General Resists Timetable for Withdrawal of Troops in Iraq
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
The New York Times
April 9, 2008
WASHINGTON — The senior commander of multinational forces in Iraq warned Congress Tuesday against removing “too many troops too quickly” and refused under stiff questioning to offer even an estimate of American force levels by the end of this year.
Those comments from Gen. David H. Petraeus were met by sharp criticism from a senior Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, that the Bush administration had adopted “a war plan with no exit strategy.”
As hearings to define the future course of American strategy in Iraq opened Tuesday morning, General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, the American envoy to Baghdad, described an Iraq that is the scene of significant, if still-fragile, progress in security and politics. But they made that case without reference to Congressionally mandated benchmarks that defined their testimony last September.
General Petraeus said that security progress has been “significant but uneven.” Under questioning, he declined to estimate American troop levels beyond the withdrawal by July of five additional combat brigades sent to Iraq last year. And he acknowledged that the government’s recent offensive in Basra was not sufficiently well-planned.
The general told senators that he was recommending a 45-day pause — which he defined as a period of “consolidation and evaluation” — before reviewing once again whether there should be further troop reductions.
“This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit,” General Petraeus said. “This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable. However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still-fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.”
The security situation remained in flux, General Petraeus said, in part because of the “destructive role Iran has played,” and he said that “special groups” of Shiite radicals supported from Tehran pose a great threat to security.
The lethality of terrorists within Iraq who say they are aligned with Al Qaeda has been “reduced significantly,” General Petraeus said, but they continue to pose a worrisome threat. Only “relentless pressure” will guarantee that terrorists cannot regroup, he added.
“Countless sectarian fault-lines still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere,” General Petraeus said, but he noted that Sunni leaders, who were marginalized by early efforts of the majority Shiite government, had joined the security over recent months, with important successes.
In stating the Democratic Party’s case against administration war policy, Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that Mr. Bush’s goal of creating “breathing room” for political progress by sending five additional combat brigades last year “has not been achieved.”
“That reality leads many of us to once again challenge President Bush’s policies,” Mr. Levin said as the general and the ambassador sat motionless at the witness table. Senator Levin said the current Shiite-led government in Baghdad has shown “incompetence” and “excessive sectarian” policies.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, poised to become the Republican Party presidential nominee, argued against what he described as “reckless and irresponsible” calls for rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and said a premature departure of American troops would be “a failure of moral and political leadership.”
As he spoke, a protester stood up with a banner saying, “There’s no military solution.”
Senator McCain criticized early American efforts after the invasion of 2003, saying that “four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return.” But he said that with the addition of five extra combat brigades last year, “this improved security environment has led to a new opportunity.”
Today, Mr. McCain said, “it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq and the outcome of our efforts there.”
General Petraeus sat before the senators in his Army uniform with four stars on each shoulder and a 101st Airborne patch to represent his time of division command during the invasion of Iraq. Ambassador Crocker, in a dark suit and red tie with light stripes, spoke after the general’s opening statement.
Ambassador Crocker said he viewed the recent government offensive against Shiite militia’s in the southern Iraqi oil center of Basra as a success.
“One conclusion I draw from these signs of progress is that the strategy that began with the surge is working,” the ambassador said. “This does not mean, however, that U.S. support should be open-ended or that the level and nature of our engagement should not diminish over time.”
Yet, under sharp questioning from Senator Levin, General Petraeus acknowledged that the Basra operation “could have been much better planned. It was not adequately planned or prepared.”
To that point, Mr. Crocker warned that “Iraq’s political progress will not be linear,” and said he remained “convinced that a major departure from our current engagement would bring failure, and we have to be clear with ourselves about what failure would mean.”
Both sides in the morning debate seem to have come armed for the question of American financial assistance, and the need for Iraq to start footing the bill.
“The era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure projects is over,” Mr. Crocker said. He also discussed the status of U.S.-Iraqi talks on a new “strategic framework” to cement official ties between the two nations.
The agreement will define “basic authorizations and protections” for American forces in Iraq, but it will not establish either permanent American bases there or long-term troop levels, he said.
The agreement will not tie the hands of future administrations, but will provide “a stable foundation” for the next president. He stressed that Congress would be kept informed about the talks.
For weeks, General Petraeus, as well as senior administration and Pentagon officials, have been dropping clues about their plans.
It has been widely anticipated that American troop levels in Iraq would be held steady for some weeks after the departure by July of five extra brigades ordered to Iraq last year by President Bush. There would be 15 combat brigades and close to 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq.
Given the time required to remove troops from Iraq or to halt departures of heavy equipment from the United States, senior officials have said that even under the best of circumstances no more than two or three more brigades could be brought home before Mr. Bush leaves office in January.
Even if all goes well, more than 100,000 troops would probably remain in Iraq into next year, leaving any decision on major reductions to the next president.
Senior Pentagon officials and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, worried about strains on the services, have received assurances that there would be more frequent reviews — roughly once a month — after the pause to see when withdrawals might resume. That would be more frequent than the major reviews that took place last September and in the past month or two.
After this morning’s appearance at the Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the afternoon, where the chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, is expected to focus his questioning on the stated purpose of the surge: to bring violence down so Iraqi leaders could come together politically.
Senator Biden is expected to acknowledge that violence has come down, but that the Iraqis “have not come together,” according to aides to the senator. And he will press for a timetable for progress in the months ahead.
The daylong hearings also offer an opportunity for three presidential candidates espousing two very different views to be on display.
The trio of senators running for president — Mr. McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — serve on the committees calling the general and the ambassador to testify; all will have a chance to make their own political views known to a larger audience during the question-and-answer periods. |
