Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO), senior Republican on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, today released the following opening statement for the subcommittee’s second hearing in a series focused on alternatives for Iraq:
“Good afternoon to our witness, thank you for being here today. You have a rare opportunity this afternoon—you have the benefit of offering your testimony without having someone to your left or right contradicting or disagreeing with your position. Thank you for joining us.
“Today’s hearing is the second in a series aimed at breaking out of the false construct of talking about Iraq in terms constrained to ‘precipitous withdrawal’ or ‘stay the course’. While our first hearing was very constructive, I want to reiterate the purpose of this exercise: we are here to discuss alternatives that truly offer a different plan to the current strategy. Simply critiquing the current approach is not the point of this hearing and is not helpful. So, Dr. Byman, I look forward to hearing you discuss and define an alternative plan.
“After looking at your testimony, it is clear that you advocate departing from the current strategy. You do not endorse pursuing a plan that emphasizes having U.S. combat forces go ‘door to door’ performing a counterinsurgency mission aimed at securing and holding Iraqi neighborhoods. In place of a strategy that requires roughly 160,000 troops, you suggest maintaining a troop presence of 20,0000 in the region to ‘contain’ a ‘spillover’ and serve as ‘rapid response forces’ in the event of regional intervention in Iraq, particularly from Iran.
“I’m curious how the relatively small footprint you propose for the U.S. is sufficient to carry out the military roles and missions you identify in your statement: (1) training Iraqi forces; (2) deterring conventional militaries from intervening in Iraq; (3) supporting al Qaeda’s enemies; and (4) conducting direct strike missions? While I agree that these roles and missions are important, I would like to understand how you arrived at the number 20,000? Others who share your view that the U.S. should maintain these roles and missions believe a larger footprint is required.
“Finally, your comments about ‘spillover’ are sobering. Increased violence, humanitarian tragedy, a failed state, emboldened terrorists and regional actors all will result—in your view—in the wake of U.S. withdrawal or significant drawdown. Your policy prescription to address this problem is for the U.S. ‘not to make a bad situation worse.’ Your statement also references other instances of ‘spillover’, particularly in Yugoslavia and Lebanon. I would appreciate if you would take some time this afternoon to discuss how the U.S. should manage the consequences of withdrawal and identify lessons we should learn from the historical cases you cite.”
###