US Troops Reductions May Slow or Stop

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is sending strong signals that U.S. troop reductions in Iraq will slow or stop altogether this summer, a move that would jeopardize hopes of relieving strain on the Army and Marine Corps and revive debate over an open-ended U.S. commitment in Iraq.

The indications of a likely slowdown reflect concern by U.S. commanders that the improvement in security in Iraq since June _ to a degree few had predicted when President Bush ordered five more Army brigades to Iraq a year ago _ is tenuous and could be reversed if the extra troops come out too soon.

One of those extra brigades left in December and the other four are due to come out by July, leaving 15 brigades, or roughly 130,000 to 135,000 troops _ the same number as before Bush sent the reinforcements.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is scheduled to report to the president and to Congress in April on possible additional cutbacks and any recommended changes in strategy. Petraeus recently said it would be prudent to "let things settle a bit" after the current round of troop cuts is completed in July before deciding whether and when to reduce further.

Majority Democrats in Congress have pressed unsuccessfully to wind down the war quickly, in part out of concern that more firepower should be transferred to Afghanistan, where the security situation has deteriorated. Reluctance by Bush to continue the troop drawdown beyond July is likely to trigger a new round of conflict with the anti-war Democrats, especially with the November elections looming.

Petraeus seems at this point to be inclined to declare a pause in troop reductions after July, although no decisions have been made and there are competing pressures from within the Pentagon. The Army in particular wants additional reductions to enable it to shorten Iraq tours from 15 months to 12 months. The longer tours are among pressures that Army leaders fear could break the force.

Petraeus speaks regularly with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials to keep them informed of his thinking, although he has not yet made a recommendation to Bush. A senior administration official said Petraeus has made clear he is "concerned about a rush to 10" _ a reference to the 10-brigade force level that some administration officials see as an attractive target to hit by the time Bush leaves the White House a year from now.

The administration official said "it really is not determined" yet whether conditions in Iraq will permit further cutbacks. The official briefed reporters last week at the White House on condition of anonymity.

Story continues below

advertisement

With months to go before a decision has to be made about troop reductions in the second half of the year, it is possible that circumstances in Iraq will change, for better or for worse, in ways that cannot be foreseen. Thus Petraeus is likely to want as much time as possible before committing himself.

The first sign Bush might endorse a pause in troop reductions came earlier this month when he recounted for reporters his meeting with Petraeus in Kuwait on Jan. 12.

"My attitude is, if he (Petraeus) didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me, in order to make sure we succeed," Bush said. "I said to the general, if you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you."

In his State of the Union address Monday, Bush emphasized the risks _ with no mention of the benefits _ of continuing the cutbacks beyond July.

"Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders," Bush said. "General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the `disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, al-Qaida-Iraq regaining lost ground, (and) a marked increase in violence.'"

He added: "Having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow this to happen."

In referring to Petraeus' concern about the risk of a "disintegration" of Iraq's security forces, Bush appeared to be quoting from the general's testimony to Congress in September. In those remarks Petraeus cited a Defense Intelligence Agency report on what might happen if there were a rapid withdrawal of American combat forces, not specifically a cut from 15 brigades to 10 brigades.

Gates has stated publicly several times in recent weeks that he hopes conditions in Iraq will permit the withdrawal of an additional five brigades by the end of the year. That would leave a total of 10 brigades in combat, numbering about 100,000 troops. That compares with today's total of 157,000.

In brief remarks to The Associated Press during a visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Gates gave no indication that he has changed his view.

"I've said I would hope that we would continue the pace of withdrawals and that conditions on the ground would permit the withdrawals to continue in the second half of the year. That's where I still am," he said.

Although Bush regularly cites Petraeus as the adviser on whom he relies for decisions on Iraq, the general is not the only senior official who will have a say in whether to continue with troop reductions.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday that Gates will offer his views, as will Adm. William J. Fallon, the Central Command chief who is doing his own assessment of Iraq in light of U.S. military requirements elsewhere in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. In addition, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is heading another review with the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

The president met Tuesday in the Cabinet Room with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commanders, including Fallon, and later was having dinner with the military leaders and their spouses. Bush said he was going to talk with them about the war on terror and their common desire to protect America.

Petraeus himself is publicly cautious about troop levels in Iraq.

In remarks on CNN on Sunday, Petraeus said he is still analyzing conditions in Iraq and may want to wait until after this current series of troop reductions is completed in July before setting a new course.

"We will, though, need to have some time to let things settle a bit, if you will, after we complete the withdrawal" in July of the five brigades, he said, noting that losing five brigades reduces his total combat power by one-quarter.

"We think (it) would be prudent to do some period of assessment, then to make decisions," he added.

___

On the Net:

Pentagon: http://www.defenselink.mil

Comments

[johnnycanuck]

He seems to like pissing most people off . He ( bush ), is so predictable , If anyone out there in the anti-bush club thinks this Chimp will do anything else other than piss them off ..they are dreaming . Bye the way ...I'm pissed off .

[chronic]

Bush Reverses Plan For Troop Drawdown









See, if this were a Democrat. The Headline would have the words "Flip flop"!!!






The media is anti Democrat and anti Liberal.

[GayGrandpa]

I would be mad as a hornet...in the early seventies following my graduation from high school the draft board was after me. I fought back...five of my eight brothers had served or were serving, two were in Nam at the time...I said, no way! I told my mom I am not going to leave you...I would rather die or go to prison.

I was the oldest son on a large dairy farm in Michigan. My father had died of a heart attack in the middle sixties...and I was there with my mother and my baby brother and these bastards were going to try to draft me.

I said no way, I fought the draft board and won...today...I see what goes on and I wonder how these families can have any love for country.

This war is equally sucky as Nam and although Communism at the time may have seemed a worthy advisory but I rather doubt that greed is an equal worthy reason to lay one's life down.

Bush and Cheney should be imprisoned for starting this unnecessary war. They are war criminals and those who support them have bloodied their hands. Shame on all who rushed into this war. Shame on the immorality of our leaders AND WOULD BE leaders!

Shame on Bush, Cheney and Hillary Clinton!

[RedRooster]

The decision to invade Iraq was,

"the most profligate and worst decision in the history of American foreign policy"

~Tom Ricks - MTP 12/10/06

[watchingthings]

Bush never intended to draw down the troops. He only said it so he'd have something to say at his "state of the union address". He'll probably increase troops to Iraq so he can keep all his bases there. He'll need those bases for as long as the oil lasts. Once they have stolen the oil..."bases be damned"

[provgrays]

Another round of "Waiting For Petraeus". Haven't we done this before and does anybody understand that generals follow orders instead of making policy?

[realitytrumpsbull]

Do I have to act shocked or awed? I'm not.

[SAMMY7]

Hey Huff Po-are you like Russert bias against Clinton? Are you going to report her win....certainly a 20 point win is significant even with no delegates.

[A Meat Beetle]

I thought the surge was working. I thought al Qaida was on the run. I thought we were making progress. Seems to me that, if all that is true, we could begin standing down.

[A Meat Beetle]

Bush: "I am going to bring our brave soldiers home so they can be with their families, where they belong...PSYCH!!!"

[RedRooster]

That's okay.

The retarded simian's press office may have some ideas about the ongoing military occupation of Iraq, but the next Democratic president will bring this all to a rapid end...that is...if the Emerald City in the Green Zone (aka US Embassy) isn't blasted into oblivion first.

Hell, even the idiot known as "Dubya" in his final budget proposal hasn't requested funding for his Mesopotamian Military Misadventure beyond April 2009.

Get Ready Folks.

There's an anti-war freight train a comin'.

And it's about goddam time!

[DallasNE]

So what does this mean? Bush and McCain have spoken of victory as a direct result of the surge. But if there is victory, why do troop levels need to be maintained at the same level as before the surge? So what has the surge accomplished, if we are right back where we were when we started?

Is this the old give me six more months for the 8th time? When do these 6 month extensions end, if ever? Why didn't the last 6-month extension have the predicted result. And the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that. How will trying the same thing for the 9th time have a different result that the last 8 failures.

[zenhead]

Big surprise!! Bush is more concerned about Iraq exploding in front of the electorate while still in office. Republican sycophants and weenies will back him to the hilt. They don't want to see things decompensate now, in the election cycle. This is what happens when addicts push pass their red lights and do the wrong thing ... to maintain their habit ... i.e., "power addiction" at all costs.
I think and hope that General Casey and Secretary Gates will refuse to endorse a plan which keeps these poor troops in Iraq even longer. Go to Army Times and see which units have served the greatest number of months in Iraq. Some have served between 41 and 48 months when their current deployments are completed.
Pretty poor thing to do to the troops. But then who would have ever thought President Bush and Vice President Cheney give a crap about the troops.

[gcallaghan]

Republicans = Military Failure

[lornejl]

McCain was right , we will be in Iraq for 100 years, Iraq is 3rd in importance to Americans, and sinking fast, maybe the floundering economy is a good thing for war profiteers, it takes the sheep's minds off of our imperialist occupation .