Well, thank you, Chair.
First of all, let me just say I'm a temporary on this committee today. I find the conversation absolutely amazing.
The concern that I have, in the little bit of research that I've been able to do while I was sitting here, and, of course, listening to the testimony, is that while we may disagree on what the immediate short-term needs and goals of the Yazidi people might be, whether we need more military presence or security presence, or whether we need more humanitarian aid—those are all questions that are legitimate issues of debate—I'm thinking more long term.
Mr. Haider, you've brought up the history of the Yazidi people, and you've said quite clearly that you don't think you can ever trust the Kurds again. There seems to be this inability to do what normally would be a reconciliation approach where, when somebody has wronged you, there is an ability to reconcile, whether it's cultural or whatever it is. It seems to me that this ability to remember all of the wrongs of the past and never seem to move beyond them seems to be a sticking point in the Middle East. That's based on my perception.
My question to you is: if that's going to be the case moving forward, and President Obama has indicated that his goal would be the new government in Iraq being a more unified, more benevolent government to bring people together, without this apparent ability to reconcile across the cultures and across ethnic and religious lines, is that a bona fide, legitimate, long-term goal? Or will that only provide short-term security for as long as that benevolent government is there, which can be replaced, of course, through a democratic process, with any other government that might not be so in the future? How do we reconcile this? I see it simply becoming an ongoing problem that will flare up from time to time.
Is there anybody here, Ms. Saeed, or even Mr. Bulka, and you, Khalid, who sees any other options available out there to provide more security in this region in the longer term?