Bush's plan for troop cut draws fire
Up to 30,000 could go by summer. That's too little, critics say. He will speak to the nation tomorrow.
WASHINGTON - Plans by President Bush to announce a withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Iraq by next summer drew sharp criticism yesterday from Democratic leaders and a handful of Republicans in Congress, who vowed to try again to force Bush to accept a more dramatic change of policy.
White House aides said they were working on a 20-minute prime-time speech that Bush will give tomorrow night, in which he will endorse the main elements of the strategy outlined on Capitol Hill this week by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.
They said Bush planned to emphasize that he was in a position to order troop cuts only because of success achieved on the ground in Iraq and that he was not being swayed by political opposition. Aides said he planned to outline once again what he sees as the dire consequences of failure in Iraq and said he would make the troop cuts conditional on continued military gains.
Yesterday's second day of testimony by Petraeus and Crocker yielded some of the most biting GOP objections since Bush announced his troop buildup in January. Several Republicans said Petraeus' proposal to draw down troops through the middle of next summer would result in force levels equivalent to where they stood before the increase began, about 130,000 troops.
After meeting with Bush yesterday at the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) expressed similar dismay with the Petraeus plan. The general has refused to commit to further reductions until he can assess conditions on the ground in March.
Pelosi said she told Bush he was essentially endorsing a 10-year "open-ended commitment." Reid said the president wanted "no change in mission - this is more of the same."
Bush did not tell congressional leaders exactly what he planned to announce tomorrow night but left the clear impression "he was going to follow Petraeus' advice," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.).
Administration officials also told the Associated Press that the White House planned to issue a written status report Friday on the troop buildup.
Although some Republicans, such as Rep. James Walsh of New York, came out yesterday against Bush's war policy, administration officials and outside lobbyists said they detected little change in the basic politics of Iraq in Congress, where a majority of lawmakers want to bring the war to a faster close but lack the votes to overcome a Bush veto.
However, the new criticism from some unexpected quarters in the GOP had leaders in both chambers casting about for new formulas that might attract bipartisan support. Such legislation might include calls to shift the mission in Iraq and to begin troop withdrawals - but without the hard and fast timelines that have previously invited Bush veto threats.
Even Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R., N.C.), a mainstream conservative who has never publicly strayed from the administration's position on Iraq, made clear she would now support "what some have called action-forcing measures."
In their testimony yesterday, Petraeus and Crocker reprised the generally optimistic points they made to two House committees Monday. Appearing before the Senate's Foreign Relations and Armed Services panels, Petraeus said the additional troops had helped reduce violence in Iraq, and Crocker said he was hopeful that the Iraqis were beginning to take small steps toward political reconciliation.
However, the two men could not offer the assurances lawmakers sought. Asked by Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) whether the Iraqis could achieve reconciliation by the end of this administration, Crocker said: "I could not put a timeline on it or a target date."
When Sen. John W. Warner (R., Va.) asked Petraeus whether the new policy would make the United States safer, he replied: "Sir, I don't know, actually." Later in the hearing, the general sought to amend his answer to yes, telling Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.): "We have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq."
The tone of the questions yesterday was more skeptical and carried a harder edge than what greeted the two men before the House panels. Several senior Republicans who have already voiced skepticism about Bush's Iraq policy raised pointed doubts that a six-month continuation of the buildup would have much effect on resolving Iraq's fundamental problems - as did a number of vulnerable GOP incumbents who are considered swing votes on forthcoming Iraq legislation.
Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said she could not accept having the same number of troops in Iraq in 10 months as there were 10 months ago, as would be the case if Bush adopted Petraeus' recommendation.
"How does continuing the same strategy prompt the Iraqis to take a different direction?" she asked.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R., Minn.), another swing voter, pressed Petraeus and Crocker to offer an assurance that "we are on a path" to political reconciliation. The two men repeated their mantra that progress was being made, albeit slowly and perhaps not in the manner they had once hoped.
Collins said she would double efforts to pass legislation she cosponsored with Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) to mandate a change of mission away from combat and toward training Iraqi forces, countering terrorism, guarding borders, and protecting U.S. assets. The legislation would not mandate troop withdrawals, but, she said, she has been advised that the remaining goals could be accomplished with 50,000 to 60,000 U.S. troops.
On a separate track, Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R., Ore.) said he had been meeting with Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) to revise legislation that would have required a timeline for withdrawal. Smith said the new version would turn hard deadlines for withdrawals into nonbinding goals.
'We Need to See a Strategy'
Quotes from yesterday's Senate panel hearings on Iraq:
If every single jihadi in the world was killed tomorrow, we'd still have a major, major war on our hands.
- Senate Foreign Relations Chairman
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D., Del.).
It is not enough for the administration to counsel patience until the next milestone or the next report.
We need to see a strategy for how our troops and
other resources in Iraq might be employed to fundamentally change the equation.
- Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar, ranking Republican
on the Foreign Relations Committee
Benchmarks go two ways, in my view, as a potential misleading indicator. And one of them is, I believe Iraqis could hit all of the benchmarks and still not achieve national reconciliation.
- Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, when asked
by Sen. Norm Coleman (R., Minn.) about
"objective measures of progress" in Iraq
Threatening to withdraw may harden something that we're trying to soften.
- Gen. David H. Petraeus, in response to questioning
about the United States' using leverage
to push the Iraqi government into progressing
I think that we should not have had this discussion on 9/11 or 9/10 or 9/12. Because I think it perpetuates this notion that, somehow, the original decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11.
- Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.)
It's not your fault, General. It's not Ambassador Crocker's fault. It's this administration's fault.
- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.)
And the recommendations you're making make it more likely that your own son is going to go to war. You know that, don't you?
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) to Petraeus,
who responded affirmatively
EndText
See video from the hearings via http://go.philly.com/
seniraq1
Read the prepared remarks by Petraeus and Crocker via http://go.philly.com/
seniraq
EndText