U.S. Gen. John Abizaid told a House Subcommittee in mid-March 2006 that the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to, as he put it, bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil.
The following is an excerpt of the preliminary transcript of a hearing of the Military Quality Of Life And Veterans Affairs, And Related Agencies Subcommittee Of The House Appropriations Committee on March 14, 2006. In this excerpt, Reps. Price (R- NC) and Walsh (R-NY) question Gen. John Abizaid about U.S. policy toward Iraq.
REP. PRICE: … I'd like to ask you one very direct question about our goals in Iraq and then move to a question of strategy. Our ambassador Mr. Khalilzad recently stated, and I'm quoting, "we have no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq". I'd like to have that clarified because, as you know, this question has arisen as to what our ultimate intentions and goals are.
Can you make an unequivocal commitment that the U.S. does not plan to establish permanent bases in Iraq?
GEN. ABIZAID: No sir, I can't, primarily because I don't formulate U.S. policy. I advise on U.S. policy. The policy on long term presence in Iraq hasn't been formulated. And I don't imagine that it will emerge until a government of national unity emerges. …
REP. PRICE: Well, you understand, I'm not asking you about the duration of our current involvement in Iraq, that's an important question of course, as well but clearly that depends on various contingencies.
I'm asking you about our long term vision for our military presence in the region.
GEN. ABIZAID: Clearly out long term vision for military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability. I think all of us need to understand that groups like Al Qaeda and associated movements are with us for a long time.
We need to be able to face them out there with the assistance of host governments, where we need to be able to deter the ambitions of an expansionist like Iran.
We need to be able to provide institutional assistance in particular, throughout the region so that we're helping others help themselves.
And I think that the institutional assistance that we have to provide to the Iraqi's and the Afghans over time, to build the training, to do the training; to do the mentoring; to help them build institutions that serve a democratic government, are commitments that will have to take a long time.
But even there, I think it would be premature for me to predict what they're going to be for Iraq until an Iraqi government emerges; and the discussions between Iraq and the United States take place.
…
REP. WALSH: …General, Mr. Price asked a question about permanency in the Middle East of our military. I think that's a really important question. …
And the fact that people back home say "well, how long are we going to be in Iraq" and I said "well, I really don't know but we're still in Germany, you know, 50 years later". And they kind of say "are we going to be in the Middle East for 50 years". I don't know but it's not really an (alias ?), our role in Germany was really to fortify the eastern flank of Europe against the Soviet aggression. It is a very different situation.
But in the long run, do you believe that it's in our national interest to have permanent bases in the Middle East?
GEN. ABIZAID: Sir, we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region.
I think it's very important that we understand what's happening in the region. It's a struggle between extremist on the one side and moderates on the other. And clearly it's in our national interest to help the moderates prevail.
That struggle will go on for a long time. But it doesn't need to go on at the current footprint that the United States of America has in the region provided we can stabilize Iraq; stabilize Afghanistan; give confidence to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that they can defeat the extremists on their own; and other nations: Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt.
This struggle that's taking place out there is, to a certain extent, driven by an increasingly shrinking world, the global economy, the global information revolution, etcetera. And I think that there is no doubt that there's a need for some presence in the region over time, primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremist versus moderates, they give the moderates a chance to win.
To continue to deter Iran against a strategy of hegemony in the region.
And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.
And so as long as we are the United States of America, it's unfortunate but it's true that we've got to carry the burden of protecting that with our allies.
And our allies do a good job helping us.
So do we need 200,000 Americans in the Middle East for the next 20 years? No, but we've got to stabilize Iraq. We've got to stabilize Afghanistan. We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being.
I think that that number which I wouldn't want to speculate at here, can be much less than it currently is.
But what's more important is that you have to have a spirit of partnership in the region. Where people know if they need your help, they can call on you and you will come. Unlike our experience in Vietnam where they called on us and we didn't come, after we left.
