Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to express our appreciation for having a decorated colonel who has been on the ground and can come here to share his experience and expertise, as you have today.
Colonel, your testimony graphically describes the killings in Ashraf. Then there was the denial of logistical and medical relief for those who had suffered from previous attacks. Then there was reference to ongoing harassment and intimidation. But what stuck out for me in all of your testimony is the likelihood that Maliki will attack after December 15.
In two previous situations, in 2009 and 2011, the attacks came after meetings with Defence Minister Gates at the time. As you mentioned, Maliki will be meeting with Obama and is likely to launch an attack after that meeting and make it appear as if the U.S. was part of a government-sanctioned attack.
I find it almost shocking how a United States government—a powerful government—that undertook the protection of Ashraf from 2003 to 2009 handed it over to Maliki. I assume that either assurances were received for their protection, or at least they should have asked for those assurances. I don't know. The United States would be said to have a continuing type of obligation here.
Shouldn't the alarm be sounded in the U.S. in advance of that meeting with Obama so that Maliki can't come out of that meeting and launch such an attack? The United States will have been publicly forewarned by the people you've mentioned with the kind of expertise and respect they enjoy, whether it be Tom Ridge, Louis Freeh, Michael Mukasey, or yourself. They are people at the highest level of American decision-making with that kind of experience and expertise on Ashraf.
Why can't the alarm be sounded so that Obama, instead of just meeting with Maliki, or even before the meeting, will make it clear what the consequences will be should Maliki ever decide to attack, and prevent that type of thing from occurring?