Bush, War Critics Debate When, Not If, U.S. Troop Levels Fall
By Ken Fireman and Nicholas Johnston
bloomberg.com
Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The September showdown between President George W. Bush and Democrats over fighting on or drawing back in Iraq is evolving into a debate over a narrower issue: disengagement on the installment plan.
Bush, for all his ``stay-the-course'' rhetoric, is constrained by a troop-rotation schedule that requires pulling out some forces early next year -- as well as the need to outline an exit strategy for Republicans eyeing the 2008 elections.
And many Democratic lawmakers now say a quick withdrawal of the 164,000 American troops in Iraq isn't practical, even as they seek a timetable for a smaller force and try to shift the mission away from front-line combat. The likely result will be a debate over when, not if, troops start coming home.
Bush himself raised the prospect of a reduction yesterday during an unannounced visit to Iraq. ``If the kind of success we are seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces,'' he said at an air base in Anbar province, where Sunni tribal leaders are now working with U.S. forces in opposition to al-Qaeda.
At the same time, Bush again rejected Democratic calls for withdrawal on a fixed schedule, saying events on the ground must drive decisions.
``When we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure,'' he told U.S. forces at the al-Asad Air Base.
Progress Report
The catalysts for this month's jockeying will be a progress report to Congress from the administration and appearances on Capitol Hill by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army General David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. That will shape the environment in which lawmakers wrangle over a Bush request for new war funding and Democratic proposals to limit U.S. involvement.
While administration officials haven't previewed the report or Petraeus's and Crocker's testimony, the outlines have been foreshadowed by Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. They've said a temporary U.S. troop injection is quelling violence and spurring responsible political leadership on the local level, while acknowledging continued shortcomings by Iraq's central government.
In addition to endorsing these assessments, Petraeus, 54, and Crocker, 58, will almost certainly argue that the troop buildup Bush ordered in January must continue into next year to avoid any deterioration in security, says former Army General Jack Keane, who helped plan the strategy.
Comprehensive
``The report will be very comprehensive,'' says Keane, who adds that he hasn't consulted with Petraeus about it. ``It will lay out what's working, what's not working, what's disappointing. They will talk not only about the present but about the future and a number of options.''
Keane says Petraeus will likely counsel against a ``precipitous'' withdrawal and instead speak about a drawdown next year to the pre-buildup level of about 130,000, with subsequent reductions tied to two variables: ``the security situation on the ground and the capabilities of Iraqis.''
Though that won't mollify war critics, Democrats' proposals to set a pullout timetable haven't attracted enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster or a presidential veto.
`Chaotic, Destructive'
``You don't announce a withdrawal date to our enemy,'' says Senator John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican whom Democrats had hoped to win over. ``If we take everybody out of there today, we will leave behind a chaotic, destructive situation.''
At the same time, Bush faces another timetable created by the unyielding cycles of military troop deployments. Army units are currently dispatched to Iraq for 15-month tours. The first brigade of the five sent there as part of Bush's surge hits that limit in April, with the other four to follow soon afterward.
Army officials say they won't stretch those tours. ``I don't see going beyond the 15 months,'' Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said Aug. 14 at the National Press Club in Washington. ``Any more than that, it puts our soldiers at a level of stress and a level of risk that right now I'm not comfortable with.''
Replacing the five brigades isn't feasible because all of the Army's combat units that aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan are either in line to replace others in those war zones or have recently returned home from those countries.
`Sustainable Supply'
``The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply,'' Casey said at the press club. ``The surge was and remains a temporary function.''
Former Pentagon official Lawrence Korb says the only way to maintain the current troop level over the long term would be to reinstitute the draft. ``You can't do it with a volunteer army,'' says Korb, who was assistant defense secretary for manpower from 1981 to 1985. ``We've already overstressed the active force.''
Keane says a drawdown will happen for two reasons: the rotation schedule and the improving Iraqi army, which will enable U.S. commanders to turn over greater responsibility to indigenous forces.
``The surge was always planned to be temporary,'' he says. ``It was planned to last between 12 and 18 months, to give the Iraqis time. That's basically playing out before our eyes.'' Keane says he's increasingly confident that Congress won't enact legislation this fall forcing Bush to change course.
War-Weary
Democratic leaders had hoped that after the August recess Republicans would be feeling enough pressure from war-weary constituents to support setting a withdrawal timetable.
Instead, the political currents on Iraq are now running in different and contradictory directions.
One senior Republican senator, John Warner of Virginia, came back from a trip to Iraq last month advocating at least a token U.S. withdrawal by December to pressure Iraqi leaders. Some Democrats, such as Representative Brian Baird of Washington, returned from similar trips saying they no longer favored a quick pullout because the buildup is working.
To complicate matters, some Republicans who question the war, such as Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, 67, and Sununu, 42, have spurned the Democratic timetable proposal in favor of a less restrictive measure. It calls for a drawdown of U.S. forces and a transition away from a combat role, without setting a schedule for meeting either goal.
Political Imperative
Democrats say they'll keep pressing to enact a binding pullout plan. They face their own political imperative: satisfying party antiwar activists and voters who gave them control of Congress last year in large part because of discontent over the war.
``Congress is going to need to decide whose interests it represents: the president and his efforts to protect his legacy, or the American people who overwhelmingly want to see an end to the occupation,'' says Representative Barbara Lee, a California Democrat.
Public opposition to Bush's Iraq policies has eased, although it remains high, according to a CBS News poll conducted Aug. 8-12. The survey of 1,214 adults found that 29 percent said the troop buildup was having a positive impact, a 10-point increase from July. Still, 67 percent said the war was going badly, and 61 percent said troop levels should be reduced.
Alexander says Iraq remains the top issue on the minds of his constituents, and he devoted most of an Aug. 27 speech in Jackson, Tennessee, to endorsing a plan that he said would lead to a ``steadily diminishing'' number of U.S. troops there.
In Sununu's home state of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of the Dunbarton Board of Selectmen, Mert Mann, says there's growing concern among party voters about the war.
At the grassroots, ``what you see is not a total support of the Bush administration,'' says Mann, 63. ``We want it resolved.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Ken Fireman in Washington at kfireman1@bloomberg.net Nicholas Johnston in Jackson, Tennessee, and Dunbarton, New Hampshire at njohnston3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 3, 2007 19:18 EDT |
