April 8, 2008 – 5:39 p.m.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress Tuesday that he has recommended a halt to troop withdrawals for at least 45 days once the “surge” forces added last year depart this summer.
If President Bush accepts the recommendation as expected, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq would level off at about 140,000 in July, down from about 156,000 now. After the pause, administration officials will decide if and when withdrawals might continue.
Under questioning by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus refused to specify how long troop levels could be held at 140,000, saying further withdrawals could be delayed for months after the pause has ended, based on the security situation at that time.
“When the conditions are met, we will make the recommendations for further reductions,” he said.
Petraeus told the panel, which includes presidential rivals
He also urged Congress to provide supplemental war spending requested by Bush by June, and implored lawmakers not to intervene in the president’s war policy.
“This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable,” Petraeus said. “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.
As expected, Petraeus reported “significant but uneven progress” in Iraq, which he credited to a rise in Iraqi force numbers, increased cooperation from Sunni groups in western Anbar province, and the increase in U.S. forces.
He said the recent violence in southern Iraq, which included major fighting between forces loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces aided by the U.S. military, was a sign of the threat posed by Iran to Iraq’s security.
“The flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played,” Petraeus said, adding that Iran-funded groups “pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”
U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker echoed Petraeus’ assessment of the situation in Iraq.
“What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible,” Crocker said, while calling for continued U.S. “resolve and commitment.”
Key tests are ahead, as Iraq will hold provincial elections Oct. 1 and national elections in late 2009, Crocker said.
Crocker said a controversial long-term security agreement with Iraq would provide a stable framework for relations between U.S. forces and Iraqis after the expiration of a U.N. mandate this year and “will not tie the hands of the next administration.”
The administration does not intend to submit any agreement to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, and lawmakers have complained strenuously that the proposed security deal should meet that constitutional requirement.
Before Petraeus and Crocker spoke, Armed Services Chairman
“Our current open-ended commitment is an invitation to continuing dependency,” Levin said, “An open-ended pause starting in July would be just the next page in an war plan with no exit strategy.”
The United States, Levin said, should put “continuous and increasing pressure” on the Iraqi government to settle internal political differences, pay for their country’s reconstruction, and take a greater role in leading military operations.
“The way to do that is to adopt a reasonable timetable for a change of mission and redeployment of most of our troops,” Levin said.
The recent violence in southern Iraq “raises questions about the military effectiveness of the surge,” he said, criticizing the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
“Even the few small political steps that have been taken by the Iraqis are in jeopardy because of the incompetence and excessively sectarian leadership of Mr. Maliki,” Levin said.
Under questioning by Levin, Petraeus admitted Maliki had not followed his advice to prepare extensively and wade cautiously before sending Iraqi troops into battle against Sadr’s Mahdi Army. The fighting ended in an Iranian-brokered truce.
“There’s no question that [the operation] could have been better planned,” Petraeus said. He admitted that he was alerted to the offensive only two days before the operation started.
Levin also focused on the cost to U.S. taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. Levin estimated that the Iraqi government has about $30 billion in Iraqi banks, while the United States is largely funding reconstruction efforts and paying more than 100,000 workers engaged in those activities.
The session was interrupted three times by anti-war protesters in the gallery, including members of Code Pink, who chanted, “There is no military solution” and “Bring them home.”
McCain echoed Petraeus in touting successes from the surge, citing declines in civilian and U.S. troops deaths since the American military strength was raised from 15 to 20 brigades in 2007.
“Much, much more needs to be done and Iraq’s leaders need to know that we expect them to show the necessary leadership to rebuild their country,” McCain said. “But while the job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished . . . we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.”
If the U.S. withdraws before success is assured, McCain warned, “Iraq could become a failed state, it could be come a haven for terrorist groups to expand their influence.”
Al Qaeda still poses a significant threat in Iraq, McCain said, to which Petraeus agreed.
Clinton aimed her criticism at the administration, saying Iraq has sapped resources from other priorities.
“The administration . . . often talk about the costs of leaving Iraq, but neglect to talk about the greater costs of continuing a failed policy,” she said.
“It would irresponsible to continue the policy that has not resulted in the progress that has been promised time and time again.”
She pressed Petraeus to specify what would cause him to recommend further withdrawals.
“What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the strategy is not working?” she asked.
“It’s not a mathematical exercise,” Petraeus responded. “At the end of the day, it really involves commanders and the Iraqis sitting down to assess where you can make reductions.”
At a later Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the other Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen.
“If we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops would that be a definition of success?” Obama asked.
“I can’t imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of a drawdown,” Crocker responded.
“When Iraq gets to the point where it could carry forward its further development, without the major commitment of U.S. forces ... then clearly our profile, our presence, diminishes markedly. But that’s not where we are now.”
Adam Graham-Silverman contributed to this story.