foundation WebMemo #558, September 7, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/

Research/Europe/wm558.cfm 8The Brookings Institution Iraq Index, May 3, 2007, at http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/

iraq/index.pdf 9See Martin A. Weiss, ‘‘Iraq’s Debt Relief: Procedure and Potential Implications for International Debt Relief,’’ Congressional Research Service, April 21, 2006, at http://austria.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/iraqldebtlrelief.pdf 

sistance Force (ISAF), and a further 1,500 are due to be deployed this summer. 

Fifty-three British soldiers have died in combat in Afghanistan since 2001. The 

English-speaking nations of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have contributed 23,300 troops to the ISAF mission, making up nearly two thirds of the 36,750-strong NATO operation.3

THE BROADER IRAQ COALITION

There are currently 25 countries with forces in Iraq in addition to the United 

States, providing a total of 13,196 troops. A total of 272 Coalition troops from countries other than the U.S. have been killed in Iraq.4 As well as the United Kingdom, 

the largest troop contributors are South Korea (2,300), Poland (900), Georgia (900),5

Romania (600), Australia (550), and Denmark (460). Poland commands the MultiNational Division Central-South, which includes the cities of Al Kut, Al Hillah, and 

Karbala. 

The other nations contributing forces to Iraq are: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Bosnia/Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, 

Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Singapore, 

Slovakia and Ukraine. In addition, there are several NATO members who are supporting Iraqi stability operations outside of the Multinational Force—Iraq, including 

Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Turkey.6

At its height in 2004, the Iraq Coalition included 21 nations from Europe, and 

nine from Asia and Australasia. Twelve of the 25 members of the European Union 

were represented, as were 16 of the 26 NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) 

member states. The opposition of French President Jacques Chirac and German 

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq should not be perceived as representative of Europe as a whole—indeed, a large number of European 

governments backed the U.S. decision to liberate the Iraqi people.7

It is significant that Messrs Chirac and Schroeder are no longer powerful figures 

on the world stage. A number of major pro-American leaders have emerged since 

the heated international debates over the Iraq War. Angela Merkel took over as 

Germany’s Chancellor in 2005, Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister of Canada in 2006, and Nicolas Sarkozy will become president of France later this month. 

ECONOMIC SUPPORT FOR IRAQ

Over 40 countries have pledged reconstruction aid to Iraq, totaling more than $8 

billion. These pledges include $4.9 billion by Japan, $642 million by the UK, $235 

million by Italy, and $222 million by Spain. Several Arab countries have also 

pledged significant contributions, including Kuwait ($565 million), Saudi Arabia 

($500 million), and United Arab Emirates ($215 million). The European Union has 

also pledged to provide $900 million of aid for Iraq. In addition the World Bank has 

pledged $3 billion, the IMF $2.55 billion, and the Islamic Development Bank $500 

million, bringing the total amount of money pledged by the international community 

(excluding the United States) to $15.2 billion.8 In November 2004, the Paris Club 

of creditor nations, which includes the U.S., UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, 

Italy and Switzerland, agreed to cancel 80 percent of Iraq’s $38.9 billion debt owed 

to these countries, with the remaining $7.8 billion to be rescheduled over a 23-year 

period.9

CONGRESS IS UNDERMINING THE IRAQ COALITION

The Senate and House decision to support a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. 

forces from Iraq undermines and weakens the Anglo-American Special Relationship 

and U.S.–U.K. leadership on the world stage. Following a 218–208 House vote call-
53

10Thomas Harding and George Jones, ‘‘4,000 Troops Will Stay in Iraq ‘for Five Years,’ ’’ The 

Daily Telegraph, February 22, 2007, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/

2007/02/22/niraq122.xml 

ing for a withdrawal timetable, the Senate voted by 51 to 46 to approve a warspending bill that would force the exit of American forces starting in October 2007, 

with a target for complete withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008. This vote sends 

the wrong message at a time when American, British and Coalition personnel are 

engaged in defending Iraq’s fledgling democracy. 

Congress is sending a clear signal of defeat to America’s enemies in Iraq and 

across the world, which undercuts the United State’s closest ally, Great Britain, as 

well as the Iraqi government. This astonishing move will undermine morale in the 

international coalition in Iraq and, if enacted, would make Britain’s position in 

southern Iraq untenable. 

In sharp contrast, Britain’s House of Commons has not voted for a timetabled 

withdrawal of British forces from Iraq, and both of the U.K.’s largest political parties, Labour and Conservative, remain committed to maintaining forces in the country. There is a clear difference between the resolve of Britain’s Parliament regarding 

Iraq and the defeatist approach of elements in the U.S. Congress. 

The war in Iraq is not only America’s war, it is Britain’s too, and the United Kingdom has played a major role in bringing relative peace and stability to huge swathes 

of southern Iraq in the face of intense meddling by Iran. 

BRITAIN IS NOT PULLING OUT OF IRAQ

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in February that British troop numbers would be cut this summer from 7,100 to 5,000. This will allow Britain to send 

an additional 1,500 troops to southern Afghanistan, for a total of 7,000, to fight the 

Taliban. The move is a reflection of mounting commitments in other theaters of the 

war on terrorism, as well as significant progress in training Iraqi security forces. 

It does not, as some U.S. politicians have claimed, represent a cut-and-run strategy 

for Iraq. 

Blair’s initial announcement has been ruthlessly exploited for political gain by 

those in Congress who saw it as a convenient battering ram to use against Washington’s Iraq policy. There is in fact a huge gulf between the long-term vision for Iraq 

of British defense chiefs and the short-sighted approach adopted by anti-war politicians on Capitol Hill. 

Downing Street has flatly rejected a timetable for the complete withdrawal of 

British forces and remains committed to working with Iraqi forces to advance security in the south of the country. Blair’s likely successor, Gordon Brown, has given 

no public indication that he will reverse British policy on Iraq. According to British 

defense sources, the U.K. plans to maintain several thousand troops in the country 

for another 5 years, with a projected battle group based west of Basra until 2012.10

DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF A COALITION WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

• A Propaganda Victory for Al-Qaeda and Its Allies: Al-Qaeda would portray a 

U.S.–U.K. pullout as a massive victory. An early withdrawal would embolden 

al-Qaeda’s terrorist network in Iraq and provide a huge boost to the insurgency. Al-Qaeda would link any British withdrawal to the July 7, 2005, London bombings, for which it has claimed responsibility, and assert that the attacks forced a change in British policy. This would set a dangerous precedent 

and greatly increase the likelihood of future terrorist atrocities on European 

soil.

• Civil War, Ethnic Cleansing, and a Humanitarian Crisis: The withdrawal of 

American, British, and other Western forces would pave the way for a civil 

war between Sunni and Shia groups, with bloodshed on a far greater scale 

than witnessed so far. Hundreds of thousands, even millions could be displaced by ethnic cleansing, leading to a huge humanitarian crisis. Large numbers of Iraqis would inevitably lose their lives.

• The Boosting of Iranian Power: Iran would be a geostrategic beneficiary of a 

British pullout from Shiite-dominated southern Iraq, where it already wields 

great political influence. A British withdrawal from Basra and its southern 

bases would create a power vacuum that dozens of Iranian-backed militia 

groups are ready to exploit—among them, Moqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army, the 

Badr Brigades, and the Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Tehran is 

already waging a proxy war against U.S., British, and Iraqi forces. There is 

growing evidence that Iranian factories run by the Revolutionary Guard are 
54

11Toby Harnden, ‘‘Three Iranian Factories ‘Mass-Produce Bombs to Kill British in Iraq,’ ’’ The 

Daily Telegraph, August 21, 2006, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/

2006/08/20/wirq20.xml 

See also Matthew Moore and Paul Willis, ‘‘Blair Accuses Iran After Four Troops Killed,’’ The 

Daily Telegraph, May 4, 2007, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/

04/05/wiraq105.xml 

producing roadside bombs that are killing British soldiers in southern Iraq 

and that Iran is actively financing and training Shia militias.11

CONCLUSION

The U.S., Britain and other Coalition Allies must remain united in their determination to continue the fight against terrorism in Iraq. An early withdrawal of 

British or American troops would have catastrophic implications for the future of 

the country and would be seen by many Iraqis as a betrayal of trust. By liberating 

Iraq and removing one of the most brutal regimes of modern times, Britain and the 

United States made a powerful commitment to the future of the Iraqi people that 

must be honored. There should be no major pullout of Allied forces from the country 

until key military objectives have been met and Iraq is stable and secure. 

The U.S. and the U.K. share a fundamental national interest in remaining in Iraq 

to defeat the insurgency. The Middle East would view an early withdrawal as a 

humiliating defeat for the West and an emphatic victory for those who represent 

al-Qaeda in Iraq. A pullout would be an unparalleled propaganda success for a barbaric terror organization that has murdered thousands of Iraqi men, women, and 

children. 

Iraq today is the central battleground in the global war against terrorism and, 

together with Afghanistan, is one of the only places in the world where American, 

British and Allied troops can actively engage al-Qaeda and its allies on the battlefield. Iraq tests the West’s resolve to confront and ultimately defeat the al-Qaeda 

threat, and this epic confrontation must be fought and won by U.S., British, Coalition and Iraqi forces.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Gardiner. I am going to yield to 

the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Paul. But I would just note for the 

record, I am going to have to excuse myself for probably a halfhour. I will turn the gavel over to the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Carnahan. 

But I would note that I found Dr. Gardiner’s observations interesting, about the displacement of millions of Iraqis. My understanding is there are some 2 million that have already been displaced. It has become a humanitarian tragedy, and it has obviously 

best neighboring countries with an extraordinary burden. 

He also refers to it could pave the way for a civil war between 

Shi’a and Sunni. I daresay some would indicate that that war has 

been ongoing for some time already. And he also refers to his concern, and I believe it is a legitimate one, and one that is obviously 

heartfelt, about increasing Iranian influence in Iraq. I would daresay that that influence already exists. 

Our withdrawal from Iraq would not boost it, by any stretch of 

the imagination. And in fact, I would like to read into the record 

before I leave, and before I yield to my friend from Texas, a comment and an observation by not a Sunni or not a Shi’a from the 

south, not a Sunni from the triangle, if you will, but the President 

of the Kurdish Government in Iraq, regarding Iran. 

And I think it is important that we put this out there, so that 

the American people understand what the reality is in terms of the 

relationship today between Iraq and Iran. And I am not being critical of the Kurdish President, but I think it is important that we 

hear it from him. And if I can find it, I will read it into the record. 

Ah, there it is. 
55

So let me read this into the record, for the benefit of my colleagues, as well as the panel. And I will be inquiring about Iranian 

influence in Iraq, since it is of such a concern, and legitimately so. 

But I don’t think that a simple statement that withdrawal will 

boost Iranian influence in Iraq, because it already exists, and that 

is the reality and we better start dealing with reality. 

This is from the President of the Kurdish Government in Iraq, 

and leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party. This statement was 

made May 8, which I think was yesterday, of 2007. These are his 

words:

‘‘As a neighbor of ours and of Iraq’s, Iran has always extended much help to us, especially during the hard times and 

difficulties. Whenever we needed help, Iran’s doors have been 

open to us. Therefore, security of Iran is our security. And we 

may never allow our soil to be used for operations and plots 

against Iran.’’

Now, I think that is a very interesting comment, but I think 

what it does, at least for me, is reinforce an already existing close 

relationship between the Iraqi Government and the Islamic Republic of Iran. And let us not deceive ourselves. 

With that, I will yield to the good doctor from Texas, my friend, 

Dr. Paul. And I will ask the vice chairman to please take the gavel. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Dr. 

Gardiner, were you supportive of the invasion of Iraq in 2003? 

Mr. GARDINER. Yes, I certainly was. I supported that invasion. 

Mr. PAUL. Okay. Referring back to my opening comments, if you 

would have known at the time exactly what would happen in 4 

years’ time—first that the reasons for going weren’t so, and that 

the cost would be very high in terms of life and dollars—do you 

think you would reconsider, if you had had that information in 

front of you when you were supportive of the invasion? 

Mr. GARDINER. I think that I would still have supported the invasion. I supported the invasion not only over the issue of weapons 

of mass destruction; I believed strongly that the regime of Saddam 

Hussein should be removed from power, that Saddam Hussein 

should be held to account for his crimes against the Iraqi people. 

And I think that the Iraq War was about far more than just the 

WMD issue. It was about the principle of taking on and removing 

dictators from power, brutalizing their own people. I think this 

does set actually a very good precedent, and it sends a warning signal to other dictators in the world, that the West will take action 

if necessary. 

Mr. PAUL. Okay. That may be true, and that might be an afterthought; but the resolution stated that we were going in there because he had weapons of mass destruction and he was a threat to 

our national security, which nobody could claim today. 

And the other reason was to enforce U.N. resolutions. It was very 

important that U.N. resolutions—those were the two main reasons 

we transferred this power to the President. 

You know, the reasons that were given by the individuals who 

promoted the war turned out not to be so. They predicted an easy 

victory, and that it literally would be paid for, you know, with the 

oil revenues. None of that has come true. And now those same indi-
56

viduals who promoted the war are saying to us well, if we leave, 

such-and-such is going to happen. 

So how can they have credibility if they were wrong on why we 

went in there and what happened? The consequences, the length 

of time? If they were wrong then, I am not sure why we in the Congress should be listening to advice of what might happen, because 

it is pretty chaotic there now. 

You say stay until we have a military victory. What if the most 

serious precipitating issue of why there is chaos there is occupation? What would it be like if the Chinese occupied the United 

States? Do you think we would be unhappy? And what would we, 

as a people, do? 

Yet we are a foreign power occupying them, and we believe, we 

are told, that we are going to stay until we have a victory, when 

having a victory is almost impossible to define. 

But you also elude to one of the main reasons why we must stay 

is that it could be perceived as a betrayal of trust to the Iraqi people. And I keep thinking, well, who made this commitment? Did 

the American people make this commitment? What about betrayal 

of trust to the American people? I mean, it is the American people 

who are losing their sons and their daughters, and paying for it. 

I would say that we should have more concern about the betrayal 

of trust to the American people, because they seem to be the ones 

that are suffering. Of course, the Iraqis are suffering, but that is 

a consequence of us being there for so long. 

But I just cannot see how any resolution can come about if we 

ever come to the understanding, which I so strongly believe and so 

many have come to this conclusion, that the real problem is that 

we are foreigners; we have come a long way; we are Westerners. 

We are not of their religion, we are not of their color, and we are 

occupying their holy land. How in the world can you ever expect 

a military victory under those circumstances? 

Mr. GARDINER. Some very powerful points there. I think first 

that yes, mistakes have been made with regard to operations in 

Iraq and the running of operations there. And I think that important lessons will be definitely learned. 

This does not mean, however, that we should be withdrawing 

from the situation. We should be staying there for a number of reasons, not least the fact that we made a pledge, I think, to the people of Iraq that we would ensure that we help create a country that 

is far better than the brutal regime of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. We made that commitment, to bring about liberty, freedom, and security in Iraq. 

Mr. PAUL. May I interrupt you? When was that commitment 

made? And who made it, and who signed it? 

Mr. GARDINER. Well, I would quote, for example, on numerous occasions, speeches by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, where 

he spoke about the war against Iraq being not only an issue of 

weapons of mass destruction, but also bringing liberty and freedom 

to the Iraqi people. And I think that President Bush has repeated 

that on numerous occasions, as well. 

This was not just a war over an issue of national security. This 

was a war in the defense of the cause of liberty and freedom. 
57

Now, also, of course, I think in Iraq we are fighting a battle 

against global terrorists here. And if we seem to be defeated in 

Iraq, this will send all the wrong signals to our very worst enemies 

on the international stage. This will be a humiliation for us. This 

will be seen as a huge defeat for us. It will be a massive propaganda victory for al-Qaeda. It will greatly increase, I think, the 

long run, the threat that we will face from global terrorism. 

Mr. PAUL. May I interrupt again? What do you do with these reports that seem to me to be legitimate? Do you just totally dismiss 

it, when we hear reports from al-Qaeda and bin Laden, when they 

say they are delighted that we are there? It is easier to kill Americans; we are on their sand, is the way he puts it. And besides, their 

recruiting is better. They thrive on this. 

This whole argument that we are really attacking al-Qaeda, if 

the real incentive for them to hate us and be anti-American is our 

presence on their holy land, I cannot see how we are attacking alQaeda. I think we have to pay attention to it when they say that 

they don’t want us to leave. There have been reports that way; they 

like us there because it serves the al-Qaeda interests. 

Mr. GARDINER. Well, I think that is certainly their propaganda. 

And let us not forget, the 9/11 attacks took place before the liberation of Iraq. 

And we are dealing with a terrorist organization that will seek 

our destruction no matter what our foreign policy is. And one thing 

is for certain: If we pull out of Iraq, our enemies will be 

emboldened, and they will claim this as a massive propaganda victory. And we cannot allow them to get away with this. 

We fight a battle here certainly, I think, for the very defense of 

Western civilization and the cause of liberty and freedom on the 

world stage, and we cannot retreat from the battlefield. We are 

fighting on a daily basis against al-Qaeda and their allies on the 

battlefield, inside Iraq and Afghanistan. And this is a war that we 

simply cannot walk away from. 

Mr. PAUL. But, Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude with one 

statement. That is true, we were attacked before 9/11, but we had 

been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We had been involved up there for 

a long time. 

And the reason given by Osama bin Laden was the fact that we 

had troops in Saudi Arabia, and we had already invaded the area 

and occupied their land. So this idea that just because it happened 

before 9/11, we antagonized, or policies had antagonized them plenty before that. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN [presiding]. I thank the gentleman from Texas, 

and I want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just 

like to also continue, Dr. Gardiner. 

In your opinion, how would we determine when there is victory, 

when we have won the war in Iraq? I mean, how do you envision, 

you know, we know when World War II, you know, the invasion 

of Normandy, and we finally had the surrender. We know what 

happened in the Pacific Region, where the war was ended there, 
58

and signing the end of the war on the ship in the Pacific, because 

we had defeated the Japanese army. 

Could you tell me when you would, you said that the Democrats 

want to, I guess, sort of cut and run in defeat, and those things. 

So that I would know, how would you be able to declare victory? 

What would it look like? How would Iraq look? I mean, where 

would their army be, and where would ours be? And who would 

sign the peace accord? 

Mr. GARDINER. Well, this is a very different kind of war today 

to the one we fought in the Second World War. And we are fighting 

against a global network of terrorist organizations uniting around 

the al-Qaeda leadership. And this is a long war that will last for 

many, many decades, not over a 5- or 6-year period. So it is a very 

different kind of battle that we are engaged in. 

With regard to Iraq itself, I believe that we should not be withdrawing until we have a stable Iraqi Government that is able to 

stand on its own two feet, where, by its own security forces, can 

take full responsibility for security operations. 

We must be also sure that we leave an Iraq that does not act as 

a safe haven for the al-Qaeda organization. And I think those are 

some of the key strategic goals that we should be aiming for. We 

are certainly not at that stage at the moment. We are dealing with 

a highly volatile, extremely dangerous situation. But I think that 

the consequences of an early withdrawal would be disastrous, not 

only for the people of Iraq, but also I believe for the United Statesled global war on terror, as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. So we should leave when, what are the one or two 

or three items that they are able to secure? What were they again? 

When we have——

Mr. GARDINER. I believe that we should only be withdrawing 

once we have a stable and secure Iraq, with an Iraqi Government 

that is able to ensure the security of the Iraqi people. And also, a 

situation where we do not have the al-Qaeda organization using 

the country as a safe haven from which to launch terrorist attacks 

on other parts of the Middle East, as well as perhaps on Europe, 

and ultimately the United States, as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. As you know, there were no al-Qaeda operatives in 

Iraq, correct? Before the invasion. 

Mr. GARDINER. I am not sure actually whether there were or 

there weren’t. There might have been; I think that is an ongoing 

investigation. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, were they welcome? I mean, were Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden buddies? I mean, they talked to each 

other? I understood they never even met each other. 

Mr. GARDINER. I wouldn’t describe them as best buddies. However, they both had a common interest, I think, in taking on Western global power. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, but did Osama bin Laden dislike Saddam Hussein? Didn’t he call him an infidel? He didn’t have religious beliefs? 

He was as the Americans were. But yet and still, you feel that 

they, what is it, the enemy, the enemy is my friend? 

Mr. GARDINER. I think that basically we see a common cause between the al-Qaeda organization and a large number of the insurgent groups operating in Iraq today. And I think there is a common 
59

cause between former Saddam loyalists and the al-Qaeda organization. And so we are fighting a common enemy here. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, but today is a result of the failed policy when 

al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden weren’t welcomed in Iraq. Now it 

is the breeding ground. Yet you feel we should stay there until this 

job is complete. 

You know, the other thing I think that was disingenuous was the 

fact that the President of the United States seemed to elude to the 

fact, even more than elude to the fact, that Saddam Hussein and 

Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Did you hear any of that in any of 

his presentations? 

Mr. GARDINER. I can’t comment on the views of the Bush administration with regard to possible links between Saddam Hussein 

and al-Qaeda. I am not in a position really to comment on it. I 

don’t have direct knowledge of the intelligence information available at the time. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, maybe that is a good thing. 

Mr. KATZMAN. I would like to speak to this, Mr. Payne, if I may, 

because I have done a lot of work on this. 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he was in Afghanistan at the time of 

September 11. When we expelled the Taliban from power, he fled, 

and he went to the town of Kurmal in northern Iraq. He may have 

gone through Baghdad, but he encamped with some other Arab 

fighters who had fled Afghanistan, and they encamped in Kurmal. 

Kurmal was outside of the control of Saddam Hussein at the 

time. It was territory controlled by the Patriotic Union of 

Kurdistan, who the leader of that is now the President of Iraq. The 

September 11 commission found no operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein’s regime and 

al-Qaeda. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. I guess my time probably has expired, so 

I will yield back. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Dr. Katzman and Dr. Gardiner. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank the gentleman, and would next like to 

recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Mr. Katzman, you just said that they 

found no operational relationship. Now, you were at the CIA prior 

to coming to the—and what area did you analyze for the CIA? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Well, I was there a long time ago. I was working 

on the Iran-Iraq War in 1985 to 1989. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And then you left in 1989? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Correct, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So the operational relationship, you 

think that that is the only kind of relationship that is meaningful 

when you talk about a terrorist organization that operates like we 

know that al-Qaeda operates. 

There are a lot of other supportive things that are done, both financial and informational and other supportive ways. For example, 

offering free transit in countries. Do you think we found those 

types of things that Saddam Hussein may have been doing for alQaeda? 

Did Saddam Hussein, for example, provide free transit for alQaeda terrorists through his country? 
60

Mr. KATZMAN. What the 9-11 Commission has found and others 

have found is there was some collaboration in Sudan, in the early 

1990s. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Back to my specific question. Did Saddam 

Hussein, to your knowledge, provide transit through his country for 

various al-Qaeda operatives? 

Mr. KATZMAN. There was, to my knowledge there was transit, 

but it is not clear whether that was governmentally approved. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, yes, it is not clear in this dictatorship. 

It should be very clear to everybody that Saddam Hussein hated 

the United States. And people who hate the United States, Saddam 

Hussein considered them to be his friend. And whether or not we 

can couch this in terms like there are no operational relationship 

or specifics, the bottom line is Saddam Hussein hated us, and so 

does al-Qaeda; and they probably did things together that you don’t 

know and I don’t know. And perhaps—and some things that are 

documented, and some things that are not known, but cannot be 

now made known to the public. 

So with that said, I think my colleague, Mr. Payne, was right; 

there is some question as to the presence of genuineness when he 

made the argument about weapons of mass destruction and things 

such as that. And our chairman made that point. And I will concede that. And I am not here to defend the President when he did 

something that I disagreed with in terms of his approach. 

But let us not in any way minimize not only the brutality of Saddam Hussein, but his contacts with those elements around the 

world who hated us. After all, we kicked him out of Kuwait and 

put him in a situation in his country. He had a blood feud with us, 

and would have, had he had time and effort, to consummate that 

blood feud he would have certainly done so. And more than likely, 

he was involved in some operations that he thought would hurt us, 

by supporting different things with al-Qaeda. 

Mr. Christoff, how many, at this point, how many security forces, 

Iraqi security forces are there operating in Iraq? Iraqi security 

forces. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Iraqi security forces. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. There are 331,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, 331,000. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, when you mentioned in your testimony 

that there was only 8% of those involved with security operations 

were non-Americans, that didn’t include the 331,000, did it? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. No, it did not. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you think that that is a pretty important 

factor, those 331,000 Iraqis? And maybe that gives a more accurate 

view, that we are not standing alone to count them into the equation when we are determining who is fighting and who is not? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Well, I don’t count them intentionally because of 

all the work that we have done looking at the effectiveness and the 

loyalty of Iraqi security forces. The 331,000, that is just the number that we trained and equipped. DoD reported last month that 

no more than one third to one half even show up for work. 
61

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you have got 150,000 who may be 

active. Now, let me just note that during the Vietnam War, we had 

a very similar approach to the idea of what we were going to do. 

And we were going to—the Vietnamization concept. Now, that 

works against the grain of a lot of Americans because we have a 

lot of bitter memories about Vietnam. 

But when you look back and you see what happened, when the 

last combat troops left Vietnam, that we actually, for, I think it 

was several years, those forces that we had trained, and where 

they had the same kind of disparaging analysis of their capabilities 

before we left and they had to step up, they actually help off and 

actually had some great victories over their enemies over a 2-year 

period. 

And let me add another parallel to this. It wasn’t until the 1974 

elections, in which a new breed of Democrat took over the House 

of Representatives—it was elected to be anti-Nixon, anti-war—that 

supplies provided, military supplies provided to the Vietnamese 

Army, were cut off. And then, surprise, surprise, those people who 

we had trained broke with an understanding the United States was 

no longer supporting their efforts, and no longer going to supply 

them ammunition for their weapons. 

Now, I would hope that we are not sending that same kind of 

message to the 150,000, even if we take it by a pessimistic view, 

150,000 individuals who are standing up today against brutal attacks, and whose casualty rate, I might add, is much higher than 

our casualty rate. And I am not sure if they are the best fighters 

in the world or not, but they are taking casualties. And they represent a much smaller army and force than we do. And they deserve some respect. 

And if we don’t respect these people, we can’t expect them to 

stand up against the type of onslaught that we are talking about. 

And I certainly respect Mr. Gardiner, Dr. Gardiner’s analysis. 

There are people all over the world in various countries that are 

dependent on the United States. If we weaken, there will be no one 

who will be able to stand up. It just happens to be that way now 

in history. 

And we can try to find fault in everything that happens, and 

every great endeavor in human history had faults. If you only focus 

on faults, you are never going to be able to succeed in any of those 

endeavors. 

Let me just note this. If the Chinese, as Dr. Paul suggested, 

would come into the United States, wouldn’t we resent it? No. If 

the Chinese Army came to the United States and displaced a vicious dictatorship that had been slaughtering our people by the 

hundreds of thousands, displaced that and tried to help us organize 

a democratic system, we would be dancing in the streets with the 

Chinese. 

And Iraq, let me note, is not a holy land for most Muslims. And 

let me also note, as I stated before, by looking at some of the mistakes we have made, and yes, some of the things that have been 

done that are wrong by our troops—troops do things that are 

wrong whenever there is a conflict. You are going to find in World 

War II they did things that were wrong. But we came in and tried 
62

to punish them when we found it out, and we have done so in Abu 

Ghraib and elsewhere. 

If we think that what we have done is antagonized other people, 

you know, I just would have to suggest that, as I suggested in my 

opening statement, compared to the horrible brutality that is going 

on on the other side—I mean, we have the Zarqawis who slaughtered people, and now we have the militias on the Iranian side that 

are slaughtering innocent people. We are talking about coming in 

and killing women and children in great numbers, intentionally. 

And we are antagonizing the people of the Middle East by being 

there trying to stop them from killing each other? 

Oh, yes, you can focus on a couple mistakes that, again, we have 

made, and admitted. But I don’t buy that argument. And I don’t 

buy that that is the way we should be making our decisions. 

Let me note that the quote the chairman gave earlier on about 

the Kurdish views of Iran, that was not spoken by an elected leader, much less a national elected leader. It was a local, unelected political figure in Kurdistan. 

And finally, let me see. Oh, yes. And finally, in terms of our people who are standing up with us. Mr. Christoff, you went through 

the different troops and things, and I think it was you or Mr. 

Katzman that suggested that, for example, the Koreans are expected to reduce their number of troops, correct? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Was that based on any analysis of 

what the future elections, the upcoming elections in Korea would 

achieve? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. All of my data was based upon information from 

the Departments of Defense and State. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. But I can tell you that, well, I can’t 

tell you. But obviously the answer to the question is no. It was 

based on Department of State, it was based on Department of Defense; it is not based on a projection of the political will. 

We have had hearing after hearing talking about how the United 

States is really in the doghouse, and our popularity is going right 

down the drain in Europe. And we have, in Germany, a pro-American official elected. And now in France, a pro-American official 

elected. 

And let me note that in Korea, you have a relatively anti-Western government now in power in South Korea. And every projection 

of the elections that I have seen is that Korea will be electing a 

very pro-American next government; and that that could have a lot 

to do with the troop levels that they decide upon. 

So the projections that we are talking about have to be looked 

not only in terms of right now, but also what is potentially, or what 

is coming from the grass roots in those democratic societies, not 

just what is right now among leaders, political leaders of those 

countries. 

With that said, I appreciate this. I appreciate the hearing. And 

I hope that Dr. Gardiner’s statements about putting this in historical perspective and what this could do—Dr. Gardiner, the answer 

to all of those ominous predictions that you made that could happen seems to be that, well, it is bad already. Well, let me just note 

that that does not in any way undercut your predictions that it 
63

could get a lot worse if we would act precipitously and do something that would encourage the type of monstrous tyrants and terrorists who hate the United States around the world. And hate 

your country and the people of all three democratic countries. And 

they hate the people in their own societies who want democracy. 

If we just ignore those people and think that we can walk away 

from it, I think we are in for big trouble, a lot worse than what 

we have got now. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Next we will recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not 

being here much, and I apologize if this has been asked. 

A question that has, or a statement that is often made is that 

if we aren’t fighting them there, then we will be fighting us here. 

They will follow us home. This is different from Vietnam, we are 

told, because of that. 

I would like to hear your reaction to that statement. Is there 

something to that? Or what do you make of that statement? First, 

Dr. Gardiner. 

Mr. GARDINER. Yes. Actually, I do have an opinion on that. 

I think the fact is that every day we are eliminating in Iraq alQaeda terrorists. And from time to time, we are actually killing 

some of their top military operational commanders. And we are 

making significant—I think we are getting significant results, I 

think, in terms of wiping out a considerable portion of their command and control by engaging them on the battlefield in Iraq, as 

well, and al-Qaeda is very active fighting alongside the Taliban. 

And so I do believe that al-Qaeda on the battlefield itself, we can 

reduce long-term the risk to European cities, and ultimately also 

to the United States, as well. And this is a battle that is worth 

fighting. It is a battle that we simply have to win. 

And I fundamentally disagree with those who say that the Iraq 

War is making the world more dangerous. What we are doing in 

Iraq is taking on the enemy head-on, and wherever we can, wiping 

out some of al-Qaeda’s leadership. And we are saving lives in the 

long run by doing so. 

Mr. FLAKE. Let me have just a quick follow-up, then I would like 

reaction from the others. 

Assuming we are killing some, is this the most cost-effective way 

to do it? I mean, a lot of our time there some would argue has been 

spent policing sectarian struggles. Is this a cost-effective way, the 

most cost-effective way to do it? 

Mr. GARDINER. I think it is cost-effective. I think that Iraq and 

Afghanistan are the only places in the world that we can actually 

draw out the enemy and actively fight them, in a battlefield setting. And we simply cannot do that, for example, on the streets of 

Europe. We are running certainly some very significant counterterrorist operations in London, for example. But we are certainly 

eliminating a lot more terrorists on the battlefield in the cities of 

Iraq, and also in southern Afghanistan. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Christoff? 
64

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Mr. Flake, I don’t think I can give you a direct 

answer, but I can offer you some data that might help you make 

some decisions. 

We will have a classified report out next month that I think will 

help everyone. It tries to answer the question that I have always 

had: Who are we fighting? 

And we will present to the members and to the committees classified information that will describe the different armed groups in 

Iraq, their levels of troops or the supporters that they have, and 

in effect, the different wars that we are fighting currently in Iraq. 

I think that would be very useful information for everyone to have. 

Once it is completed, I would be happy to come up here and give 

you a detailed classified briefing on that. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Katzman. 

Mr. KATZMAN. I think the assessment of many Middle Eastern 

experts like myself would be, some al-Qaeda fighters have been attracted by the Iraq battlefield. Some, even now, there is some evidence, maybe leaving the battlefield to go elsewhere, to Europe, to 

their home countries, to continue their battles against their governments in the countries they come from. Egypt, for example, Saudi 

Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, et cetera. So that there could be some of 

that. Others might go to Pakistan. 

The Iraqi insurgents, the Sunni Iraqi insurgents I would say 

most Middle East experts, including myself, would say it is unlikely that they would try to come here to attack the United States. 

Their goal is to affect an Iraqi political outcome which, if they secure that, or they keep fighting for that goal, they would stay in 

Iraq. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Gardiner, Dr. Gardiner, the statement was also 

made, and I heard it made a little earlier, about we can’t, this 

would be admitting defeat. It is the image thing. How much stock 

do you put in that? Is that reason enough alone to stay and keep 

doing what we are doing? 

Mr. GARDINER. I think it is one very important part of the bigger 

jigsaw puzzle here. And I do believe that if the United States and 

the U.K. withdrew from Iraq next year, this would be seen across 

the Middle East, across the Islamic world, as a huge humiliation. 

And it would only embolden, I think, terrorist organizations, who 

will see us as weak. And they will be even more encouraged to take 

the war to us. 

And I think that the kind of signal that we send in the global 

war on terror is extremely important here. And we have to impress 

upon our enemies that we are strong, that we have the stomach for 

the fight, that we are not going to be intimidated. 

And if we withdraw from Iraq, we send a clear message of weakness that they will certainly exploit in the decades to come. 

Mr. FLAKE. Five years from now, if there is no substantial 

change, if the government is still not formed, if we are looking at 

basically the same scenario, will the same argument hold? At what 

point does the argument change for you? 

Mr. GARDINER. It is a very good question, actually. And without 

a doubt, we cannot stay indefinitely for decades in Iraq. We have 

to do our best to ensure in the coming years that we can make 

some real progress there. And I think it is all to play for the mo-
65

ment. Iraq could become successor in the long run. It could become 

an utter failure. But a lot depends, I think, upon our own willingness to ensure that we do everything that we can in order to make 

Iraq a successful state and a free society. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. And I am 

going to take an opportunity to ask some questions of my own at 

this point. And I believe Chairman Delahunt may have some additional when he returns. 

I guess first, a comment with regard to your statements, Dr. Gardiner. You know, this committee has just had a series of hearings 

about America’s image around the world. And I guess it seems 

when you look at that, when we are at historic lows in terms of 

the image of America around the world, if we are truly concerned 

about our image, I think that we really need to look at what we 

can learn from some of this polling and studies that have been 

done around the globe, in terms of how we can improve that. Because certainly, we are at a historic low point, based on what we 

have done up to today. 

And I am going to, I see we have had another member join us. 

And before I go into my questions, I am going to ask if the 

gentlelady from Texas would like to question the witnesses. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you very 

much. I thought you were beginning a new set of questions here. 

And thank you for your indulgence. We have the Homeland Security Bill on the floor. 

Let me just make some general statements about where we are. 

It is interesting that we would have this panel, because we are 

poised to be discussing the question of dealing with the continued 

funding of this effort in Iraq. And that debate will take place. 

Many of us have expressed a complete frustration with what is perceived not a failed action on the military, but a failed action on this 

mission. 

And my question goes back to the declaration—excuse me, that 

is an incorrect term—the statutory authority which many of us are 

seeking to have expire. We believe that the authority has long 

since expired that the President is operating under. Many of us 

would like to see a debate on that question. 

But this goes to how we started out. And I use as a backdrop the 

Persian Gulf War, which saw a huge, massive coalition of resources 

from around the world. Even when this effort started internationally, with no diminishing of those who stood up, they were 

diminimus. Their resources were diminimus. Any violent effort 

against one of their soldiers caused great uproar in their countries. 

They were pulling out. We probably have a longer list of those who 

pulled out than those who are still standing. 

That doesn’t bode well with respect to our resources, which anyone who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan, in this instance Iraq, 

knows that our soldiers are putting forth the greatest measure: 

Their life. 

Why don’t I just ask the question? What did we do wrong? I don’t 

know if anyone has already testified to say that we have great support around the world, and we have great funding of the military 

effort. I know that NATO is not in Iraq; they are doing, holding 
66

their own in Afghanistan, which is really the seat of where the war 

on terror initiated. 

But if we look at the international family, what did we do, and 

where did we go wrong, with respect to the beginnings of this, if 

you will, debacle that started out with the misrepresentation of the 

intelligence, which caused so many in this country to believe that 

we simply had to give the authority to this President? Anyone wish 

to address that question? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Well, we have made, I think, a lot of errors in 

judgment since the war began. I think it has been in terms of not 

fully recognizing the strength of the insurgency in late 2003. Clearly that was not an area that we had anticipated. In addition, for 

all practical purposes, we misdirected some of our dollars that have 

gone to reconstruction purposes. 

When I have looked at the United States reconstruction effort in 

Iraq, in many respects it has been a Cadillac approach; trying to 

provide 21st century technology to a country that has had technology from the 1970s. And so there have been a lot of failed reconstruction projects because we tried to do too much. 

So I think there have been a lot of errors along the way that 

have cost money and lives. 

The extent to which the Baghdad Security Plan is going to address some of those problems I think is still unknown, particularly 

looking at some of the recent data that just came out on the attack 

levels, and the extent to which they have or have not gone down 

recently. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Katzman? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Thank you. In some of my work here at CRS I 

have tried to analyze, I think there was a misread of how the 

Sunni Arabs would perceive this intervention. There was a view 

that the Sunni Arabs were also oppressed by Saddam, and they 

would join with the Shi’a and the Kurds to create a new democracy. 

I think that has been shown to be a flawed assumption. The 

Iraqis viewed it as basically a zero-sum game; the Sunnis did, anyway. In their view, the U.S. intervention resulted in the transfer 

of all power to the Shi’a Arabs, leaving them as a new underclass, 

so to speak. 

And in my view, that is the source of their rebellion. And I would 

say my view is, we are not looking at just an insurgency by the 

Sunnis; we are looking at a Sunni rebellion. It is not just some 

gunmen. Because if it was just some gunmen, we would have been 

able to defeat them by now. It is a very broad rebellion in the 

Sunni community. 

These gunmen, the Sunni gunmen, they have many places to go. 

If there is a troop surge in Baghdad, they can go to Anbar; they 

are going now to Diyala Province. They can go to the belts around 

Baghdad, which they are going to. Because the population that are 

Sunni in these areas support them. They will take them in, they 

will let them build car bombs in their garages, they will let them 

store weapons, they will feed them information. 

So I think the mistake we sometimes make is to view this as a 

narrow insurgency by a few thousand gunmen. This, in my view, 

is a rebellion by the Sunni Arab community. 
67

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if I may, and I know that, Dr. Gardiner, 

I am not ignoring you, but I know that you believe we should stay 

the course, and the 3,381 dead and no mission defined, I disagree. 

And I think that you have hit the nail on the head in terms of 

drawing the coalition of the strong. We have used the ‘‘coalition of 

the willing;’’ I think we had the ‘‘coalition of the strong’’ in the Persian Gulf War. I was not here in Congress; people agreed, disagreed, but we went in with this coalition. 

My concern is that you have hit the nail on the head, and that 

we also are raising the ire of Sunni governments, or Sunni-dominated governments, around this fueling crisis. And what we possibly could have done, even for those of us who were against it in 

the beginning, is to have understood the region better; to have developed coalitions with regional peer persons. So that when we did 

bring the Saddam Hussein Government down, Sunnis would not—

because what we have represented to them is now we want a government where everybody is equal. They have a government where 

they are being dominated by a majority. And even in this country, 

where we might argue against the majority, we are supposed to 

give rights, arguably, to the minority. They have not done that. 

And that peels away, I think, the strength of those who will be 

contributing to the military fight. Europe does not want to be in 

this kind of winner-take-all posture, and that is what we have 

here. And that is why we need to regroup, draw our troops out, let 

this resolution expire, so that we can truly have the reconstruction 

that I think would put a better face on America. 

So I am frustrated, because they are not listening to you, Dr. 

Katzman. And I have not taken you to the next level; I didn’t ask 

you whether you agreed or disagreed with us being there. I have 

only said, ‘‘I think you have hit the nail on the head.’’

I would like to be able to reconstruct Iraq. I would like to be able 

to have a democratic government. You cannot have it under your 

framework that has been so articulated here today. 

And I hope that we can extract ourselves in this conflict, put a 

face of the region on it, begin to reconstruct. When I say in the conflict, I don’t mean that we have to totally leave the region, because 

a crisis may come where we are needed to intervene. We can be 

on the border, we can be in Kuwait. But we cannot continue to be 

there and think we will fix this problem. 

Mr. Chairman—and I don’t know, Dr. Katzman, if you wanted to 

comment on that. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. 

Mr. KATZMAN. Just briefly, I believe the explanation for the fact 

that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, have not acted on their pledges to the 

Iraqi, financial pledges to the Iraqi Government is indeed this reason. They feel that the Maliki Government is indeed very much 

supportive of Iran, influenced by Iran, and they want to see the 

reconciliation with the Sunni community before they would come 

forward with those funds. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We need to end it now so we can begin to 

build. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. I am going to 

go to the vice chairman next, but I would note—and you can confirm this for me, any one of you—that just recently, King Abdullah 

of Saudi Arabia declined to meet with the Iraqi President. And pre-
68

sumably for the same rationale that you just articulated, Dr. 

Katzman. Am I correct in that statement? Could I hear a yes or 

no? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Well, the Saudi explanation, so to speak, was that 

it is deferred; that they will meet with him at some point. But I 

think everybody read it the way you explained it, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Am I inaccurate in making that statement, Dr. 

Gardiner? 

Mr. GARDINER. Could you just repeat that? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You weren’t paying attention. That was a test. 

I will save you from my own——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GARDINER. I missed that one, I am afraid. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Let me go to the vice chair and express 

my gratitude to him for taking the gavel. While I was meeting, by 

the way, with an Iraqi member of Parliament, who just informed 

me that 144 members of their Parliament have signed a letter requesting a timeline for withdrawal. I want to say that publicly, so 

that the three of you can respond at any time to that particular action by the Iraqi Parliament, not the United States Congress. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I want 

to start with Mr. Christoff. You testified we have provided foreign 

troops with a total of $1.5 billion in coalition support funds, liftand-sustain funds, or funds for equipment. And these have supported 20 coalition members, including Poland. 

But I understand Poland’s would have gone to support the 11 

countries under its command. And there were a total of 33 countries. So does that mean we have paid some portion of expenses for 

31 out of the 33 coalition partners? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. No. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Then tell me how that math breaks down, then. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. I am not certain I followed your math, but page 

11 of my statement lists 11 countries that are part of the Polish 

command. Collectively, that command received support of about 

$988 million. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. But that is included or not included in the 20 coalition members that we are funding? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. We are talking about Poland, correct? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Correct. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Right. So let us go to page 11. On that page, you 

will see the countries that are part of the command that Poland is 

in. So you see those countries listed, those 11 countries. 

At the bottom of page 11 are listed Poland plus 18 other countries that receive support from the coalition. In addition, Jordan—

while not officially a member of the coalition—did receive $300 million in support funds. So 19 plus one is 20. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay, that is helpful. Thank you for clearing 

that up. 

Is there any indication of how many of these countries that received support would have participated had they not received these 

funds? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Well, the premise of providing these funds to 

begin with was the countries indicated that they did not have the 
69

financial resources to either get their troops to the theater, or sustain their troops once they were in theater. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And of these coalition members that have been 

listed, how many of these have been involved in actual combat? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Combat operations. It is hard to make clear distinctions in terms of the coalition members that are involved in 

combat. Clearly, the U.K., Poland to some degree, Australia to 

some degree. There are a lot of other smaller countries that have 

small contingents that have done things such a munitions removal, 

providing security. But the bulk of the combat operations in general I would say would be U.S. and U.K. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. The other question I had with regard to 

resources, and going into this conflict. There was a lot of discussion 

about Iraqi oil. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Right. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And them having the third-largest reserves in 

the world, and that that was going to help fund costs and reconstruction. Where is that today? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. It hasn’t funded reconstruction. Our economists 

have done quite a bit of work looking at the Iraqi budget—a $35 

billion budget. When you start removing the resources that Iraq 

has to use to pay for salaries, that some contend are salaries for 

a bloated bureaucracy; the rising costs of paying salaries for Iraqi 

security forces; continued subsidies; it doesn’t leave much in terms 

of what the country can contribute for reconstruction. And that 

which they have set aside, they generally have not spent. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And what are the indications as to why the monies that are there have remained unspent? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Last year Iraq set aside about $6.2 billion for 

what I would call capital projects, reconstruction projects. They 

spent about 20% of that. Some of the reasons that the senior advisors that I have spoken to have indicated are that they still have 

not put together good contracting and procurement procedures that 

would allow them to actually spend the money. They have a whole 

host of procedures from the former regime, from provisional governments, that complicate their efforts to contract out. Plus they 

spent our money first. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Surprise. I want to get Dr. Katzman to comment 

in particular about the Iraqi oil. 

Mr. KATZMAN. Sir, my discussions indicate that the U.S. Government believes that much of the funds were unspent because the 

Maliki Government was hesitant to spend these funds in the Sunni 

areas of Iraq. The Sunnis believe that. Now, whether it is accurate 

or not, the Sunnis believe it, so there is a certain reality to it. 

And this is why, as part of the President’s Baghdad security 

plan, he demanded that Maliki Government set aside $10.5 billion. 

And they have done so. They have budgeted, in the budget they 

passed 2 months ago, to spend that money, with the understanding 

that it will be spent in the Sunni areas, which are suffering. 

Now, obviously security conditions may make it difficult to spend 

it there. But that is the understanding. 

Now, the southern and the northern part of Iraq are being reconstructed in many ways with private investment funds—Iranian investment money, other investment money, the private sector—be-
70

cause those areas are safe, and there is a perception of profits to 

be had in those areas. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And in particular about the Iraqi oil. Again, 

great projections going in. You know, between the beginning of this 

conflict and today, what has happened? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Well, the Iraqis are, because oil prices are so high, 

even though they are not exporting, they are only exporting less 

than 2 million barrels a day, they used to export—they have only 

gotten as high as 2 million. Under Saddam they exported about 2.2 

million. So even though they are under the export level that they 

want it to be, because oil prices are so high, they are earning actually more money than was anticipated. And they did generate the 

$10.5 billion that is basically sitting in the development fund for 

Iraq, available to be spent for reconstruction. And they have agreed 

to spend it. 

The problem is, for the reasons Mr. Christoff mentioned and I 

mentioned, it has not been spent yet. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Oil production exports are actually lower than 2 

million. They are down to 1.6 million this month. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. So the amount is down, but the projected——

Mr. CHRISTOFF. The price of oil has gone up. 

Mr. CARNAHAN [continuing]. Dollar amount is where it was projected, just because of the rise in price. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Yes. They are getting about $60 a barrel for 

Basra light right now. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Next I would like to ask about, does GAO have 

any idea how many military contractors are in Iraq today? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. No. And I wish DoD did, as well. And that is the 

bottom line of our report back in December 2006. We found that 

DoD does not have any centralized database by which it can know 

how many contractors are in Iraq. And that has, as we said, pretty 

important implications for force protection, as well as life support. 

Now, I will say that we recommended that DoD do something 

about this. A couple months ago they told us that they were going 

to task this to the Army. Army has developed a database that they 

are trying to populate with the names of the contractors that they 

believe are supporting troops in Iraq. They are up to about 50,000 

names, but we haven’t really looked at the reliability of that data 

yet. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. We have merely seen press reports that indicate 

between 50,000 and 126,000. Yet we think it is very important to 

get those figures. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. I have heard those figures, too. But, quite frankly, no one really knows the total number. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, thank you, Mr. Carnahan. That is absolutely stunning, that we don’t know. I mean, this is a first-world 

country. I am not particularly computer literate myself, but I would 

hope that there are people in the government that could at least 

track those numbers, those contractors that are being paid by 

American tax dollars to perform a service. 

It is beginning to sound like we have a private army over there. 

You know, if we are going to go into privatization of the United 

States military, I think it would have been, it should have 
71

behooved us to have at least a discussion and a hearing on that. 

But I found that disturbing. 

I thank the gentleman for bringing that out. And, Mr. Christoff, 

do we have an estimate of how much we are spending on this private army of contractors? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. I don’t know. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Joe, if you don’t know, then nobody knows. I 

mean, what a great comment on the conduct of this operation. I 

would hope, Dr. Gardiner, that the British are doing better in 

terms of tracking their expenditures and their investment in this 

war. 

Mr. GARDINER. They probably are, actually. I am not sure the 

exact number of British private contractors, but I would imagine 

that the British Government would keep track of this sort of figure. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. To go back to a point that Dr. Gardiner made. 

I think you said in your testimony that the British Government 

has committed to maintaining a presence or remaining in Iraq for 

5 years. Is that accurate? Is my memory correct? 

Mr. GARDINER. Well, this is what has been reported by the Daily 

Telegraph in London, based upon sources in the Ministry of Defense. I also checked with the Telegraph with regard to the 

sourcing for the story, because it is quite a claim. They stand by 

it. They believe the sources are highly reliable. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, this comes as a revelation. I would hope 

that in 5 years, the United States military is back here at home, 

and not in Iraq. And I daresay if our British allies are there, that 

would be a disappointment to some of us. 

And I think it was you, Mr. Christoff, that indicated your understanding of the information that you have, is that the British have, 

are in the process of designing a plan through 2008. 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Those are the South Koreans that are devising 

a plan to try to determine what their withdrawal plans would be 

in 2007. The Brits have announced, as Dr. Gardiner said, that they 

do intend to reduce from the 7,100 this year, but they at least will 

continue their commitment, my understanding is through 2008. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. So there is a commitment through 2008. And yet 

Dr. Gardiner, through his sources at the Telegraph, has concluded 

that they will remain for 5 years. 

Well, that is interesting information, Dr. Gardiner. You indicated 

earlier that, my ranking member indicated that he was pleased 

with the results in France. ‘‘Vive la France.’’ He indicated earlier 

that he was pleased with the results, I believe, in Germany with 

the election of Angela Merkel. 

But Dr. Gardiner, the truth is that an overwhelming number of 

British citizens do not approve of the United States’ handling of 

Iraq. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. GARDINER. Oh, I think the latest polls do indicate that a majority of British people are not in favor of the Iraq War. I think 

that the British public is evenly divided over the issue of an immediate withdrawal of British forces. 

At the time of the Iraq War in 2003, a majority of the British 

public supported the decision of the British Government to go to 

war. But we have seen a steady decline in British public support 

for the Iraq War, and also a rise in anti-United States sentiment 
72

in opinion polls in the United Kingdom. I do show the concern of 

yourself and your colleagues with regard to the rise of anti-Americanism in Britain and in Europe I think is a huge issue. It should 

be a top-priority issue for the Bush administration to address. It 

has very important long-term implications for U.S. foreign policy 

and alliance building. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Dr. Gardiner. Just to refer to a poll 

that was taken by the BBC. And the question was posed to European citizens who strongly disapprove of the United States Government’s handling of the Iraq issue. Great Britain was 57%, Germany 

66%, Italy 63%, Portugal 61%, and France was 79%. 

So the reality is, is that while these governments may or may not 

support our engagement, our involvement in Iraq, it is clear that 

there are growing majorities in these countries that do not support 

the American presence, and the corollary being the British presence, in Iraq. 

And I daresay that despite my friend’s enthusiasm for the new 

leadership in France, that I honestly doubt if we will see any contribution of either troops or francs or Euros to the effort, if you 

will. 

You know, Chancellor Merkel has been very clear in terms of 

being unequivocal that the Germans will not participate in any 

way, shape, or form in Iraq. 

So this is what I am talking about in terms of the coalition. In 

1991 there was a totally different dynamic than exists today, and 

we find ourselves very much alone, with the obvious exception to 

date of the United Kingdom. 

I am always interested in the conflation, if you will, between the 

war on terror and the war in Iraq. And I don’t think that we have 

really achieved a clear understanding of that distinction. I don’t 

think there is anyone in the British Parliament or the United 

States Congress—and Dr. Gardiner, you used the word defeat—I 

can assure you that there is no Member of the United States Congress that would not welcome the end of terrorism. 

But we do make the distinction between Iraq and terrorism. 

There was an individual who testified here, oh, maybe 2 or 3 weeks 

ago, who has very passionate feelings regarding the rendition process. He and I disagreed. But he had this to say, and I am going 

to read some of his words to you, and hopefully elicit a response 

as to whether you are in agreement with Michael Scheuer, who 

was a Republican witness, and, as I said, proved to be somewhat, 

well, somewhat interesting in terms of his views on rendition. 

But this is what he had to say:

‘‘Without a doubt, in the war against al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies. He was not going to permit Iraq 

to become a base, as it is today, for Sunni fundamentalists.’’

I am not going to pick just on you, Dr. Gardiner, but let me see, 

or let me address this both to Dr. Katzman and Mr. Christoff, if 

you wish to respond, and to you, Dr. Gardiner. Do you agree with 

that statement? 

Mr. CHRISTOFF. I believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin 

Laden both shared an intense hatred for the West. And I think the 

jury is still out with regard to whether or not there was coopera-
73

tion on the ground between the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein 

and the al-Qaeda organization. 

But what we do know is that both Saddam Hussein and Osama 

bin Laden had and have an intense hatred for Western civilization. 

I think that it was certainly in our interest to remove Saddam 

Hussein from the picture. And the fact that we now see al-Qaeda 

terrorists in large numbers on the ground inside Iraq, finding common currency with Baathist loyalists, I think reinforces the fact 

that we are fighting a common enemy here. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Dr. Katzman? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just simply 

quote George Tenet and others who have spoken in interviews and 

on the record since the invasion of Iraq, saying that the al-QaedaSaddam linkage is probably the weakest. And that is the argument 

that the CIA felt was the weakest. And Mr. Tenet talked about 

how he, I believe, toned down Secretary of State Powell’s presentation at the United Nations on that point, and in other ways. 

As I answered to Mr. Rohrabacher a while ago, there does appear 

to have been some flirtation in Sudan in the early nineties with 

chemical weapons and Iraqi intelligence linkages. There were some 

things going on which were found by CIA and the 9-11 Commission. But in terms of operational relationship, the idea that they 

were working together to a common goal, I think everybody who seriously studied this has said on record that that just wasn’t going 

on. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Michael Scheuer, for those that are unaware, was the Chief of the Osama bin Laden Unit in the CIA, confirms just what you said, Dr. Katzman. On ‘‘Hardball’’ back in November 2004 he was interviewed and said, ‘‘I happened to do the 

research on the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and came up 

with nothing.’’

In his book he had this to say:

‘‘I was pleased because CIA’s official position was reaffirmed in 

the analysis of Mr. Feith’s unit was discredited. There was no 

information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed 

there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and alQaeda.’’

Now, I understand the administration wanted that link, and was 

predisposed to find some evidence. But the professionals, those that 

were responsible for intelligence and whose views I want to emphasize are different than mine on a variety of issues, found nothing, 

as Michael Scheuer had to say. 

In fact, in his book called Imperial Hubris, he has this to say 

about our policy. I guess we can call it the U.S.–U.K. policy:

‘‘U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of 

the Islamic world, something bin Laden has been trying to do 

with substantial, but incomplete, success since the early 1990s. 

As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States 

of America remains Osama bin Laden’s only indispensable 

ally.’’

So if you accept his analysis, Dr. Gardiner, our presence there is 

creating the conditions for more terrorism. 
74

Well, in any event, I want to move on, if I can, because you have 

expressed concern about Iran. And that if we leave any time soon, 

there is going to be an upsurge in Iranian influence in Iraq. I note 

that you were present obviously when I read the quote of, I guess 

it was yesterday or the day before, by the President of the Autonomous Region in northern Iraq. And those words I would suggest 

are very warm toward Iran. 

And my memory is—and any of you can help me—but recently—

and I think it is important the American people understand that. 

That recently when there were five Iranian so-called diplomats that 

were arrested, what was the response of the Peshmerga, Dr. Gardiner? Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. GARDINER. I am not aware of their response. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Dr. Katzman? 

Mr. KATZMAN. There were two arrested in, first, in actually 

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim’s compound. He is the leader of the Supreme 

Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, which is actually the 

dominant party in the United Iraq Alliance umbrella. So they were 

at his compound, basically confirming or reaffirming the linkages 

between the Iranian kutz force of the posit Iran, the revolutionary 

guard, and the Supreme Council and its Batah Brigades militia. 

The other five to which you are referring, Mr. Chairman, the 

U.S., I believe, arrested them and was taking them out of Irbil. 

And it didn’t come to any clash, but the Kurds, I believe, at the 

airport in Irbil surrounded the U.S. forces. And there was a standoff for a few minutes. And then the U.S. was indeed allowed to 

take them out of Irbil. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is my understanding of that incident. 

Again, I think it is important for us to be accurate in terms of what 

the current relationship is, without suggesting that by our withdrawal, we are going to enhance it. I just don’t see that. 

I mean, the reality is there have been a number of agreements 

reached between the Iranian Government and the Iraqi Government. Are you aware of those agreements, Mr. Christoff, Dr. Gardiner? 

Mr. GARDINER. What I am aware of is the fact that the Iranians 

are playing an extremely disruptive role in Iraq. And that Iran is 

responsible for killing a considerable number of British soldiers in 

southern Iraq. And they have blood on their hands. That they are 

meddling in external affairs here, and they are playing a very dangerous game. 

And I think that Iran is a deeply unhelpful player inside Iraq, 

funneling arms and funds to terrorist organizations there. And we 

will continue resisting Iranian interference. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, I am not obviously aware of the, you 

know, the intelligence. I don’t dispute it. But I have had experience 

with intelligence that has been presented to this committee in the 

past regarding weapons of mass destruction, et cetera, et cetera, 

that has been proven to be seriously flawed. 

Mr. Christoff, Dr. Katzman, are you aware of agreements that 

have been consummated between the Iraqi Government today and 

the Iranian regime? And if you do, can you give us just a few examples? Dr. Katzman? 
75

Mr. KATZMAN. There have been a number of them. Some of them 

were signed when Ibrahim al Jaafari, the previous Prime Minister, 

was in power. There was a military cooperation agreement signed, 

although it is unclear exactly what the contents were. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you please just say that again for my benefit? There was a military cooperation agreement signed. 

Mr. KATZMAN. The early reports of that agreement was that it 

would provide for Iranian training of some Iraqi forces. 

Now, the Iraqis denied that that was a part of the agreement, 

and it appears that, due to whatever, whether it is us or whatever, 

the Iraqis appear to have backed off that part of the agreement. 

And the way it has evolved is cooperation on intelligence sharing 

and border security across the common border, to prevent arms and 

other things from coming into Iraq, or out of Iraq into Iran. Although obviously if that is the intent of the agreement it has been 

unsuccessful, because we continue to hear, and even today, U.S. 

military briefings about EFP, explosively forced projectile, shipments from Iran into Iraq. Some other agreements include the $1 billion line of credit, 

water, electricity, over-the-border sharing, oil swaps, energy swaps, 

Iranian assistance to construct the Najaf Airport and revive some 

of the roads. And some of these agreements extend up into the 

Kurdish north. The Iranians have agreed to do some road improvements up in the north, electricity programs, et cetera. So it is a 

broad package. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Dr. Gardiner, if you were in a position, would 

you null and void these particular agreements? 

Mr. GARDINER. I can’t comment on the specific agreement, but I 

would emphasize once again that Iran plays an extremely 

unhelpful role in Iraq, particularly in relation to continuing attacks 

on especially British forces in southern Iraq. And the Iranians are 

interfering here in an area where they have no business interfering, frankly. This is not their territory. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is Iraqi territory. 

Mr. GARDINER. This is Iraqi territory. They recently seized 15 

British Navy personnel inside Iraqi sovereign territory. They are 

acting in an increasingly aggressive fashion, and we have to send 

a clear message to Tehran that this simply will not be tolerated, 

and there are consequences for this. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I hear the message you want to send from the 

United Kingdom, and what about the message coming from Iraq? 

I would direct your attention to my left, if you can identify those 

two individuals. 

Mr. GARDINER. Yes, I think we are familiar with both of those. 

I must say that is a very disappointing photograph. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. For the record, could you identify the gentleman 

to the left? 

Mr. GARDINER. Yes. We are looking at the Iraqi leader, and we 

are looking at the Iranian leader here. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. The Iraqi leader’s name, of course? 

Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Maliki. And we are looking also at Mahmoud 

Ahmadinejad. I think that this is a very, very unfortunate photograph. No doubt for pragmatic reasons the Iraqi Government sees 

the need to enter into some sort of negotiation with the Iranians. 
76

I certainly don’t share that. I don’t think the U.S. Government 

shares that position. 

And I think that once again, Iran’s role in Iraq is disruptive and 

unhelpful. I don’t think the Iraqi Government frankly should be 

projecting this sort of image to the world. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, would you, therefore—Mr. Katzman? 

Mr. KATZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want, I just wanted 

to say we should not be surprised at that photograph. Let me just 

take a couple of minutes to——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. 

Mr. KATZMAN. The ideology that produced the Islamic revolution 

in Iran was forged actually in Najaf in the fifties and sixties. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Najaf, of course, is in Iraq. 

Mr. KATZMAN. Iraq. By Moqtada Al-Sadr’s great-uncle, Mohammed Bakr Sadr, and his associate, Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah 

had kicked out Khomeini in 1963, and he went to Najaf. And they 

forged this ideology of the Islamic revolution. 

Mohammed Bakr Sadr was the founder of the Dawa Party. 

Maliki is the number-two leader of the Dawa Party. So the linkages between Iran and Maliki and the UIA bloc in Parliament are 

organic, and they are longstanding. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I guess what I am trying to suggest is that it is 

very important that we all educate ourselves, and educate the people whom we represent about the realities on the ground. One can 

string platitudes together and talk about defeat, talk about escalation, can use those terms. 

I guess I should ask Mr. Gardiner, should we get rid of Maliki, 

like in the good, old colonial days? 

Mr. GARDINER. I don’t think we have that power. This is a democratically-elected government. We may not like some of the foreign 

policy arrangements of this government. This is a sovereign government. We simply can’t just remove the Iraqi leadership because 

we disapprove of handshakes with Iranians. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And disapprove of bilateral military cooperation 

agreements between Iraq and Iran. 

Mr. GARDINER. I don’t think we should overplay hugely the significance of that bilateral agreement. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, if we don’t overplay it, at least we should 

be aware of it, I would suggest. 

There are votes coming. I want to thank all of you for illuminating us, informing us. And it has been an interesting afternoon. And thank you all for your contribution. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ