Iraq Update

MODERATOR: Good afternoon and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. This afternoon Ambassador Jim Jeffrey will be briefing on Iraq and current developments there. He will make a few short comments before taking your questions.

Ambassador Jeffrey.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Thank you very much, Jess. Good afternoon, everybody. It's a pleasure to be back here. As you're all aware, we're here today to talk about the formation of the Iraqi Government this weekend. As President Bush said, this is the culmination of an inspiring but difficult process. The elections that took place on December 15th were a new step forward for Iraq and the process that was launched by those elections has reached its culmination this weekend with the establishment of a national unity government and that government's program under Prime Minister Maliki.

Furthermore, looking back, this is a culmination of a process that began almost three years ago with the negotiations between the Coalition Authority under Jerry Bremer and the Iraqi Governing Council that produced the Transitional Administrative Law, or the TAL, and then in the spring of 2004 UN Security Council 1546, the TAL and 1546 set up a step-by-step process by which the Iraqis would move through an interim to a transitional government to a permanent government and a permanent parliament through a parliament elected under the TAL, equivalent of a constitution, to a parliament elected in December under a permanent constitution that the Iraqis themselves put together with assistance from the UN and other elements of the international community but nonetheless this is their product.

At this point, we are expressing our willingness along with our friends and allies to work with the new Iraqi Government, to deal with the violence, insurgency, the attacks by one ethnic group on another; to unleash the tremendous economic potential of this country and to see that Iraq resumes its rightful place at the center of the Middle East as a unified, democratic, pluralistic and federal system, prosperous, at peace with its neighbors and an ally to the international community and the global war on terror. That's the program that we are looking forward to in working with Mr. Maliki, President Talabani and all of the others. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: If you'd state your name and your organization, please.

QUESTION: My name is Khaled Dawoud. I'm from Al-Ahram newspaper, Syria. We've been reading a lot of reports about the Iraqi security forces and that one of the main problems that they lack proper equipment and training. So if you can update us about whether the U.S. plans to provide more serious equipment to the Iraqi army and security forces than the light armament they have right now.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Thank you. The Iraqi security forces are obviously going to be an area of considerable concentration for the new government. This is part of the reason why the Prime Minister and his coalition partners held off on naming a minister of interior and minister of defense, although we expect that those folks will be named in the next few days. Nonetheless, he has underlined to us and in his public statements the absolute necessity of effective security forces that can take over the job of defending the country and defeating the insurgency.

The train and equip program that we have underway is aimed at assisting the Iraqis in standing up not only effective police forces but a relatively large ground light infantry force of some hundred plus battalions. That training program for the army in terms of standing up such a force should be finished within the next year or less. What the Iraqis will still require is additional heavy equipment to transform them into a modern, somewhat mechanized armed forces with larger air and naval components. That will take a number of years. The Iraqis themselves will have to take the lead in that, but nonetheless it's one reason why we have $3.7 billion in a Department of Defense supplemental for this fiscal year going forward, and we will see what the Iraqi needs are and we'll try to do our very best to be helpful in the future.

What I do want to underline though is that the equipment that they have for the counterinsurgency fight is very good and that equipment program will be pretty much finished this year for the Iraqi army. For the Iraqi police it will take a bit longer. The equipment, including heavier armored vehicles and indirect firepower and that sort of thing, and a lot of logistical training and logistical equipment and the foundation of logistical units, will probably take place over a longer time frame. But in terms of a counterinsurgency force, we're very, very pleased at where the Iraqi army is. The police are lagging behind somewhat. That is why this is the year of the police.

QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Ambassador, Joyce Karam with Al-Hayat newspaper. My question is about the issue of security and if you're expecting from this government to disband the militias with Shiite or non-Shiite militias in the country and whether the U.S. forces are going to help in fulfilling this task.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Well, first of all, this is part of the government's program to disband the militias. It's part of the legal system of Iraq from the CPA period. We will obviously respond to any request by the Iraqi authorities to take action in the security area. The UN Security Council resolutions provide the responsibility for MNFI to take charge but to do this in consultation with and in many cases following the advice of the Iraqi Government. So we stand ready to listen to what the Iraqi Government is interested in.

But standing down the militias is as much an economic and political as it is a security issue. First of all, those militias represent political parties. They're part of the political equation. We have seen by some of the militias absolutely unpardonable assaults on other religious and ethnic groups, and thus our first priority is stopping that. The longer-term priority is a process to integrate the militia. As I said, we had a plan all the way back to the CPA period of two years ago and the Iraqis will develop one or another variant of that. But it's a very important priority and I'm glad you mentioned it.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mounzer Sleiman, Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi. Ambassador, do you think now the new government in place, although still not completed, there will be a reduction of U.S. forces in the near future and there is any timetable for reducing U.S. forces there?

And any of the higher officials in U.S. may visit Iraq since Prime Minister Blair did jump there earlier?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Well, I'll try to work back from the last first. As you know, we keep visits to Iraq under the tightest of security covers and we're constantly assessing who should visit, when he or she should visit and with what message. And that process continues, but I have nothing for you on that for the obvious reason that we won't announce these things in advance.

In terms of a timeline, no, there is no timeline. And I want to stop on that for a moment. We do have a program which is linked to some degree to time, but in a war zone things can change so we don't want to be held to it, nor do the Iraqis, on standing up the Iraqi army forces. The police will take longer and that's less clear how long that will take. Again, there are longer-term developments of the armed forces that nobody can put a timeline on.

But in terms of the coalition withdrawing, the President has been very clear and as have everybody else in the Administration. We do not believe in timelines because a timeline simply says that that is the condition; you withdraw by Date X regardless of what the situation is. We are not opposed to withdrawal. In fact, the President has said many times as the Iraqi forces stand up, our forces will stand down and, in fact, we have seen two brigades withdrawn back in the December/January period. After the attack on the Samarra mosque, you saw our troop strength go up as we brought in troops from Kuwait for a while. And that's the way it is: As the conditions on the ground improve or temporarily get worse, we will change our troop presence and the conditions will drive the force presence. There is a general expectation over time that as the Iraqi forces become more competent and there are more of them in the political process which we're hoping can pull in part of the insurgency, that there will be less need for coalition forces and that what they do will change from active, offensive combat operations to training and equipping and working with the Iraqi forces. But again, we'll have to wait and see, but let me say that there is no timeline.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up, please?

MODERATOR: Okay.

QUESTION: During the press conference with Prime Minister Blair, the Prime Minister suggested that by the end of June they may have to move the Iraqi forces alone will take charge of at least two provinces and they're going to probably take more. So in light of that confidence that they're going to be taking over some provinces, is that going to suggest there's some sort of reason and logic to reduce the American forces there? And although there's no timeline there, but there is a political timeline the election here in November and whether some consideration would be for announcing some reduction of forces prior to that?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Okay, first of all, on those two provinces, that is a conditions-based evaluation done by the Iraqi Government and MNFI. There were expectations that that would take place some time ago, but the conditions were not ripe at that time, so it has been postponed. It could be postponed again, but it could also happen in June. That's the first point. But again, I underline every time I address this issue, but keep on having to underline it. It is a conditions base. And I mean, please trust me on this. A few months ago people thought that those two provinces would be graduated. But in fact, the evaluation was that the conditions weren't ripe, so it was held off and people who expected that to happen were perhaps disappointed. June is quite possible, but it's possible that conditions won't be ripe. In either case, the provinces in question are not where there are American forces or forces of other countries. So any withdrawal of American forces are an adjustment and our troops would not be based specifically on that issue. But again, let's wait and see about the conditions. I think this is real important.

MR. BAILEY: Go to Turkey here.

QUESTION: Umit Enginsoy, NTV. Mr. Ambassador, nice to see you again. U.S. officials have been saying that to fight the PKK effectively, that the trilateral mechanism among Iraq, Turkey and the United States would be reactivated out to the creation of a new government in Baghdad. And the new Iraqi Government in Iraq is in place now. So in light of this, what will happen regarding this trilateral mechanism and when? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Well, Umit, it's been 48 hours, almost all of which have been an American weekend, since we've had a new government. So this is one of our top priorities. Our embassy in Ankara is in constant touch with the Turkish authorities on this. Zal Khalilzad is very, very appreciative of all the things that Turkey has done. As you know, he's visited there several times. He's very aware of the PKK issue. He's has consultations with the Iraqi Government, with Kurdish leaders when he last in the north. And we'll get to that as soon as we can. Thank you.

QUESTION: Quil Lawrence, BBC. I have two questions. First of all, with PRTs, how many of the A-team PRTs have stood up and do you have an agreement with how they're going to be protected by U.S. military or other? And the other question is about the Special Inspector General for Iraqi reconstruction. I've been reading that there was some discussion in Congress that the funds were going to be appropriated that would not be overseen by that special Inspector General and I was wondering if you could comment on the job that the Special Inspector General had done what the difference would be without that oversight.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Sure. On the PRTs, let me start with them. We've got five stood up now: Hilla, Mosul, Kirkuk, Baghdad Province and Anbar and we're looking forward to both American and other coalition PRTs in the near future and there'll be some PRTs that Iraqis will staff. Our provincial reconstruction teams and these are our way that we organize our own military, civilian reconstruction civil affairs and where we have international presence to the extent they're willing to participate along with the Iraqi local provincial governments to better deliver capacity building assistance, small-scale reconstruction and that sort of thing. Also tying together the civilian and the military side of reconstruction. And that's a good program. We do the security on a case-by-case basis with DOD, when we're ready to stand up a PRT, we go to DOD and we say, "Look, this is a security plan." If DOD can support it, which they've been doing very, very generously, up till now on a case-by-case basis, they'll support it and we move out. We also provide some of our own security. It's a case-by-case situation.

On SIGIR, first of all, let me say that SIGIR has done a great job providing oversight and inspector general duties for the $20.9 billion Iraqi reconstruction front. SIGIR was set up to look at the reconstruction front. The reconstruction front by law must be obligation by the end of this fiscal year. SIGIR then goes out of business, I think, when 80 percent of the disbursements are complete at the disbursement rate now which is about $150 million a year and there's about $12 billion disbursed. We figure that would be sometime in mid-fiscal year '07 basically about a year from now.

The issue is of the monies we've asked for in the supplemental for '06, which is for reconstruction about 1.4 billion -- correction, $1.6 billion and for the monies we've asked for in '07, which are about $770 million, assuming we get those monies, these go into our normal foreign affairs budgets to be expended by primarily USAID, other State Department elements and the Army Corps of Engineers for some construction. So they represent traditional forms of assistance for which there were traditional inspector capabilities. Now there is a discussion on the Hill and in the Administration whether SIGIR which will be present on the ground until this summer could have some role in that, that discussion goes on and no final decision's been taken.

QUESTION: Do you know how soon you might have the other PRTs set up? It's five out of 18; it's been quite a while since they were announced.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Mm-hmm. We don't have a specific timetable. It's a question of recruiting the personnel, finding the right location as the military shifts some of its bases and such, because normally we like to collocate with the military and standing up the other logistical support. But the work that is being done by a PRT is being done by our aid people in the field, by our political officers in the field and such. I don't want to leave that impression. We've got funding and we're deploying the funding. We just like to organize it this way and it's the organizational piece that in some provinces is missing.

MODERATOR: We'll go right here.

QUESTION: Takuya Nishimura with Hokkaido Shimbun. I wonder -- there is a difficulty to training Iraq police and obviously compared to the media reports the police is closer to the population because they are literally among the population. So is there any difficulty to cut off the tie between the police and the militia or a criminal group in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Two separate questions: One is let me deal with the training first. Police are run through a -- if you're recruited into the police, an eight-week program that is very tactical and military in nature. It does not differ all of that much from basic training for the military, except that you receive some law enforcement training. That produces someone who may or may not, we think will be able to survive out there at checkpoints in some areas of high intensity insurgent environment. It does not produce someone with the maturity, the training and the experience that you would expect for a policeman. Look at your own countries how long it takes to train a person from your own police academies, in many cases several years. In America, for example, many of the police are graduates of a university program in law enforcement; that they've been in training for four years, so that will take longer.

In terms of the vetting and the separation with the militias again, this is more of a political step. There are some technical issues that can be dealt with, for example, having the person be investigated, do a background check on that person, but largely it's a question of having the right leadership in the Ministry of Interior, which is another reason why Prime Minister Maliki is holding off before taking that decision to ensure that he does have an independent figure in there who will enforce exactly the separation between the police who have to represent everyone and the militias and the political parties who only represent one or another faction.

MODERATOR: Go to Germany.

QUESTION: Markus Ziener, Handellsblatt, Germany. Mr. Ambassador, I've got a question in regard to the security situation right now in Iraq, given the high numbers of death every day, and particularly the general assessment, especially in regard to the insurgencies.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Overall attacks are up somewhat. What we call "effective" attacks are not up as much. These range between, for as far back as I can think, between 150-plus to roughly 200 a month and those are about that same level. So the insurgency is not gaining ground. We do see an uptick in effort and, frankly, this doesn't surprise us. What we've seen before and immediately after any major political step exactly this. Before the first elections, before the second elections during the constitutional debate, because the insurgents can read the game plan, too. They know that in the long run this political process spells death for the attempt to gain power through violence, in particularly the al-Qaida element of the insurgency, which is responsible for many of the mass casualty attacks on civilians is particularly unhappy with the electoral process, unhappy with the fact that the Sunni Arabs are engaged in this political process and is lashing out, so that's a reason why attacks are up.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the communal killings, these bodies that are discovered now with an average of 30 to 40 bodies every day, who is responsible for these?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: In some cases, it is the militia of some groups. Muqtada al-Sadr's people have been implicated repeatedly. The number of such deaths is down significantly from the high point in late February and March, but it is still up too high compared to what we saw before the attack on the Samarra mosque and this has to be one of the most important priorities for any new government.

MODERATOR: We'll go to Samir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. Now after the formation of the government, do you expect Ambassador Khalilzad to go for talks with the Iranian officials in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Well, you know, we have stated our position that at the appropriate time and place, with the appropriate conditions, discussions with the Iranians on the issues that concern us in Iraq only would make sense and we'll look at that now that the government is formed. Our priority was forming the government and we'll take another look at that.

MODERATOR: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Would the appointment of the ministers for defense and interior require talks with the Iranians?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Certainly none that I could think of and certainly not by us, because this has never been a subject -- we wouldn't talk with the Iranians or any other foreign government on specifics of what is an Iraqi process in which we have no business and certainly no other country has a business calling the shots or making suggestions.

MODERATOR: Let's do a follow-up and then -- yeah, a follow-up there.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, Hoda Tawfik, Al Ahram correspondent. The United States seems to say that these posts for the ministers of interior and defense and security has to be independent and nothing to do with the secular -- of the other sects. So do you still maintain this opinion and is this the reason why it is late to form the complete cabinet with the ministers mentioned?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: First of all, we are not in the decision chain for naming this minister or that minister. This is a sovereign decision by Prime Minister Maliki, as it was a sovereign decision by Prime Minister Jafari when I was there. There are certain concerns, as we have the responsibility under UN Security Council Resolution 1546 and 1637 for overall security as the leader of the MNFI or the coalition, we have views on the Iraqi security forces and what the most advantageous leadership would be in terms of cooperating with us and dealing with our joint security problems.

We make these views known without getting into personalities and the Iraqis take that on board, but I don't think that's the major reason why they were holding back. I think that there is debate within the various parties about who should be or who shouldn't be the candidate for minister and we'll just have to wait until that's over.

QUESTION: But should they be independent, as you previously said several times?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Absolutely, absolutely. The -- well, I mean, once again, we would like to see ministers who are efficient. We would like to see ministers who are independent. We would like to see ministers who will take the fight to the terrorists. But at the end, that is a wish and an expectation from a friend of Iraq. This is not an order to the Iraqi Government. The Iraqis will have to come up with whatever the best solution is with that information from us, with pressures from the various political parties, with the needs to balance, with the needs to bring in some of the Sunni Arabs to balance -- bring in some of the Shia or clerical groups that are unhappy. And that's why Prime Minister Maliki is the prime minister.

MODERATOR: In the second row here, please.

QUESTION: Good morning, sir, Ron Baygents with Kuwait News Agency. My question is, it's been three years since Saddam was deposed and it's less than two and a half years before President Bush leaves office. And I would like to know what you can say to the skeptics out there who do not believe that there is enough time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to successfully take root. What can you say to assure people of your view that the insurgency, the militias, the sectarianism and the division can be overcome in what historically has to be seen as a very short time left?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Thank you. Several points. First of all, we do think that the process that President Bush has participated and played a key role in initiating has taken root. When 12 million people go out and vote despite terrorist threats and considerable violence, that's as good a sign as I can find in this imperfect world of things taking root. That's my first point.

My second point is, you know, America is a constitutional system. Governments act with the advice and consent of the Legislative Branch and thus indirectly the American people. While President Bush has played an extraordinary leadership role in our endeavors in Iraq, this is a role that the American people, the American Government, the American House of Representatives and Senate have all participated in by voting authorizations for the war, by voting for spending for the war and that. And we have major national interests in Iraq that go beyond any one administration or any one party, and I think this is well-known on both sides of the aisle on the Hill as it is in the American public.

QUESTION: What about -- can I follow up?

MODERATOR: Yes, you may. And if you can wait for the microphone. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: But what I would like to know -- that's the American side. What about in Iraq, though? If the division and the insurgency does not, in fact, abate in two and a half years -- everyone seems to keep talking about this year, as if this year was the only year, but surely we're talking about more than this year. But on the other hand, you know, do you see -- Vietnam was lost by the United States in about a dozen years or so. Iraq is -- you know, I know people don't like to compare the two, but one of the key things was the American public consistently opposed -- showed they were opposed to the war and we're in that situation now. So what I'm asking you is in Iraq what can you say that's going to happen there in the next two and a half years? Do you really believe all the division will end and people will join the political process?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Yeah, those are impossible questions to answer because, first of all, it's very difficult to predict the future under any circumstances. Under circumstances of war and carnage, it's even more difficult. What I can say is that we see a moving forward of a political process that has been laid out in UN resolutions, in President Bush's own commitment to the American people, carry this through to a democratic solution, which we have done; to lean more on the Iraqis to, with our support and arming and training and equipping them, to bring the fight to the foe and to allow us to adjust our force presence there. I think all of this is underway.

The American people obviously have to judge that, as they have other conflicts. I will just say from having been involved in many of these conflicts since the 1960s that the American public always will maintain a certain healthy skepticism towards foreign engagements and particularly military engagements, particularly when their sons and daughters and husbands and wives are under fire and being killed. And that's a good thing.

But I wouldn't -- I think that the American people are, and certainly the representatives, Democratic Party as well as Republican Party that I've talked to, and I've talked to most of them, are very, very aware of the stakes in Iraq and very, very aware of what our policy is. Some disagree with it. Others agree with it. But I wouldn't say that we have just a small period of time before opinion will turn against our policies. I think that the Americans are concerned. I think that's reflected in the polls. But I don't see that as support for an alternative policy. But I could be wrong.

QUESTION: Toshiya Umehara from the Asahi Shimbun, Japanese newspaper. Do you see any dilemma between -- about the candidates for the (inaudible) interior and defense? Do you see any dilemma about being independent and being effective; for example, (inaudible) an independent person might not be necessarily be effective in reining in the militias to disband. So given the difficulties of finding the right candidates in the last few days, which do you think -- which of those two qualities the new Iraqi Government should opt for, do you think?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: You're absolutely right and this is the problem in everything from, you know, choosing, you know, fellow members of your local chess club to choosing members of a government. I don't want to play it down, but you always have that issue of independence of views versus effectiveness in a political process where sometimes being a member of a party or having political support behind you is helpful. And again, we, the outside world, be it American or be it the international community represented by many of you, cannot make that decision. That decision has to be made, that balance has to be made, by the Prime Minister. It's like any other important and close interpersonal relationship; you weigh plusses and you weigh minuses. One of the things we hope they'll weigh, but only weigh because we don't have a determinant voice, is our concern that we do have effective interlocutors for our common security interest. And the Iraqis, beginning with the Prime Minister, will take that on board and will factor that into all of the other political pressures and he'll make a decision and we will work with whoever he names.

MODERATOR: We'll go with Turkey.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Rusen Cakir. I'm a Turkish journalist from Vatan daily newspaper. I want to know what American position is via Muqtada al-Sadr and what's your (inaudible) position (inaudible). We are hearing so many speculation here especially the (inaudible) Muqtada al-Sadr on like secret forces (inaudible) the army and the police forces, and then just ask is it true that the American authorities, they don't want Muqtada al-Sadr to visit Turkey? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Well, we don't --

MODERATOR: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Muqtada al-Sadr to visit Turkey.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: We don't have any determinant role in who visits what country. We are very concerned about Muqtada al-Sadr because of the fact that he is of one level of participant in the political process, he has several ministers in the Jafari government, he is seeking several ministers in the current Maliki government and has some people named. And he has a role as one of the participating parties in the Shia-UIA coalition.

On the other hand, his personnel have engaged not only in the past on a massive scale, but currently at a lower level in attacks on both British and American and other international security forces, Iraqi security forces, and are participating in some of these death squad activities against Sunni Arabs. We do not think it is legitimate to talk and fight, talk in the political process and fight outside of the political process at the same time. This is primarily an Iraqi political problem and we'll leave it to Prime Minister Maliki to work his way through the Moqtada issue.

In terms of going to Turkey, once again, Turkey has to decide which political leaders from countries such as Iraq it wishes to receive. We have our concerns about Moqtada. We make our concerns known, but it's Turkey's decision, just like it was Jordan's decision and Saudi Arabia's decision to see him and Iran's decision.

QUESTION: Does he control the Iraqi security forces?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: No, absolutely not. Certainly, he has -- his people or people associated with him have a certain influence among the police, in particular. I would not say so in the army.

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: My name is Tsukasa Arita from Japanese Kyodo News. I have one more question on PRT. So how many countries so far have expressed or decided to join this project? And what kind of role are you expecting, especially to Japan?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Sure. We have been in contact with the British, the Australians, the Japanese, the Koreans, and several other countries on possible participation in PRTs. It's not our role to announce what other countries' decisions will be. And in many cases, decisions haven't been taken, but we certainly encourage countries to the extent possible to participate and we hope that Japan will look upon that in a positive light. And when they have taken their decision, we hope you hear it from them and not from us.

MR. BAILEY: Question here from Turkey here.

QUESTION: Hassan Hazar, Turkiye Daily. Mr. Ambassador, good to see you again. What's your expectations from Iraqis leaders and could you talk about a little more what is exact (inaudible) in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Sure.

QUESTION: And what -- and how will the United States and the new Iraqi Government cooperate with Turkey with reconstruction of Iraq?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Sure. First of all, on NATO, NATO has a training mission in Iraq with several hundred offices, training primarily Iraqi Army offices. Turkey is one of the many NATO countries that is participating on the ground in that and we're very appreciative. In terms of neighbors, first of all, we would like all of Iraq's neighbors to use Turkey as a model that is Turkey obviously has security concerns. We talked about them a few minutes ago. All of the other neighbors have security concerns based upon Iraq's past. Think of Saudi Arabia, think of Kuwait, think of Iran. But in the case of Turkey, it has set a very good standard by participating politically and economically in the rebuilding of Iraq. We very much appreciate that. We encourage that. We work closely with Turkey and we're looking forward to working closely with Turkey and with the new Iraqi government on some of the Turkish concerns, which you mentioned earlier.

MR. BAILEY: Any other questions? One more here.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, congratulation on your new position. Will Ambassador Satterfield -- will return to Washington now or to --

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: In fact, he will return to Washington some time in the future. For the moment, I am doing the special representative job for Iraqi which is why -- the capacity I'm here today and I'll be moving into the Near Eastern Bureau as well. But eventually, Ambassador Satterfield -- plan is for Ambassador Satterfield to come back and to replace me.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: One last question.

QUESTION: While we're talking about Moqtada al-Sadr, I was wondering if you could comment about any of his activity in the city of Kirkuk, particularly?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: He has had some presence in Kirkuk. I think he was up there and visited some time in the near past, if I'm not correct, but don't quote me on that. And he has been active, as you know, a number of Shia Arabs were moved up to Kirkuk under the Saddam regime into areas that were depopulated from the Kurdish and other populations up there. And I know that he's shown some interest in the Kirkuk issue. We can only hope as an exception to past experience that it will be positive influence and interest.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you very much.