SNYDER: Is there any reason that that information couldn't be compiled on a regular basis, I mean, just put it on the wall or something and transfer it over here to the committee that we might -- or do we need to take weekly or monthly tours over there...
MYERS: We're just standing it up. I mean, we've got it in operation and it continues to evolve. We'll have to look at that. I can't answer that right now sitting in front of you...
SNYDER: But if we want to go...
MYERS: But I offered, if anybody wants to come see it, I'll offer to go see it.
I don't know if you'd find a lot of interest in looking at it weekly. I think that's -- but certainly the information is important and that's why we're tracking it.
SNYDER: Secretary Rumsfeld, you mentioned the election as being a wonderful step on the way and I agree with you. And one of the issues that was discussed prior to the election was would there be adequate security, and you all beefed up forces and whatever you did seemed to work well to give a period of calm there for a period of time during the elections.
One of the issues that has gone on for some time has been whether there was an adequate level of U.S. forces in Iraq. Would you respond, if you will, to this question: It seems like you beefed up forces during the period leading up to election and that was successful, that there were less violent acts for a couple of week period there.
SNYDER: Is that not evidence, and maybe still be evidence as we go forward, as we're looking for ways to achieve the success that we all want, that even now perhaps there should be higher levels of U.S. forces since it did seem to work during that two-week period around the election?
RUMSFELD: That's a reasonable question, for sure.
We basically had 17 brigades. Went up to, I think, 20 -- 19 and a half or 20...
MYERS: Twenty, sir.
RUMSFELD: ... brigades during the period where we overlapped our troops for the election, as you suggested.
It's not clear to me -- the commanders on the ground said that's what they recommended, and we agreed. It's not clear to me that that is what led to the peaceful election period.
If you think about it, the Iraqi security forces had the first perimeter and the second perimeter, and U.S. forces were standing back ready to be of assistance. But the Iraqis deserve -- the Iraqi security forces deserve a lot of credit for the success of that.
We're now at the point where we're planning to return the force, as the overlap is ending, back down to about 17 brigades. In the period immediately ahead, those forces will be returning home.
I think the answer to the question is that it is part the military security situation, which is a function of the Iraqis plus the coalition forces, it's part the economic circumstance, it's part the amount of money that's flowing in to the insurgents -- are they able to hire more criminals to do these things and buy more weapons?
Right now, I'm told that access to some of those weapons has gotten more expensive, which suggests we may have been successful in capturing a lot of caches that are no longer available to those people.
So it's such a mix of things. I wouldn't want to tie a string from one to the other necessarily.
SNYDER: General Myers, some time ago, when we had a discussion here about Abu Ghraib and the things that had happened there, you made a public commitment here, I believe, that you wanted everything out on the open. I think you phrase was, “Everything would be on the table. “
As you may know, there is now litigation, I think, involving a paper in Denver over trying to see records about or observe the criminal proceedings involving the death of General Mowhoush.
And, in fact, I'm told that the legal documents contain your statement, in which you make an affirmation to the American people that everything will be out on the table.
It seems like everything is not out on the table, that we're still having to look through a glass darkly.
The American people ought to find out what happened, what's happening with these incidents that nobody wants and everyone wants to put behind us; remove the stain, I think, Secretary Schlesinger had said.
Is everything out on the table, General Myers?
MYERS: I will start, and I'll let Secretary Rumsfeld finish up.
We've had I think it's 15 investigations on various aspects of detainee abuse initiated by the Department of Defense or by Central Command or by then Joint Task Force-7 in Iraq.
MYERS: Those have all been made available as they are completed. There have been well over a hundred people that have been found guilty of various pieces and abuses that have been prosecuted under the UCMJ. So I think we have.
When I made this statement, you know, I can't speak for all the legal intricacies of newspapers suing for information that they may not be entitled to and I don't know the facts in that case at all so I can't speak on it. But every investigation that we've done has been made available. Every bit of information that I know of has been made available and I think it's -- I'll let the secretary finish that.
Before I do, let me just correct the record. I think it was Congressman Skelton who said I was from Kansas. But I was born in Missouri and that may have been the reason that when I said “metrics “ you thought I said “matrix. “
I don't know about a matrix room and I don't know about matrixes. I do know about metrics and that's what I was referring to. So maybe my accent threw you off. I apologize.
HUNTER: Well, maybe Dr. Snyder saw the movie, “Metrics. “
(LAUGHTER)
Who knows?
SNYDER: I didn't understand the movie either.
HUNTER: I thank the gentleman.
And if there's additional answers I would ask our witnesses to provide those for the record.
And the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones?
JONES: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And I'll be very brief but I've got two yes-and-no questions for the secretary of defense, and I'd appreciate a yes-or-no answer to these two, and then I've got a question for an answer.
Prior to the war in Iraq, did David Wurmser head a group known as the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, yes or no?
RUMSFELD: I'm afraid I didn't hear the first part of your question.
JONES: Prior to the war in Iraq, did David Wurmser -- and I guess it's the way you pronounce his name -- did he head the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, yes or no? And if you don't know I'd appreciate an answer.
RUMSFELD: I have no idea.
JONES: OK.
Prior to the war in Iraq, did the Department of Defense have a financial relationship with the Rendon Group, yes or no?
RUMSFELD: I don't know.
JONES: OK.
Mr. Chairman I would like to ask on that if I could get an answer a yes or no, and also would like to ask for the record...
HUNTER: Sure. We can get those answered for the record.
JONES: ... that we have an explanation of the relationship if there was one.
HUNTER: OK. If you can answer those for the record, Mr. Secretary, that would be fine.
JONES: Mr. Secretary I want to -- you shared a quote with us from Lincoln. I want to share one with you. “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan “ -- that was Lincoln's second inaugural address, March 4, 1865.
I want to share with you a quote from Mr. David Chu: “Congress has gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits. “
I would hope -- I believe you are a very caring and sensitive man, and I mean that most sincerely. But that statement by David Chu was very insensitive.
This past Sunday in the Raleigh, North Carolina, paper there's a large front page article of a soldier who returned from Iraq. He's lost both legs above his knees, he's lost an arm. He returned back to a young wife and a young child, 4, 5 years old. He cannot even play games with his daughter any more.
I do not know how we as a Congress, this administration and also the Department of Defense -- we must remember that those who are wearing the uniform have got to come first when they return.
JONES: And for Mr. Chu to make that statement -- I want to very quickly, again -- I want to read what a retiree said.
“I wonder if Mr. Chu ever considered how hard it was at Normandy, in the jungles of the South Pacific or the freezing battlefields of Korea, as he sits in his office and degrades those old warriors seeking benefits they earned. “
I guess my question to you: Have you had a conversation with Mr. Chu about his statement?
RUMSFELD: No, I have not. And nor have I seen the statement that you have quoted in the context that it might have been included.
I know David Chu. He's sitting behind me. He's a person who has worked with great dedication for this country. And he is involved deeply with programs for the severely injured servicemembers, for families of severely injured servicemembers, for families of those who have fallen.
And he has been the point person in the department for a whole host of things that reflect a sensitivity and a concern and an understanding and a respect for those people.
JONES: I believe that, Mr. Secretary, I would ask you to have your staff to get you a copy of the interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal. And if that was taken out of context, I would understand. But I truly believe that the misunderstanding -- if there was a misunderstanding, or maybe Mr. Chu didn't clarify his comments.
For those of us who serve districts with retirees and military vets -- I have over 61,000 in the 3rd District of North Carolina -- this president, who I've supported and still support, is recommending in his budget a 14 percent increase in what I call foreign aid. It's under the title of “international affairs. “
And yet there are also recommendations for a reduction and cuts in veterans' benefits.
If we're going to ask these brave men and women to put the uniform on, to go give their life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 10,000 have returned without limbs or other injuries, then I hope that we as a Congress, in a bipartisan way, Republican and Democrat, and the administration -- at this time Republican -- we will show that we truly care for those, as Lincoln said years ago.
And I hope that you will look into the interview with Mr. Chu and if, by chance, the interview is accurate, you would please make a public statement regarding that interview -- if it is accurate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RUMSFELD: If I could just make a comment, I'm not familiar with the cuts you're referring to. But I have some familiarity with the increase in what you called foreign aid, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks.
The cost of maintaining a U.S. military person overseas in Afghanistan or in Iraq is about one-sixteenth of what it costs to maintain an Iraqi or an Afghan.
And what we've tried to do is to find ways to get funds authorized that we can get more non-Americans involved in being trained and equipped to provide security in the world so the burden falls much less on American service men.
And I hope that the members will take a careful look at that, because I think, from the standpoint of our country, it's money very well spent.
HUNTER: I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez?
SANCHEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary and General, for being before us once again today.
I had the opportunity at Christmas time, as you'll recall, Mr. Secretary, to be in Iraq.
RUMSFELD: I saw you there.
SANCHEZ: Yes, we ran into each other there while you were addressing the troops. And I want to thank you again for the work that you've been doing.
I had the opportunity to talk to General Petraeus when I was out there during that visit, and I read him a statement. I'm going to read it to you. Because I take a little offense to some of the stuff that you've said earlier about some of us who have questioned the fitness of the Iraqi security forces.
We're not questioning because we don't want them to succeed; we're questioning because, in fact, we want them to succeed and we're trying to figure out what these numbers that the administration throws around really mean.
To General Petraeus, I read to him: “When the insurgents mounted a coordinated offensive in Mosul against eight police stations in November, most of the police deserted their posts and have not returned. Three-quarters of the 4,000 police simply ran away.
“And during the insurgent assault, the ranks of one Iraqi guard battalion dropped from 1,100 to less than 300 in a few hours. Another two companies of Iraqi national guards, about 200 men, simply disappeared with all their new weapons and equipment.
And today, of course -- at that time, we were struggling to regain control of that city, Mosul, which, of course, was where Petraeus had been with the 101st and it had been a great success.
I asked him to comment on that. Was that right? Were the words I said correct? And, you know, he basically had to acknowledge that that's what happened there.
I said to him, “What was the problem? Why is it falling apart? “
And he began to tell me that we had moved our troops out of Mosul into Fallujah for the Fallujah assault.
SANCHEZ: And so when I asked him, “Well, doesn't that indicate that maybe, if we hadn't had other troops to put in Fallujah, we wouldn't have had this problem in Mosul? “ And he said to me, and I remember the words, “It's pretty obvious, isn't it, Ms. Sanchez? “
So I'm glad that Mr. Snyder talked about, you know, do we really need a force of 150-plus in Iraq?
I think any reduction -- and this is important to the budget -- any near-term reduction of the troops in Iraq really depends on two main factors: the strength of the insurgency and the size and the readiness of the Iraqi army and other security forces.
Since there has been no abatement lately, in particular in the intensity of this insurgency, we're basically depending on our efforts to train, equip and deploy Iraqi forces.
And unfortunately, as I said, this committee has had a hard time assessing where we really stand with the Iraqi army as an effective fighting force.
Over the past year, we've received incredibly widely fluctuating estimates of that. And I think you have a real credibility problem on this issue.
RUMSFELD: Fluctuations of what?
SANCHEZ: The fluctuations of -- the numbers that you bandy around about how many troops we really have out there that are Iraqi police, et cetera, et cetera.
First you estimate that there are currently 136,000 trained Iraqi security forces in the field. About 79,000 of those are police and other interior ministry troops.
While the police a role in counterinsurgency, they're not organized, trained or equipped to engage in combat operations. We rely mainly on the Iraq army and the national guard to take the lead in counterinsurgency fighting, not the police.
Isn't that right, Mr. Secretary?
HUNTER: Mr. Secretary, before you answer that question, let me advise my colleagues that we've got one 15-minute vote. Because we've got a time crunch and we want to get our members and questions out, we're going to keep going.
So I know Ms. Tauscher and Mr. Hayes and are next, and we'll go right down to the last few seconds on the vote, and we will keep going.
HUNTER: I'll have Mr. Saxton coming back, and we'll keep the hearing going.
So if you're in line to ask a question, if you get over and vote right now and get on back, you'll be queued up. Thank you.
RUMSFELD: OK, I'll try to answer rapidly.
First, there's no question but that incidents like you described have occurred. They have occurred in militaries across the world and they happen. I think that fewer of them have happened lately, and they're getting better.
Second, you're correct that the strength of the insurgency is one part of the equation. The other is the capability and the numbers. It's not just numbers, but capability of the security forces, plus the progress on the economic and political side. I think it's important to keep those things in mind, because they are going to affect the intensity and the insurgency.
Third, in the materials we provide you, there are, I think, 12 or 15 different categories. There are police, civil intervention force, emergency response, border enforcement, highway patrol, dignitary protection, special police commandos for the interior department, army, national guard, intervention force, special operations, air force, navy for the military.
Now, you say we bandy around numbers. They're not my numbers. I don't invent them. They come from General Petraeus.
If you look up there, what you'll see is that the numbers originally, as I said in my remarks, included site protection people. And that dropped it by about 70,000.
We originally talked about on duty only, then we changed it and said trained, then we took the site protection out.
This has all been perfectly transparent to everybody. There's no bandying at all.
And now we're saying trained and equipped, just in the ministry of interior and defense. They are Petraeus' numbers.
Third -- fourth...
SANCHEZ: I have Petraeus' numbers. They're different than your numbers, by the way.
RUMSFELD: Well, what's the date? They aren't different because these came from Petraeus. He may have two sets of numbers, but they are not different if the date's the same.
The date on my paper here is February 14th. What's yours?
SANCHEZ: December 20th.
RUMSFELD: Not surprising there's a difference.
SANCHEZ: But the difference is different in different categories, not in the same...
HUNTER: If the gentlemen will hold on for a minute, the gentlelady's time is up, and we're going to try to knock out a few more questions here before the...
SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman, you spoke during my time, Mr. Chairman.
RUMSFELD: I'm going to finish if I may.
HUNTER: OK, Mr. Secretary, if you can wrap up fairly quickly...
RUMSFELD: I'll like to just finish the last thought.
General Petreaus is in charge of the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. And General Casey and General Abizaid are the ones who advice us as to what the force levels ought to be in the country.
And it appears that General Petreaus doesn't agree with them and that's fine. I'm sure other people don't agree with General Casey or General Abizaid.
But I take my advice on this subject from General Abizaid, General Casey, and General Myers and General Pace, and all four of them think we have the right size force.
UNKNOWN: Thank you.
MYERS: Well, I talked to General Petreaus last Wednesday night on this very subject, and I don't think he would disagree with the force levels we have there that the secretary mentioned earlier. I think he's in agreement with General Casey and General Abizaid.
HUNTER: I thank the gentlelady.
I'd like to indulge you with more questions, but if you've got more if you can make them for the record. We have a number of members. It's about halfway through the hearing here, and we're going to have about -- we have a fairly limited amount of time to get finished.
Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.
HAYES: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming and for your assistance and support of our men and women in uniform.
We have a very serious, serious situation as relates to the budget with 90 C-130E's and potentially H-models about to go out of service. 18th Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division are in the danger of becoming the 82nd Infantry, and I'm concerned about that.
As it relates to the budget and supplemental it seems very reasonable to me to take money and you very appropriately said, Mr. Secretary, you've got needs in there, as Walter referred to. But there's other money going to the U.N. and other places. We've been very generous with tsunami relief, both the public and the government.
We've got to have that money, in my opinion, to get those C-130s back. The inspections occur. We've still got old airplanes.
It relates to the tanker situation. We've got to have a platforms that the modularity and other transformation that we all want to see has a delivery component to it.
Could you tell me what we can do and how we can move that money out of some less important thing into making sure we've got the platform for our folks.
RUMSFELD: I think, Dick Myers, if I'm correct, the C-130J is being reviewed.
MYERS: It is being reviewed, correct.
HAYES: Being reviewed, that's good but that's still two years out if you...
RUMSFELD: No. No.
HAYES: ... make the right decision.
RUMSFELD: No. No. It's being reviewed right now. And we may come back with an amendment to the budget with respect to C-130.
MYERS: That's correct.
HAYES: But that won't get us enough quickly if these airplanes can't go back to flying to solve that problem, will it, General Myers?
MYERS: Well, if you have an issue with a particular model of an airplane there's nothing -- there's no quick fix.
My understanding is the Air Force is evaluating the E models to see if they can be fixed. I think some probably can. Some may be -- it may be not cost effective to try to repair the wing boxes that are showing this fatigue and this stress.
HAYES: Thirty-one to 43-year-old aircraft, the handwring and bedwetters that say we don't need new platforms have got to get on board and you guys got to make us give you the money to get those platforms we need.
MYERS: I would only mention, Congressman Hayes, that part of the mobility capability study that's going to complete will also address the intra-theater lift requirement which gets into systems and platforms like the C-130 and that will help address the issue you're talking about which is absolute numbers and what's the right number.
HAYES: And of course C-17s, you get them to theater and we got to have C-130s for training on this side and delivery in theater over there to put the heat on.
MYERS: Both those platforms and the C-130 in particular are working really hard right now. You bet. We count on them.
HUNTER: Thank the gentleman, and I thank him for the brevity of the question and the gentlelady from California, Ms. Tauscher.
TAUSCHER: Mr. Secretary, General Myers.
Mr. Secretary, I have things I agree with you and don't agree with you on. I certainly think we all agree that we have the finest military force in the world and that they are a constant source of pride for all Americans and for people around the world.
And I'm happy that the election in Iraq went off without any kind of cataclysmic issues. And I hope that we find in Shia a gracious winner and that we have an opportunity to get that government stood up as soon as possible.
Where we don't agree consistently is on this issue of the supplemental. I'm really concerned that the Pentagon's decision to rely on the supplemental to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- which I consider to be, in Iraq's case, a war of choice -- is basically funding a war of choice on borrowed money.
And we have a lot of issues. I think that there's bipartisan concern that the use of these supplementals to fund existing operations just isn't kosher.
We have, for example, the whole issue of modularity, which right now in the budget, you say should be paid for in supplementals in '05 and '06. We know exactly what we're doing. It's all pretty predictable.
I don't know why we can't budget for them now. And I guess some time in '07 we're going to start to put them in a budget. But can you tell me how is modularity an emergency item?
RUMSFELD: I think I can.
First of all, it's not a Pentagon decision. It's a decision that's made with the executive branch, OMB and the Congress, the appropriations committees and the authorization committees. It's not the Pentagon and it's not me, and your characterization of it was imperfect.
TAUSCHER: That old Rumsfeld talking to me now?
(LAUGHTER)
RUMSFELD: The second thing I would say is -- I think so. I think it is, yes.
TAUSCHER: Much prefer new Rumsfeld.
RUMSFELD: No, you don't either. No. No.
(LAUGHTER)
On the modularity, that's complicated. But the reason it has to be in the supplemental for the first period is because unlike what you said that's it's all clear and we know what we're doing, the answer is we don't.
It is in its early stages, and we're doing the first pieces and the first pieces are in fact done. But to actually project out and know with certainty what the affect of all of the things taking place in the Army will be, we can't know that yet.
RUMSFELD: Simultaneously, they are going to a more modular system, increasing from 33 to 43 combat brigades, rebalancing the Guard and the Reserve. And there are too many moving parts to have certainty on it. And we just don't.
HUNTER: If the gentlelady will indulge us here. Mr. Meek, if she'll give him a little time, can get his question in before the vote.
TAUSCHER: That would be great. Why don't we talk about this. We'll correspond.
HUNTER: I appreciate the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Meek.
MEEK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
It's just a couple of things. Well, first of all, I was called on recently -- as you know this month is black history month. And I've been called on by quite a few people to talk about African- Americans in the military. And I can tell you that I was posed the question, back in by district, of how many four-star African-American generals do we have now in the military. And I was shocked to find out, especially in the Army and the Marines, there are none, as it stands now.
Maybe you may have other additional information. Also, there are no three-stars. And I believe that out of the 32 in the Army, I think that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of one or two. There are only two three-stars that are in the Army right now.
That's something that I would recommend possibly if you can get back to me on to let me know a little bit more about and how the military is working on that.
You answered one of my questions, earlier -- I know General Myers did -- about Abu Ghraib, because you know that's one of the concerns.
And Mr. Secretary, I also want to commend you on following through when you came to the committee at a very difficult time, not only for Americans, but also for our country and the coalition forces, when we had discussions about, not only your future in the Department of defense and that you said you were considering it, and later to find out watching one of my favorite shows, Mr. Larry King, that you did offer the president to move on and allow someone else to lead.
And I just want to say, I know that was a difficult thing for you to do. And I just want to let you know, as a member of this committee, I appreciate the fact that you did give the president that option, and he decided to continue to move forth under your leadership.
As it relates to the insurgency in Iraq, I recently did travel over and had an opportunity to talk with many of the generals over there. I'm very concerned about the question of -- and I'm going to have to run and vote -- are we allowing the insurgency to keep us in the fight.
We say we don't want to start talking about dates. We say we don't want to start talking about turning parts of Iraq over to Iraqis totally so that we can start taking down our numbers in Iraq, but I'm afraid that we're getting into -- we can't let the terrorists win. And we'll end up being there for a number of years, and not having the Iraqi forces take on the responsibilities that I think they should be taking on, more sooner than later. And the training has a lot to do with it.
So that's pretty much where it is. The first part was a statement -- I know you probably didn't come prepared.
RUMSFELD: I can give you a quick answer.
MEEK: Thank you, sir.
RUMSFELD: Two four-star African-Americans just retired: General Ellis and General Lyles. I believe one was Air Force and one was Army.
General Ward, who just was appointed by Condi Rice to assist with security in the Middle East with the Palestinian Authority, is an African-American. Notwithstanding that, you asked how we are working on it. We work on it.
General Myers and I meet with General Pace and Dr. Wolfowitz once a week on military personnel. It is something that has to start, obviously, down at the lower level so that they can punch all of the tickets and go through war college and do all of the things that they have to do to command to get up to a three or four star level.
RUMSFELD: And the fact of the matter is there aren't as many African-American or Hispanic senior officers as there ought to be in the military, and it's something we recognize.
The military has to be representative of the country if it's going to be successful.
MYERS: Let me just add, as you know, Mr. Meek, there is no institution in this country, I don't believe, that promotes on merit as much as the Department of Defense does.
So if you can do the task, you can get promoted.
Two, let me ask you, with African-Americans, we need your help. When you speak to groups, encourage them to come into the military service, encourage them to make long commitments that some don't want to make in terms of pilot training and other fields where they can rise to leadership positions.
It's just so important, and your influence there would be incredibly important.
MEEK: Chairman, I'm going to run and try to make this vote.
But let me just say -- I mean, you had me at hello on that question. But as it stands right now -- I mean, as present, because of recent departures -- I mean that's what it was reported at as we were preparing, as it relates to four stars.
And I just was receiving a Blackberry as I'm talking to you -- my staff didn't know I was up this early. They tell me that you are interviewing two and one stars, right now going that far down, to bring the diversity numbers up, and I think that's important to future recruitment efforts and talent that we want in our military.
Thank you, gentlemen.
HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
Mrs. Davis?
