Embassy News
Ambassador Ryan Crocker Interview with BBC
Broadcast of Amb Crocker with Jeremy Paxman, BBC
October 2, 2008
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: -- who remain in Iraq to operate and support Iraqi security forces requires a legal basis. The current legal base is the Security Council resolution. That has been the structure for our presence in evolving form since 2003. The other legal base is a bilateral agreement. And that is what we're negotiating now with the Iraqis.
Either one would serve. The Iraqis have made it clear that they would like to see an end to Chapter 7 resolutions through the Security Council, and to move forward on the basis of a bilateral agreement, so that's what we're working on now.
QUESTION: Are you completely confident that you will reach agreements in time?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: It is clearly in the interest of both countries that we do so. The prime minister spoke clearly, Prime Minister Maliki, just a few days ago, describing this as an historic negotiation, and an agreement that Iraq would need, as well as the U.S. So, given the determination on both sides, I am confident we will reach an agreement.
QUESTION: What is holding you up?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, this is a complex negotiation. There are a number of issues involved. So I wouldn't really characterize it as being "held up." We have been at this for five or six months now. In many cases around the world, when we do these security agreements, it takes a year or more.
So, actually, I think we're tracking pretty well. There are some tough issues out there, tough for both of us. We have made extraordinary progress thus far, and I think we will work our way through to a successful conclusion.
QUESTION: What date are you looking at when you envisage the future of Iraq for the total withdrawal of U.S. combat troops?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Again, I have been here a year-and-a-half now. I have seen extraordinary change, extraordinary progress.
But my experience inclines me to think that we have to remain focused on conditions. That is what has guided us thus far -- and "us," of course, being both the coalition and the Iraqis -- and I think that's going to be a good guide in the future.
We are drawing down. That process is underway, as you know. We have already gone down to pre-surge levels. We will be down another 8,000 or so service members by early in the next year. And I think that trajectory will continue. But it is -- I think it's important to have goals for withdrawal. But, equally important, not to allow a calendar or a time table to drive this.
QUESTION: Barack Obama, of course, says that you could withdraw two combat brigades a month. Within 60 months, they would then all be withdrawn. And that gives us the summer of 2010. Is that feasible, or indeed, wise?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, again, it is, I think, important not to be focused on the calendar, and instead, to be concentrating on conditions.
This is a complex process. It is, if you will, sort of a political/military calculus of working through with the Iraqis, where a combination of events argue for a withdrawal of coalition forces. What are the conditions on the ground? Who are the adversaries? What is the state of politics? What are the economic conditions? And, of course, what is the status of Iraqi force capability and availability? All these things have to be worked through.
And those are the factors, I think, that count, not a date on the calendar.
QUESTION: It follows from that if you believe in a focus upon conditions, that setting some (inaudible) is a rather foolish thing to do, doesn't it?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: I think it is important to have goals. Clearly, all of us want to see a process move forward in which coalition forces steadily decline, and Iraqi forces steadily assume more and more responsibility.
So, goals, I think, are important. I think it is, as I said, also important, though, not to get locked into arbitrary dates.
QUESTION: Clearly, there will be American troops in Iraq training Iraqi forces for some time to come. But does the U.S. seek any other kind of permanent military base in Iraq?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: We absolutely do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. We don't want them. Iraq does not want them. There is no need for them.
Our relationship with Iraq will be an evolving one. Over the long term, we will work out with the Iraqis what is appropriate, in terms of roles and presence.
It is also important to remember here that we are not only discussing a security agreement. We are talking about a much larger strategic framework agreement that will have security elements, obviously, but will also seek to define and broaden the U.S.-Iraqi relationship, going forward into the future, in a number of areas: economic development, trade cooperation, scientific, cultural, technical cooperation.
All of these things will be part of the architecture of a U.S.-Iraqi relationship for the future. And that will be an evolving architecture.
QUESTION: As far as U.S. troops, or indeed, U.S. contractors are concerned in Iraq, will they at any conceivable point in the future be subject to Iraqi law?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, jurisdiction is one of the difficult and challenging issues, for both us and for the Iraqis. Again, we have made some progress on this, again, in the middle of a negotiation. I am not going to go into detail. We have done some important work on this. We have got some more work to get done.
QUESTION: Can you imagine American troops or contractors being subject to Iraqi law?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, again, there is an overall dynamic in this negotiation, and it's negotiation, again, between two partners, Iraq and the U.S. We are approaching this in a cooperative spirit.
One of them is Iraq's sovereignty. And we are committed to seeing this agreement come forward as an expression of full and complete Iraqi sovereignty. That is, again, the importance of moving from a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 to a bilateral agreement between equal partners.
Another driving element, obviously, is to ensure that we have adequate protections and safeguards for our forces, as we move through this. So, you know, it takes some work. There are some challenges here, but it's finding, you know, the right way forward between those two important dynamics.
QUESTION: Come on, Ambassador, you know what the bottom line is.
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, the bottom line is what negotiators arrive at at the conclusion of a satisfactorily negotiated agreement. We have made a lot of progress, but we are not to the bottom line yet. And, until we are, these negotiations continue.
QUESTION: When you look at the total cost of this hugely expensive deployment in Iraq, the current total is running at somewhere around $700 billion, which is around the amount that the government of George Bush would like to see raised to bail out Wall Street. Do you really believe this has been money well spent?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: I think one has to look at where we are now, and what the way forward is. History will make its own judgements. But I think right now, after five-and-a-half years, we would all have to very carefully weigh the costs of alternative courses of action.
If we decide we don't want to do this any more, it's too hard, it's too expensive, we have other things to worry about, we have to consider where that may lead. Because, as I said before, Iraq is not a movie that we can just decide we're tired of it, turn on the lights, and go on to something else.
This movie is going to go forward, with the engagement of the international community, or without it. And anyone who thinks that it's just gotten too hard and too expensive would need to consider what the possible consequences might be of having this movie proceed without our involvement.
QUESTION: Or had been better not to get into the movie in the first place, might it not?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, that is, again, something the historians can work out. I am the guy here on the ground now. My responsibility is making the assessments, and trying to provide ways forward that will lead Iraq, and indeed, the region and the international community to a position of stability and security.
QUESTION: Are you worried about whether the U.S. can afford this war, in light of all its domestic problems on the financial markets?
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, again, that is for others to work out. My job is focused here on Iraq. And what I want to be sure we all do is focus not just on what the costs are of our engagement, but what the perhaps considerably higher costs could be, over time, to a disengagement.
QUESTION: Ambassador, thank you very much for sparing the time to talk to us. I am sorry about the hiatus when we started there.
AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Not a bit. Look forward to seeing it.
# # #