thedrifter
05-22-07, 07:14 PM
Congress wants answers on Iraqi forces – now
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday May 22, 2007 19:54:38 EDT
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle ripped the Bush administration Tuesday over what they say is a continued failure by the Pentagon to provide witnesses and information on the training of Iraqi security forces.
“The American people have a right to know what is happening,” said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. “I am frustrated, as a Republican, that those in the Pentagon ... have turned their nose up to the Congress. The American people changed the majority in November ... because my party would not do what we’re trying to do today.”
“I’ve never, ever seen such a lack of responsiveness in terms of working with the committee,” said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., chairman of the House Armed Services oversight and investigations subcommittee. “And we have subpoena power.”
The verbal barbs continued an ongoing fight between the House Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon over who is allowed to testify before the committee and what the committee calls foot-dragging over providing requested information, to include the unclassified variety.
Two Defense Department officials did appear Tuesday. But, said Meehan, “These were not the witnesses that we had hoped to hear from today.” The committee had requested commanders with firsthand knowledge of Iraqi Security Force training, their deputies or knowledgeable staff officers, Meehan said. “We were told none was capable of providing testimony,” he said.
Robert Wilkie, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs and the Pentagon official who controls who can testify before Congress, told the Military Times May 11 that what appear to be strict limits on such testimony — limited, essentially, to senior officers — is actually a set of “general parameters, open to negotiation.” He ascribed the problem to a misunderstanding caused by leaders in both institutions who are “new to their positions,” adding that “we’re all just getting used to each other.”
Meehan said he’d seen the comments. “I think it’s nonsense,” he said. “This committee was formed to provide oversight of our ... military efforts in Iraq. And that oversight has been lacking for a period of six years. I think the officials at the Pentagon know that, and I think that they’re dragging their feet. ... But I think their tack is foolish, and not in the interest of national security, because this has very much been a bipartisan effort on the subcommittee.”
Meehan criticized the Pentagon policy of barring lower-ranking personnel from testifying. “They say ‘protecting people who are lower in rank,’ ” Meehan said. “But all of us believe we can learn a lot from talking to sergeants, and the people who are actually on the front lines.”
Meehan said he was meeting later in the day with House Armed Services committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., to discuss the issue, and that Skelton is setting up a meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the subject of access to witnesses and data.
“It’s the last step before we start subpoenaing witnesses,” Meehan said.
“If we cannot get answers, democracy is in trouble,” said Jones, who originally supported the war.
A bit of information that did emerge Tuesday: As of May 9, a total of 337,200 Iraqi Security Forces are “trained and equipped,” according to a biweekly Defense Department update to its quarterly Iraq status report.
The total includes 135,000 police, 26,300 National police, 32,900 “other” Ministry of Interior forces — forensic units, highway patrolmen — 141,000 army troops, 900 airmen and 1,100 sailors. The numbers do not include personnel not authorized to be absent, or the approximately 144,000 “Facilities Protection Service personnel” working in 27 Iraqi ministries, according to the Pentagon.
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., said that was a “much higher” number than original U.S. estimates. “Something else that’s grown with it is the number of [enemy-initiated] attacks being waged in Iraq,” he said. He cited Government Accountability Office figures showing about 500 attacks per month in June 2003, a number that had increased to roughly 5,000 in December 2006.
He asked Peter Velz, who works in the Middle East section of the office of the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, for the most current month’s data. Velz said he didn’t have the data with him but added, “We can provide it for you.”
Andrews questioned that. “When I asked for this information through the department, I was told I’d have to file a Freedom of Information Act request. Is that correct?”
Velz didn’t respond but said the quarterly Iraq report includes “attack trends” because specifics — such as exactly who is attacking what — are considered a force protection issue. Andrews said he’d be satisfied with the attack trend information, but also wanted information on the specific targets of the attacks, even if in closed session.
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., asked if 337,500 Iraqi security personnel was adequate. After first pointing out that forces alone can’t bring peace to Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. Michael Jones, the Joint Staff’s deputy director for politico-military affairs (Middle East), said current plans call for 350,000 total forces but that the force structure is under review by the Iraqi government, “with us in an advisory mode.”
Meehan also said getting figures only for the total of trained and equipped Iraqi forces is not enough. “That really doesn’t tell us whether they’re on duty, or whether they’re capable, or it they’re really insurgents or terrorists or sectarian militia,” he said.
Ellie
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday May 22, 2007 19:54:38 EDT
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle ripped the Bush administration Tuesday over what they say is a continued failure by the Pentagon to provide witnesses and information on the training of Iraqi security forces.
“The American people have a right to know what is happening,” said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. “I am frustrated, as a Republican, that those in the Pentagon ... have turned their nose up to the Congress. The American people changed the majority in November ... because my party would not do what we’re trying to do today.”
“I’ve never, ever seen such a lack of responsiveness in terms of working with the committee,” said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., chairman of the House Armed Services oversight and investigations subcommittee. “And we have subpoena power.”
The verbal barbs continued an ongoing fight between the House Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon over who is allowed to testify before the committee and what the committee calls foot-dragging over providing requested information, to include the unclassified variety.
Two Defense Department officials did appear Tuesday. But, said Meehan, “These were not the witnesses that we had hoped to hear from today.” The committee had requested commanders with firsthand knowledge of Iraqi Security Force training, their deputies or knowledgeable staff officers, Meehan said. “We were told none was capable of providing testimony,” he said.
Robert Wilkie, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs and the Pentagon official who controls who can testify before Congress, told the Military Times May 11 that what appear to be strict limits on such testimony — limited, essentially, to senior officers — is actually a set of “general parameters, open to negotiation.” He ascribed the problem to a misunderstanding caused by leaders in both institutions who are “new to their positions,” adding that “we’re all just getting used to each other.”
Meehan said he’d seen the comments. “I think it’s nonsense,” he said. “This committee was formed to provide oversight of our ... military efforts in Iraq. And that oversight has been lacking for a period of six years. I think the officials at the Pentagon know that, and I think that they’re dragging their feet. ... But I think their tack is foolish, and not in the interest of national security, because this has very much been a bipartisan effort on the subcommittee.”
Meehan criticized the Pentagon policy of barring lower-ranking personnel from testifying. “They say ‘protecting people who are lower in rank,’ ” Meehan said. “But all of us believe we can learn a lot from talking to sergeants, and the people who are actually on the front lines.”
Meehan said he was meeting later in the day with House Armed Services committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., to discuss the issue, and that Skelton is setting up a meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the subject of access to witnesses and data.
“It’s the last step before we start subpoenaing witnesses,” Meehan said.
“If we cannot get answers, democracy is in trouble,” said Jones, who originally supported the war.
A bit of information that did emerge Tuesday: As of May 9, a total of 337,200 Iraqi Security Forces are “trained and equipped,” according to a biweekly Defense Department update to its quarterly Iraq status report.
The total includes 135,000 police, 26,300 National police, 32,900 “other” Ministry of Interior forces — forensic units, highway patrolmen — 141,000 army troops, 900 airmen and 1,100 sailors. The numbers do not include personnel not authorized to be absent, or the approximately 144,000 “Facilities Protection Service personnel” working in 27 Iraqi ministries, according to the Pentagon.
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., said that was a “much higher” number than original U.S. estimates. “Something else that’s grown with it is the number of [enemy-initiated] attacks being waged in Iraq,” he said. He cited Government Accountability Office figures showing about 500 attacks per month in June 2003, a number that had increased to roughly 5,000 in December 2006.
He asked Peter Velz, who works in the Middle East section of the office of the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, for the most current month’s data. Velz said he didn’t have the data with him but added, “We can provide it for you.”
Andrews questioned that. “When I asked for this information through the department, I was told I’d have to file a Freedom of Information Act request. Is that correct?”
Velz didn’t respond but said the quarterly Iraq report includes “attack trends” because specifics — such as exactly who is attacking what — are considered a force protection issue. Andrews said he’d be satisfied with the attack trend information, but also wanted information on the specific targets of the attacks, even if in closed session.
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., asked if 337,500 Iraqi security personnel was adequate. After first pointing out that forces alone can’t bring peace to Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. Michael Jones, the Joint Staff’s deputy director for politico-military affairs (Middle East), said current plans call for 350,000 total forces but that the force structure is under review by the Iraqi government, “with us in an advisory mode.”
Meehan also said getting figures only for the total of trained and equipped Iraqi forces is not enough. “That really doesn’t tell us whether they’re on duty, or whether they’re capable, or it they’re really insurgents or terrorists or sectarian militia,” he said.
Ellie