For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 5, 2006
Response from the Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to a Democratic Letter
September 5, 2006
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
528 Hart SOB
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Reid:
Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on
his behalf.
A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and
fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has
explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and
sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy
along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each
of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions
on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the
way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.
Your letter recites four elements of a proposed "new direction" in Iraq.
Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the
fourth is dangerously misguided.
First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to
counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what
we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to
train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the
past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the
Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in
fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must
rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat
support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation
must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering
a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the
extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will
become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation
that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the
most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy
but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war
against terror.
Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the
militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement,
including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and
resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt
an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation
project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has
the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United
Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political
evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much
more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a
free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time
in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity
government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing,
that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the
constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of
disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is
working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his
ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and
reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.
Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and
contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's
sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and
rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently
by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way
to work with regional and international partners to make substantial
economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and
rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement
in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well
under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.
Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already
reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.
On the fourth element of your proposed "new direction," however, we do
disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as
conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable
of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the
time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead,
it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the
year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter
lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated
by the "phased redeployment" you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by
Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S.
forces should be redeployed as a "quick reaction force" to Okinawa, which
is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).
Regardless of the specifics you envision by "phased redeployment," any
premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for
America's security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies;
betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control
of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in
America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the
sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This "new
direction" would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering
victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President
will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory --
and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations
of our military commanders in the region.
Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We
strongly disagree.
Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his
leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown
two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda
has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously
the President's vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played
a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now
recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the
President.
We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on
policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national
security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this
central front in the War on Terror.
Sincerely,
Joshua B. Bolten
Chief of Staff
Identical Letters Sent To:
The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
The Honorable Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
The Honorable Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
The Honorable Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
The Honorable Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
The Honorable Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
The Honorable Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
The Honorable Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
The Honorable Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
The Honorable John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
# # #
|