2008 Press Releases
Translated Text of al-Hurrah’s Interview of Ambassador Ryan Crocker
January 3, 2008
Q: Greetings and welcome to our viewers. Welcome to [this] exclusive interview with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the ambassador of the United States of America to Iraq. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador.
A: Thank you, Mr. Sa’d. Happy New Year to you.
Q: Mr. Crocker: You stated in your joint report with General Petraeus that the security situation in Iraq had improved and that based on the law enforcement plan and the surge of American troops in Iraq, it is continuing to improve. The question is why was this plan delayed for four years?
A: Mr. Sa’d, conditions in Iraq are changing and are continuing to change. A policy that was suitable for a certain period of time, for example, becomes unsuitable once conditions change. Here in Iraq our policy was changed several times because circumstances changed. [The policy was changed] after we saw how extensive the violence and the clashes were. In 2006 President Bush made the decision to change course, and he announced a new policy exactly one year ago: operation law enforcement. Thank God that the results we’ve seen this year have been significant and noticeable.
Q: Yes, [Mr. Ambassador]. Although the security situation has improved, it does deteriorate every now and then. In other words, we noticed last month that 568 Iraqis were killed. Most of them were civilians. In addition, 21 U.S. soldiers were also killed. In your opinion, when does the security situation get better, and what, in your opinion, is the nature of this improvement?
A: This is an important point, Mr. Sa’d. Significant progress has been made by us and by our Iraqi friends, but we have not yet achieved our goal. We are still facing challenges, and we still have security problems. [Translator’s note: The sound on the tape is not very clear here: the term that Ambassador Crocker was saying sounded like the Arabic word for “limitations,” somewhat similar in its sound to “challenges.”] Al-Qa’ida continues to have a presence in some parts of the country, and other radical militias also have a presence in the country. But we must continue our efforts. I cannot tell you how much time it will take to establish security everywhere, but I do know that we have to do everything we can to continue our efforts because we have not yet achieved a complete victory in this battle.
Q: Mr. Ambassador: How can we say that the security situation is moving in the direction of becoming normal when almost 600 persons were killed in one month?
A: As I said, progress has been made, but there are still problems, and there are operations. Terrorists still have a presence. The situation is much better than it was one year or even six months ago. However, the situation is not what it should be. God willing and thanks to our common American and Iraqi efforts, we will get to the point that we want as soon as possible. Now, however, we still have problems.
Q: Do you attribute the improvement of the security situation in Iraq to the success of the U.S. strategy in Iraq or to improvements in the performance of the Iraqi government and Iraqi security agencies?
A: There is no doubt that the situation in Iraq is complicated and that the solutions are also complicated. In other words, all of this is true. Our progress to date has been the result of this year’s U.S. troop surge in Iraq. It is also the result of Iraqi efforts, particularly those of Iraqi security forces. Whereas the number of Americans increased by about 30,000, the increase among Iraqis was much greater: more than 110,000. There has also been improvement in what I think is something that is very important, and that is the decision that the Iraqi people made to reject violence, reject terrorism, and reject battles. We have seen that [decision manifest itself] in al-Anbar, in Baghdad, and we have also seen it in the south and in the north. This may be more important than anything else that was done to bring about the progress that has been made to date.
Q: Mr. Ambassador: Is the improving security situation making you expedite the process of transferring security tasks from American coalition troops to Iraqi troops? Will that, consequently, expedite the withdrawal of some of the American support troops? Have you withdrawn [any] brigades, or which brigades have you withdrawn? And what are the areas from which some U.S. brigades have been withdrawn?
A: Regarding the withdrawal of troops, President Bush said last September that he would like to withdraw 5 U.S. brigades from Iraq in approximately 9 months, that is, in the middle of this year, around next July. As to which area from which the brigades will be withdrawn, that is still under consideration, and it also depends on security conditions and political circumstances. Any decision in that regard will be a joint decision with the Iraqi government. Given the progress we’ve made, it is very important that we stay the course. The withdrawal of any troops must be made under conditions that are suitable for a change of this kind.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, let’s go to another subject: the nature of your relationship with Iraqi political forces. What is the nature of the difficulties that the ambassador of the United States in Iraq faces [in this regard]?
A: Here in the Embassy, of course, we stay in touch with all the political parties and players. Personally, I am always in touch with the main figures in government here in Baghdad and also in the provinces. We are facing common problems. If the Iraqi government has a problem, we too have a problem. In our deliberations we are always looking for the solutions that are necessary to address the problems that we are facing at any given time. I can tell you quite candidly that the atmosphere of cooperation and coordination between us, in the U.S. government, on the one hand, and our friends in the Iraqi government, [on the other], is far-reaching and complete.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, have you been able to win the confidence of the political groups that are participating in the Iraqi government? I’ll give you a chance to answer this question after we take [a short] break. We are taking a break now, and I ask our viewers to stay with us.
Welcome back to our viewers. Let me remind you that my guest [today] is Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq.
Mr. Ambassador, the question I asked you before the break is this: Were you able to gain the confidence of Iraqi groups that are participating in the government and in the political process?
A: For our part, of course, the American government supports the Iraqi government. This is civil support, of course [?] . We also support, for example, the general Iraqi forces [?]. The political and economic progress that we will, God willing, see during the coming year will be similar to the security progress we saw last year. Our Iraqi friends are always telling us that they are pleased with security improvements, but they also want to have services and employment opportunities. They want the government and the Council of Representatives to make the necessary decisions. We hope that the government will do more during the coming [period] government will take the opportunity to provide services so that there can be national reconciliation and economic conditions can improve.
Q: It is being said that you support some political groups against others. How would you comment on that?
A: This is not true at all. We support the Iraqi government, and as I said before, we stay in touch with all of the different political parties. Iraq has a democracy now, and it is not up to us to support one political party against another. No. We support the new system in Iraq. We support the Iraqi government, and we stay in touch with everybody.
Q: Did you meet with your Iraqi critics? Did you meet, for example, with the followers and supporters of Imam al-Sadr who accuse you of targeting them even though they have been prohibited from engaging in any activities?
A: We stay in touch with representatives of Imam al-Sadr’s followers, and we are always willing to have a dialogue with them. We welcomed the decision made by Imam Muqtada al-Sadr to have the al-Mahdi army stop its operations. That was a positive step, and we hope that he will continue to sustain this decision for the sake of the Iraqi people. For us, we have to stay in touch with any political party and any political tendency.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, do you view the al-Sadr tendency as a constant threat to you in spite of the presence it has on the ground and the clout and the base it has in the country? Al-Sadr’s followers are also involved in the political process and until recently they were involved in government.
A: The al-Sadr tendency is, of course, a political tendency. It has a presence in the Council of Representatives, and it has a role to play in the new Iraq. We are not opposed to anyone except those who are fighting us and those who are fighting Iraqi forces. On the one hand, terrorists are still here, and people from al-Qa’ida are also still here. On the other hand, some radical Shi’ite militias are also still here. We are continuing to make an effort against them by cooperating fully with Iraqi forces.
Q: Yes. Your predecessors were criticized many times. How many of these criticisms were directed against you, or how would you assess critical remarks made against you?
A: Any official, such as the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, would, of course, be criticized by one side or the other. This is normal. At the same time, however, I can tell you quite candidly that the job of the U.S. ambassador in Iraq is a difficult one. It involves many challenges, and I have every respect for my predecessors.
Q: Hasn’t your detailed knowledge of Arabic made it possible for you to get closer to Iraqi politicians? Isn’t your detailed knowledge and understanding of the situation in Iraq greater than that of your predecessors?
A: Thank you, Mr. Sa’d, but the fact of the matter is that my Arabic language is actually weak. I do, however, thank you and the viewers for this opportunity to practice [my Arabic] with you. As to what you said about Iraq, yes, I was in Iraq before. I was here for two years in the late seventies. I met my wife here in Iraq in 1979. She too was an employee of the U.S. Embassy at that time. But I am neither an expert on the language or on Iraq. I am a student in your country, and you are the professors. I learn something new every day.
Q: I can tell you, Mr. Ambassador, that you are being humble, but you know and understand what I am saying. And the proof is that you are able to answer all my questions in Arabic. Mr. Ambassador, the U.S. administration is putting emphasis on national reconciliation and sees it as a fundamental solution to the crisis that is sweeping the country. In your opinion, how is national reconciliation in Iraq going?
A: National reconciliation is undoubtedly very important for the country’s future, and it is underway. The [quest for] reconciliation takes time. It also has to have the right circumstances as well as security. Reconciliation is underway, and we are seeing it, for example, in the distribution of funds from the government to the provinces. For example, I was in al-Anbar in September to deliver something like 70 million dollars from the central government to the provincial government. That sum was in addition to the usual amount for 2007. This is one kind of reconciliation.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, there were many reactions to the agreement on the Declaration of Principles that was signed by Mr. Al-Maliki and Mr. George Bush: some of these reactions supported the Agreement and some were critical of it. What is your view of this Agreement on a Declaration of Principles? Will Iraq’s status under Chapter VII of the UN Charter come to an end?
A: The agreement on principles that was reached one month and a half ago was a very important step. It indicates the beginning of the end of UN resolutions against Iraq. We and the Iraqi government were in agreement that extending the resolution through 2008 would be the last such extension. We will be negotiating with the Iraqi government during the course of this year on a new bilateral agreement. In other words, UN resolutions [against Iraq] would come to an end by the end of the year.
Q: When will negotiations on the Agreement over Principles start?
A: I think they are to begin by the end of this month.
Q: Mr. Ambassador. It is time for a break. Please stay with us, viewers, we will be back.
Welcome back, viewers. Mr. Ambassador; will the Agreement on a Declaration of Principles let the United States of America establish permanent bases in Iraq?
A: To date, we have not yet started negotiations with the Iraqi government. I can, however, give you an answer to this question. We are not asking during these negotiations for permanent troops in Iraq. That would not be in our interest, nor is it in the interest of Iraq.
Q: Yes, Mr. Ambassador, what is Iraq being asked to offer to the United States of America in return for the economic and military support that the United States of America will offer to Iraq?
A: What we want from Iraq is the same thing that Iraqis want for themselves: a democratic country that is secure, stable, and prosperous. This is the goal of all the assistance that America is providing to Iraq. This is the only thing that we want from Iraq.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, does the United States of America view Iraq as a strategic ally for the long term regardless of the kind of government it has, or is it trying to withdraw from Iraq with the least possible losses, as some of your critics are claiming?
A: Of course, our interests here in Iraq are long term. We want a stable, long-term relationship with Iraq. This is the goal behind the Agreement on [the Declaration of] Principles. It is my judgment that Iraq and the United States will undoubtedly become allies in the future in the war against terrorism.
Q: Mr. Ambassador. The United States of America has been accused by some of moving slowly on the crisis between Iraq and Turkey even though it is known that Turkey is one of your strategic allies.
A: Both Turkey and Iran, of course, are our strategic allies. We also have an agreement on the problem of the PKK’s [presence] on Iraqi territory. The PKK is an enemy for the Turks, for the Iraqis, and also for the Americans. The goal here is how to eliminate the PKK from Iraqi territory in a way that does not create any problems for us here in Iraq.
Q: As long as your troops are in Iraq, you have an obligation to defend Iraq, if any state were to launch at attack on Iraqi territory. Will you defend Iraq if it were to be attacked by any state?
A: Frankly, Mr. Sa’d, I do not believe that such an attack against Iraq will be launched by any country. That would not be in anyone’s interest. I find that possibility quite unlikely.
Q: Yes, but if it were to happen, will you defend Iraq?
A: We are here.
Q: And will you maintain that stance or your commitment to the security of Iraq even if U.S. troops were to withdraw from Iraq?
A: As long as we are here at your invitation, we are willing to do anything that is necessary to serve the interests of Iraq.
Q: The Turkish ambassador to Washington stated that U.S. troops or U.S. intelligence provided him with information – provided Turkey with information – about the locations of the PKK in Kurdistan. Would not that be considered allowing Turkish troops to enter into Iraqi territory?
A: As I said previously, there is agreement amongst us. Our Turkish friends and our Iraqi friends agree with us that the presence of the PKK is a threat to all [of us]. There is cooperation, not only between Turkey and the United States, but also among the three of us about this matter. We also have coordination and cooperation.
Q: You know, Mr. Ambassador, that the Kurds, and Mr. Mas’ud Barzani in particular, were upset by the Turkish ambassador’s statement that the United States of America had provided Turkey with such information.
A: Our relations with Kurdish leaders are good, of course, just as they are with other officials in the country. I was in the north a week ago for meetings with President Talbani and President [sic?] Barzani. The coordination we have with each other is good, and the relations we have with each other are good relations, so we can continue on this road.
Q: Did Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Kirkuk have anything to do with the postponement of Article 140?
A: This, of course, was an opportunity for Dr. Rice to visit Kirkuk for the first time. And it was appropriate for more than one reason. Everyone, of course, agreed to postpone the implementation date for Article 140. Inviting the United Nations to provide technical assistance was a good step. Arab members also proposed a resolution for reconvening the provincial council. That too was a good step. Dr. Rice had a meeting with the council; she met with all the council members, and Article 140 was one of the topics of the discussion.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what is the solution you envision for the problem of Kirkuk, which is getting worse, particularly after the Constitutional deadline for solving this problem expired?
A: As I said, I believe that the agreement reached by political leaders to postpone the date of implementation was a useful step. This gives us the time that is necessary to find lasting solutions to this issue, which is a complicated one. We have no position, no position [on this matter]. America does not have a position on this matter. This is an Iraqi issue, one hundred percent. Ultimately, however, the solutions must be stable and acceptable to all.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, you played a major role in establishing and financing the al-Sahwah [Awakening] Councils. What is your view of the future of these councils given the fact that the government did declare that it would not allow a third power to exist along with the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior? Don’t you think that this could become a problem in the future?
A: We are in full agreement about this with the Iraqi government. None of us and no one in the government, the Iraqi government, wants to see what you’ve called a third power on Iraqi territory. Everything that we are doing with the awakening councils and the other groups is fully coordinated with the Iraqi government. And in the final analysis our position is that persons in these groups must either join Iraqi official troops, or they must join the civil service. We are continuing to make an effort in these two directions and coordinating our efforts with the Iraqi government.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, the Blackwater issue is still a matter of significant controversy. Prime Minister al-Maliki decided to lift the ban against such firms, where as Decree No. 17 issued by Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator, gave immunity to this firm. Even American troops do not have such immunity. What has the investigation into this matter led to?
A: The case of Sa’d Mansur is an extremely serious one. It is actually a tragic one. We are continuing to pursue the matter so that we can have all the answers that are available about what happened on that day in September. Security firms and their presence here in Iraq are the larger issue, and that is the topic of discussion between us and the Iraqi government. There is a joint committee that is focusing on this matter. The fact is that there are several of those firms in Iraq; Blackwater is not the only one. We all depend on these firms, including the Iraqi government, which employs some of these security firms. We must continue to cooperate on this matter until we come to an agreement about the status of these firms. The current circumstances are changing, and the security situation is improving. That can have an effect on the matter.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, has there been any contact between you and the Ba’thists who are associated with ‘Izzat al-Duri?
A: No. I heard this rumor before. There has never been any contact between us and ‘Izzat al-Duri.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, we will resume our conversation after the break. We will be taking a break. Please stay with us, viewers.
Welcome back, viewers. Mr. Ambassador, your refusal to turn over the persons who were convicted in the al-Anfal case became a controversial matter in political circles. Was this refusal actually tied to the settlement of legal disputes, or was there another dimension to your refusal?
A: Actually, there is no agreement [about this matter] within the Iraqi government. The Office of the Prime Minister has one position, and the Presidential Council has another position. Once an agreement is reached, we would be willing to do anything that the Iraqi government would ask us to do.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, it is being said that postponing execution of the sentence against Chemical Ali hurts the credibility of the United States in Iraqi society and that it also hurts the credibility of the Iraqi government regarding the independence of the judiciary.
A: This case, of course, is not ours. This is an issue within the Iraqi government: it is an issue between the Office of the Prime Minister and the Presidential council. We are waiting for the two sides to settle the matter. It is not up to us to find a solution. This is an Iraqi responsibility.
Q: Yes, but General Petraeus promised the former Minister of Defense, Sultan Hashim, that he would be well treated and that he would be released as soon as possible. Will you fulfill your promises?
A: General Petraeus never made [such] a promise to Sultan Hashim, nor did he make any other promise regarding a prison term or any thing of this kind. This is not true.
Q: This, of course, is what Sultan Hashim’s son has said.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, the crisis between the United States of America and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program could expose the region to greater danger involving the possible use of nuclear weapons. How probable is it that the United States might seek a military solution as part of its strategy to address this matter?
A: As we said before more than once, we want a political and a diplomatic solution to solve the problem. We do not want a military solution at all. And I do not believe that a military solution would be possible here. All our efforts are being made in the United Nations and outside the United Nations to find a political solution. And we are continuing our efforts in this regard.
Q: But what if the Iranian program were to continue? Would you [still] insist on a political solution?
A: Regarding ….
Q: That is, if Iran were to continue pursuing its program and if, perhaps, it is discovered that uranium is being enriched and that Iran is moving in the direction of producing nuclear weapons, will such a political solution be the basis for the United States of America?
A: We will continue to pursue this course.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, when President Bush addressed the National Institute on October 25, he said that a Third World War was around the corner and that Iran was its cause. Don’t you think that such a statement confirms a confrontation with Iran?
A: I have the same answer. There is no doubt that the problems we have with the Iranians are profound ones. We are not the only ones who are interested in the nuclear question; that question is the subject of interest to the whole world. But I do not think that there is a military solution to any one of these problems.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, do you think that political changes in Iran are possible? Do you think that Iran can become more liberal and more open to the western world? Do you think that the influence of Iranian hard-liners can be mitigated?
A: We wish to see change in Iran’s positions and policies. That is our goal. A change in the Iranian regime is not our goal. That, of course, is a question for the Iranians themselves. It is our hope that officials in Iran hear what the Iranian people are asking for. The Iranian people are kind, good people. They are the ones who are asking the government for more freedoms, and it is up to the government to allow that.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Muhammad Khatemi said some time ago that ‘Njad” was not a heavenly messenger and that not everything he said has to be carried out. How would you read that?
A: I have no comment on that.
Q: All right. Let me go back to your positions on the subject of Iran, and let me say that there is a CIA report stating that there is no nuclear program and that Iran’s nuclear weapons program stopped some time ago. In other words, the report that was published in late 2006 by the two scholars, David O’Leary [sic?] and Curry Henderstein [sic?], states that no matter what method Iran uses, it can never acquire a nuclear weapon before 2009. Don’t you think that there is a contradiction here with statements made by Americans on the subject of Iran?
A: There is, of course, more than one tendency or theory concerning Iran’s nuclear program. None of us came out of Iran with accurate information about the program. However, the report did make it clear that there is a nuclear program and, of course, the possibility still exists that there may still be a nuclear program. It is up to Iran to put an end to these attempts that are threatening the security of the region and the world. ??
Q: There have been talks and meetings between the Americans and the Iranians. Why has the fourth round of these talks been postponed?
A: We are engaged now in talks with the Iraqi government about setting a new date for a round of Iranian-Iraqi-American talks. These are trilateral, not bilateral talks. We hope that there will be a meeting soon.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what was the outcome of previous rounds of these talks?
A: Frankly, I cannot tell you that these rounds produced concrete results, but we did note during the recent period that there was a reduction in the number of operations that have to do with Iran – for example, mortar and rocket attacks against the international zone. There were other operations against us and against Iraqi troops. This may or may not be the result of an Iranian decision. We have no information in this regard. We do hope that Iran’s position regarding these operations will change and that there would be effective pressure on some of the radical militias that have a relationship with Iran.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, the American army is saying that the improvement in the security situation is due to the fact that Iran is refraining from providing weapons and ammunition to armed militiamen. Would not this be considered cooperation with America by Iranians?
A: As I said, we saw improvement in some operations [carried out] by militias that have a relationship with Iran. However, I cannot tell you that this is the result of a strategic decision by Iran. I hope it is, but we have to wait and see.
Q: As to Syria, do you sense that Syria is being cooperative and preventing the entry of infiltrators into Iraq? In other words, is that which led to a reduction in the number of terrorist attacks?
A: We noted during the recent period a reduction in the number of infiltrators into Iraq to carry out terrorist operations. [Although] some infiltrators are still coming in, we hope that in the near future Syria will take a position based on a decision to put an end once and for all to these infiltration operations.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, how would you comment on President Bush’s statement that he has lost his patience with Syria? Was he referring to the situation in Lebanon or to the domestic situation in Iraq?
A: Yes, of course, for some time Syria’s role in Iran and in Iraq has not been a positive one at all. Syria’s position must change for Lebanon’s sake, for Iraq’s sake and also for the sake of Syria itself.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, the Office of Projects and Contracts, which was called the Office of Program Management, is managing activities in six sectors: electricity, public works, water, communication and transportation, facilities and education, health care, security and justice, and oil, of course. This office, the Office of Projects and Contracts is in the American Embassy. What has been noticed is that there has been no change in any of these sectors. What, in your opinion, are the reasons for that?
A: With regard to … [inaudible]
Q: The Office of Projects and Contracts …
A: Yes.
Q: Yes.
A: There has been [improvement]. As far as I know there is improvement …
Q: Where? … The six sectors are those of electricity, public works, water, communication and transportation, facilities and education, health care, security and justice, and oil.
A: There has been improvement in electricity, and there has been improvement in the oil [sector]. [The improvements have been] gradual, and there is no doubt that more progress is needed. If we were to go back to ….
Q: [interrupting] Ambassador, Ryan Crocker, thank you very much for this interview and thank you for visiting the office of Al-Hurrah in Baghdad.
A: Thank you, Mr. Sa’d.
Q: Many thanks to our viewers for joining the program and for your attention, until we see you again [in a future program].