E-mail a friendRep. Joe Sestak
airdate April 9, 2008
Pennsylvania's Rep. Joe Sestak is a member of the 110th Congress' freshman class. He opted to run for election one month after retiring from the U.S. Navy as a 3-star Admiral and became the highest-ranking military officer ever to serve in Congress. Sestak also served in the Clinton White House as National Security Council Defense Policy Director and, after 9/11, was the first director of the Navy's anti-terrorism unit. Sestak holds a Ph.D. from Harvard in political economy and government.
Rep. Joe Sestak
Tavis: Congressman Joe Sestak is a former Navy admiral and the highest-ranking former military officer ever to serve in the U.S. Congress. The Pennsylvania Democrat is also a member of the House Armed Services Committee who earlier today heard from General Petraeus on the situation in Iraq. He joins us tonight from Washington. Congressman, thank you for your time on this very busy day.
Rep. Joe Sestak: Glad to be here, thanks, Tavis.
Tavis: Let me start by asking the obvious question: what did you make of what General Petraeus had to say today?
Sestak: General Petraeus told us what we expected, that security had improved somewhat, some political accommodation had been made, but both were uneven. And then what was really most telling is that there would be no more draw-down until conditions permitted it. And by definition, that means an open-ended commitment, and that's the shame.
Because the Iraqis are the ones that determine the conditions, and what we have here is a strategy that is harming our overall national security strategy. And the questions General Petraeus cannot and should not answer were the ones that we most needed to be addressed.
For example, we have no Army unit here at home that can deploy anywhere in this world to help us protect our other interests around this globe. Second, al Qaeda has a safe haven in the porous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if those are the cases that we are presented with for America's overall security, how can we say we want to pursue a strategy where Iraq determines the conditions by which we will redeploy for our overall security or not?
Tavis: So how do the American public, then, how should we, from your perspective, read what General Petraeus told you all today? That is to say that when President Bush announced this surge that we were told was going to work, there are about 132,000 military men and women on the ground in Iraq at the time, 132,000. When he calls for this stand-down, as it were, in drawing down the troops in July, there will be about 140,000.
So still more troops there in July than there were when President Bush called for the surge to work. How should the American public read all of this?
Sestak: The American public should accept what General Petraeus said, that there has been some improvement, but that the political accommodation, that is the Iraqi political leaders, have yet to come forward and come together in order to ensure peace with the respective militias. And therefore, they should say, "What is it that will force them to do that so we can redeploy?'
And the only remaining leverage we have is to begin to redeploy our forces - one to two brigade combat teams at a time. Because that becomes the catalyst for them, the Iraqis, to assume responsibility over their militias that are at war with one another. And second, we need to have a diplomatic surge with Iran.
You saw last week with Basra that it was Iran that brought peace between the two warring factions in that city. Iran has influence, and we've been told by our intelligence agencies that Iran does not want instability if we aren't there. So change the strategy. By redeploying, forcing Iraqis, bringing in the Iranians to ensure that peace ensues as we then can address the global war of terror, beginning where the center of gravity of it is - in Afghanistan.
Tavis: Congressman, as you well know, though, the counterargument to the first part, the former part of your answer about Iraq and the troops is that if you start pulling American troops out too fast, even under your own suggestion, that those persons who are causing the havoc inside the country will take note of that and they're waiting for nothing more, they're anxious for nothing more than to see American troops start to leave so that they can engage in their devilment, as one might put it, even more so.
Sestak: I disagree with those who state that. Here's why. Right now, we do know that the 32 ministries headed by Iraqis, eight of which are absent, are merely ransacking that country for the own personal gain of those who head it. The health minister, deputy health minister, runs the largest black market of pharmaceuticals in that country. He was arrested and then released.
It's only when, like Samuel Johnson said many centuries ago, "It's only the prospect of a hanging that tends to focus the mind." That we now have a Kurdistan that's fairly peaceful. Anbar providence, almost de facto, has become a Sunnistan. And you could see that peace can ensue in Basrastan. I am not saying impose those types of three provinces. I'm saying by telling the Iraqis we won't be there - and by the way, the redeployment isn't tomorrow. There's 40 brigade combat team equivalents in Iraq.
At two a month, which is the most the Kuwait stations can take, that's about 20 months. That gives you the timeline in order to bring in Iran and help stability. I can tell you this: this strategy is only not working there for political accommodation, but it's hurting America's overall security. For over three years, American's army has trained in nothing, almost exclusively nothing but counterinsurgency.
How about the 28,000 men and women who wear the cloth of this nation in South Korea and we can't redeploy to protect them? So therefore, as we then have recruits coming into our Army, 42 percent in the below-average mental category, we've got to think about the short-term and the long-term risk to America's overall security, and by this redeployment, slow but deliberate, we can bring the parties to bear politically to have peace in that country.
Tavis: Since you're talking about the troops, Congressman, what's your sense of how this announcement by General Petraeus today will be heard and taken in by the men and women who serve in our military? I'm most concerned about them, in part because this news today was not good for them. If you're not out by July, you're not coming home right away.
Sestak: First, these men and women who are serving - and as you know, I was in the Navy for 30-some years - are truly terrific, courageous, brave, and they will go about their duty as this country has asked them to do. And I think by and large they already knew from some discussions before that General Petraeus had with the press that this expectation was to be heard today from General Petraeus.
But what I'm most concerned about is that as they come back from Iraq, 19 percent are returning with post-traumatic stress disorder. Thirty-four percent are coming back with a mental challenge from anxiety to depression. Now we are then bringing them home after they've gone outside the wire almost every day into a combat situation for 15 months, hey come home for 12, and they go back.
Ultimately, our army will unravel with acceleration if we do not redeploy at least 10 brigade combat teams out of Iraq, because that's when you have enough time to give them rest and recovery at home and to be ready to redeploy elsewhere. I have to agree with you, I am concerned about the short and the long term effect on our men and women, but I have no doubt they will step up and do their duty.
The question is the institution of the Army. Ultimately, have you unraveled it so much that it will take us years to recover in training, in readiness, and in the ability to address these medical challenges that our veterans are coming back with?
Tavis: And to the point you made earlier in this conversation, if, God forbid, some other hotspot in the world where we have a serious interest were to develop right about now, did I hear you correctly that we don't have nobody to send there?
Sestak: That is correct. Even pre-surge, and that's why I said we've got to get five brigade combat teams more out of Iraq than the five we sent in there for surge, to be more ready. We don't have one brigade here at home that can deploy anywhere in this world to meet the timeline of any war plan in our arsenal of war plans.
And so when you have that type of ill readiness, you've got to sit back and say if the strategy in Iraq is doing that to our overall national security, in addition to what some studies have now said when you enter in the cost of mental challenges to be recovered from, two to three trillion dollars - not just the $800 billion the administration talks about.
Then you say our economic security, our military security, our global war of terror security with the save haven in Afghanistan, wait a moment. Our overall security's being harmed by that strategy. So change the strategy. This one's not working.
Tavis: I've only got a minute to go, let me ask you right quick, changing gears somewhat dramatically, but we're talking about the commander-in-chief here. You, of course, are from Pennsylvania, represent Pennsylvania, your district in Congress. Everybody's eyes on Pennsylvania where this Democratic contest is concerned.
You're already on record supporting Hillary Clinton, but the polls indicate this thing is tightening up. How much pressure is on Pennsylvania, and what do you expect to happen there?
Sestak: Two great, caring individuals coming into (laughter) this primary. I support Senator Clinton because I worked with her in the White House on a number of veterans issues - Agent Orange, established a women's veterans memorial. She's ready to be commander-in-chief day one. I do believe Senator Obama can be commander-in-chief, but she is so ready from having a front row seat that I think you're going to see here winning in Pennsylvania because it fits her like a glove.
Tough, gritty, determined - those characteristics are really admired in a commander-in-chief, and that's why I believe she'll be the candidate that'll win Pennsylvania.
Tavis: Many have said, correctly so, that he is tough, gritty, and determined. He's a member -
Sestak: Not a doubt about it, they are both two great candidates and we need one of them definitely to win. I'm for Senator Clinton, but whoever wins, I'm right behind them because we've got to change Washington, D.C. that's aground on partisanship, and we can do a better job, and much better than we're doing today.
Tavis: I was talking about Joe Sestak - tough, witty, gritty, and - witty, too. Witty, gritty, tough, and determined. Congressman from Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Sestak, nice to have you on the program.
Sestak: Thanks Tavis, glad to be back.
Tavis: My pleasure.
Back to April 9, 2008