RSS
Senator sent letter to Panetta and Clinton saying Iraqi government “should be responsible for shouldering the cost of security in their nation”
January 12, 2012 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson told Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the new Iraqi government – and not American taxpayers – should pay for the security of American diplomats working for peace and stability in Iraq.
“I support ensuring the success of our efforts in Iraq, but am concerned about continuing to provide assistance to Iraq’s government, with the total cost being borne by the United States,” Senator Nelson, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote in a letter sent to Panetta and Clinton today.
“As a nation, our government continues to look for ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies within the U.S. Department of Defense. Therefore, I believe it is completely reasonable and in line with our agreements with other nations for the Government of Iraq to pay for the security of our remaining State Department personnel.”
More than eight years after the initial invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, the last American combat troops left Iraqi territory on December 18, 2011. The U.S. Department of State is now responsible for the American civilian mission in Iraq. With the military mission concluded, private contractors are being used to protect the security of the American diplomats working to help the new Iraqi government move forward.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in November 2011, General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the costs of retaining an American presence in Iraq. He noted that “in any nation in which [the United States is] present diplomatically, the first responsibility for security is the host nation.”
Following up on Dempsey’s statement, in today’s letter Nelson wrote, “If Iraq is unable to provide security for U.S. personnel, then the Iraqi government should pay for the cost of doing so – rather than our nation’s taxpayers. … While I understand there are many challenges facing the Government of Iraq, it is important for the United States to make it clear that we expect the new government to be responsible for shouldering the cost of security in their nation.”
Today’s letter follows in the spirit of legislation Nelson and Senators Susan Collins and Evan Bayh wrote in 2008 to transfer financial responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq to the Iraqi government, removing the burden from American taxpayers. The provision banned U.S. funding for major infrastructure projects in Iraq. It became law in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009.
The full text of today’s letter follows:
January 12, 2012
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Secretary
U.S. Department of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1400
The Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520-0099
Dear Mr. Secretary and Madam Secretary:
As you know, the United States concluded its military mission in Iraq in 2011. With that end, the U.S. Department of State now assumes responsibility for the civilian mission, which I understand will be heavily reliant on private contractors for security. I support ensuring the success of our efforts in Iraq, but am concerned about continuing to provide assistance to Iraq’s government, with the total cost being borne by the United States.
As a nation, our government continues to look for ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies within the U.S. Department of Defense. Therefore, I believe it is completely reasonable and in line with our agreements with other nations for the Government of Iraq to pay for the security of our remaining State Department personnel.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in November 2011, General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the costs of retaining an American presence in Iraq. He noted that “in any nation in which [the United States is] present diplomatically, the first responsibility for security is the host nation.” Thus, if Iraq is unable to provide security for U.S. personnel, then the Iraqi government should pay for the cost of doing so – rather than our nation’s taxpayers. Therefore, I encourage your departments to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government to underwrite the costs associated with our continued diplomatic presence there.
During that same hearing, I also asked General Dempsey whether it was possible to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government for cost-sharing in order to continue providing for the security training of Iraqi troops and every other mission we might accept to help the country secure, stabilize and self-govern. General Dempsey responded that such agreements are possible and that there is always a negotiation on the cost and who will bear it.
I want to ensure that the burden of such operations is placed primarily on Iraq, in line with those agreements we share with other nations when we conduct multilateral or bilateral exercises around the world. The Iraqi government is more than capable of sharing or underwriting costs associated with a U.S. advise-and-assist presence, as the Iraqi economy continues to grow and government revenues are beginning to increase to that of pre-war levels.
While I understand there are many challenges facing the Government of Iraq, it is important for the United States to make it clear that we expect the new government to be responsible for shouldering the cost of security in their nation. I would, therefore, greatly appreciate learning from the Administration what agreements are being made with the Government of Iraq for further missions and how the cost of those missions will be covered. Thank you both for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
E. Benjamin Nelson
United States Senator###