Statement of Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Ranking Member John Warner, FULL TEXT

Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John Warner, Former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee High Resolution Image

We completed a very productive two-day visit to Iraq on August 18. We came to Iraq to assess the progress being achieved by “the surge,” whose purpose is to provide Iraqi politicians with the “breathing space” to achieve political reconciliation and to evaluate the extent to which they are taking advantage of the opportunity. On August 19, we visited Jordan for a series of meetings concerning Iraq, refugees, and regional security.

We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results. While visiting U.S. forces in Baghdad, we visited a Joint Security Station, a key component of the surge strategy, in eastern Baghdad and met with the U.S. forces and Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army forces that are housed together and conduct combined operations in one of the dangerous areas of Baghdad.

We met with senior U.S. and Iraqi civilian officials and military leaders. We conducted candid and very constructive meetings with General Petraeus, the Commander of Multi-National Forces-Iraq, General Odierno, the Commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, and Lieutenant General Dubik, the Commander of the Multi-National Security Training Command-Iraq, to discuss the military aspects of the President’s strategy and progress on the training, equipping and readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces. We continued discussions about the readiness of the Iraqi Army in meetings with Iraq’s Minister of Defense and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Armed Forces.

We consulted with Ambassador Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, on three occasions to discuss progress on the political components of the President’s new strategy. We met with the Ambassador once in a combined session with General Petraeus and later in two meetings with Senior Iraqi leaders that included President Jalal Talabani, Deputy Presidents Adil Abd Al-Mahdi and Tariq Al-Hashimi, and Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih.

While in Baghdad, we also met with Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and members of the SIGIR staff to discuss the findings of their July 2007 report and their ongoing audits and investigations. In addition, we met with members of Iraq’s Christian community, composed of groups who have lived in the region for centuries, to learn more about their situation.

The meetings in Jordan included consultations with the U.S. Ambassador and members of his staff, as well as Jordanian officials and members of the Iraqi Parliament. We also wanted to gain more knowledge about Iraqi citizens currently residing in Jordan and met with a senior official with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Amman office of Save the Children, and a group of Iraqis currently residing in Jordan.

Most important, we continue to be in awe of the dedication, commitment, and courageous performance of our troops, wherever they are in Iraq, and government and private sector civilians who risk their lives daily to give Iraqis the chance to build their nation. Their heroism cannot be overstated.

We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results -- in al Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents. We remain concerned, however, that in the absence of overall “national” political reconciliation, we may be inadvertently helping to create another militia which will have to be dealt with in the future.

We note the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents, but remain concerned about the lack of experience of some of its leadership and the lack of critical military capabilities needed before more of its units can operate independently. Chief among these are modern small arms, artillery, combat and lift aviation, explosive ordnance disposal, transportation assets, and engineer capability essential for force protection. Logistics capabilities are virtually non-existent and are a major hindrance to independent action.

We were also informed of problems within our own United States bureaucracy which are hindering the delivery of badly needed military equipment for Iraqi forces purchased with Iraqi funds through the Foreign Military Sales program. We will be looking into that problem and urge the Secretaries of Defense and State to take immediate action to cut through the red tape that is delaying those purchases.

While we believe that the “surge” is having measurable results, and has provided a degree of “breathing space” for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises which are essential for a political solution in Iraq, we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises. We were in Iraq both during the recent initial meeting of the Iraq Presidency Council, the Prime Minister and the President of the Kurdish region and during the immediately following expanded meeting, which were intended to reach political compromises. We would like to be optimistic that those meetings will lead to substantive progress, however -- given the performance of the Iraqi political leadership to date -- we remain extremely cautious in our expectations, as does our distinguished U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

In many meetings with Iraqi political leaders, of all different backgrounds, we told them of the deep impatience of the American people and the Congress with the lack of political progress, impressed upon them that time has run out in that regard, and told them of the urgent need to make the essential compromises. In all of our meetings we witnessed a great deal of apprehension regarding the capabilities of the current Iraqi government to shed its sectarian biases and act in a unifying manner.

We believe that the recent high-level meetings among Iraqi political leaders could be the last chance for this government to solve the Iraqi political crisis, and should it fail, we believe, the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the Government of Iraq’s record and determine what actions should be taken -- consistent with the Iraqi Constitution -- to form a true unity government to meet those responsibilities.

Technorati tags: Senator Carl Levin and Senate Armed Services Committee or Senator John Warner and the surge or President Bush and General Petraeus or You don't have to hate other groups to love your own and Space Shuttle Endeavour STS-118 EVA and Nanotechnology helps scientists make bendy sensors for hydrogen vehicles

You don't have to hate other groups to love your own

SAN FRANCISCO – Shiite vs. Sunni. Red state vs. Blue state. Immigrant vs. native.

While it may appear that conflict is an inevitable part of interaction between groups, research actually suggests that fighting, hating and contempt between groups is not a necessary part of human nature, according to an Ohio State University professor of psychology.“There's still this belief that a group's cohesion depends on conflict with other groups,

but the evidence doesn't support that,” said Marilynn Brewer of Ohio State.

“Despite evidence to the contrary, you still see this theory in the research literature and in many textbooks.”

Brewer has spent much of her career studying “ingroups” – the groups we belong to – and their relations with “outgroups” – those groups to which others belong.

She discussed the nature of these intergroup relations in her invited address Saturday Aug. 18 in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. The address was in honor of Brewer winning the 2007 Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the APA.

In her address, Brewer said recent evidence suggests that people's attachment to their ingroups has nothing to do with conflict – or indeed any other kind of relation – to other groups.

Instead, people join groups to find a place of trust and security.

“Simply put, we prefer people of our kind, people we know we can rely on. That doesn't mean you have to hate anyone else. But you will be more likely to trust people from your own group,” Brewer said.

In one recent study, for example, Brewer found that people tended to put more trust in total strangers when they learned this stranger attended the same university they did.

“All you need is to have that shared group identity,” she said.

The evolutionary history of humans suggests there is no need to require intergroup conflict to account for the formation of ingroups. Early humans didn't live under dense population conditions in which groups had to compete for local resources.

Given the costs of fighting, and the lack of need to compete, groups would have been more likely to flee from each other rather than fight.

That doesn't mean ingroup bias is benign, Brewer said. Ingroup bias is the basis for discrimination, the favoring of people in your group over those in another.

“You don't have to hate people from other groups in order to disadvantage them and to deny them the opportunities you have in your group,” she said. “That's a real downside to ingroup bias.”

Another common misconception about the formation of groups is that people join to boost their self-esteem. In other words, the argument is that the purpose of joining groups is to say “my group is better than your group.” Again, research disproves this theory, Brewer said.

“The basic underlying mechanism for ingroup favoritism is trust and security and not self-esteem,” she said.

Research has shown that when people are asked why their ingroup is better than other groups, they focus on traits such as trustworthiness, friendliness and kindness.

People don't necessarily say their group is wealthier or smarter or more successful than others.

“Most people are reality bound. They know if their group is not as good as others when it comes to things like wealth, and they won't pretend otherwise,” Brewer said.

“If people were just looking for self-enhancement, they would just say their group is the best at everything, and that isn't the case. What people are really looking for is trust and security.”

While conflict and hate don't need to be a part of group membership, a look at the news today shows that conflict does occur often, when groups battle over resources, or threats to identity or values.

When people are secure about their own identity and the identity of their group, and there is no competition for resources, conflict is not normally a problem. But if people are insecure about what their group means, or their place in it, they may support conflict as a way to enhance cohesion within the group, Brewer said.

That suggests that marginal members of a group – those who feel least included – will be the ones most concerned about keeping distance between groups and pushing hostility toward outgroups.

One way to minimize conflict between groups may be to take advantage of the fact that people belong to many groups with cross-cutting memberships, Brewer said. People have their national and racial identities, occupational and religious groups, school or alumni groups, as well as neighborhood, hobby and club affiliations.

“People have these different group identities and we've been working on ways to find out how people understand these memberships and how it affects their attitudes toward other groups,” she said.

“We do find that those people who have multiple identities and experience these identities in complex, cross-cutting ways, are indeed more accepting of diversity and have more positive feelings toward racial and religious outgroups. That suggests that there are psychological ways of breaking the boundaries of our small ingroup-outgroup distinctions.” #

Contact: Marilynn Brewer, (614) 292-9640; Brewer.64@osu.edu
Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu
Web: Ohio State University

Technorati Tags: Red state and Blue state or psychology and Ohio State University or Presidential Podcast 08/18/07 and Humpty Dumpty and Under magnetic force, nanoparticles may deliver gene therapy