A cut in Iraq, but definitely no
running By Heather Maher
WASHINGTON - In front of a packed hearing
room on Capitol Hill on Monday, the top US
commander in Iraq told US lawmakers that the
"surge" in American troops in that country is
beginning to have its intended effect.
The
military objectives of the "surge" are, in large
measure, being met, General David Petraeus said.
"In recent months, in the face of tough enemies
and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition
and
Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in
the security arena."
Iraqi security
forces improving Using charts to make his
points, the four-star general said civilian deaths
have declined by more than 40% since December, and
car-bombings and suicide attacks are also down,
although the numbers are still at "troubling
levels".
But the US military has made
"substantial progress against al-Qaeda and its
affiliates in Iraq" and Iraqi security forces are
becoming stronger and taking on more
responsibility, he said.
"Iraqi security
forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder
more of the load, albeit slowly, and amid
continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies
of some elements in their ranks," Petraeus said.
"In general, however, Iraqi elements have been
standing, and fighting, and sustaining tough
losses, and they have taken the lead in operations
in many areas."
First US troops out by
the end of 2007 The US commander said
things are going well enough that US troop numbers
can be brought back to pre-"surge" levels - about
130,000 - by next summer. The addition of 30,000
soldiers this summer brought the current number of
US troops in Iraq to 168,000.
But Petraeus
warned that a premature withdrawal of US forces
could have "devastating effects", and he urged
lawmakers against even setting a deadline to make
a decision.
"I do not believe it is
reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for
the pace of further reductions and mission
adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about
mid-March of next year," he said.
(In
Baghdad, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh
responded to Petraeus' comments by saying his
country would be comfortable with a gradual
withdrawal of US troops as long as it was first
discussed with the Iraqi government.)
Crocker 'disappointed' but hopeful After Petraeus' testimony, US Ambassador to
Iraq Ryan Crocker testified on the political
situation in that country and sounded cautiously
optimistic that it can achieve peace within its
borders and within the region.
"A secure,
stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its
neighbors is, in my view, attainable," he said.
"The cumulative trajectory of political, economic
and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards,
although the slope of that line is not steep."
Crocker acknowledged that he is
disappointed at the slow pace of progress by the
Iraqi government on legislative benchmarks, but he
pointed out that slow progress is not the same as
no progress, and reminded the committee that the
military surge didn't reach full strength until
June.
"Our country has given a great deal
of blood and treasure to stabilize the situation
in Iraq and help Iraqis build institutions for a
united, democratic country governed under the rule
of law," he said. "Realizing this vision will take
more time and patience on the part of the United
States."
The top US diplomat in Iraq also
told lawmakers that Iran will achieve a measure of
victory if the US abandons the fight in Iraq. In
his meetings with Iranian officials on Iraqi
stability issues, Crocker said, he came away
unconvinced that Iran is sincere in its desire to
help. The Islamic Republic will try to consolidate
its power and influence if Iraq is allowed to fall
into chaos, he warned. "The impression I came
away with after a couple of rounds [with Iranian
negotiators] is that the Iranians were interested
simply in the appearance of discussions, of being
seen to be at the table with the US as an arbiter
of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually
doing serious business," Crocker said.
Anti-war protesters interrupt
hearing Before Petraeus' appearance in
Congress, Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a
policy-research center in Washington, told Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty that the debate on the
Iraq war strategy has been overly focused on troop
levels. He said that US troops' presence should be
balanced with other factors, including the Iraqi
government's efforts to reconcile the country's
sectarian factions.
"We are talking about
a time frame where we are far too focused on troop
reductions. If you don't have Iraqi political
conciliation by next spring, it's not clear that
the central government, with its present
structure, can hold together, with or without the
present prime minister.
"If you do have
political conciliation, even if it's only a
serious beginning, then the pressure on US troops
is going to go way down and the critics of the war
are going to lose, really, the fundamental issue,
which is not US troop levels but the fact that
we're fighting without watching an Iraqi
government create the kind of national unity and
conciliation that offer a clear reason to sustain
our presence in Iraq," said Cordesman.
"The difficulty you have is, until you
have political conciliation [among Iraqis], you
find it very difficult to reduce troops because
you've committed them forward; they're in local
areas. We have a strategy now of not simply
winning, which we had in the past, but winning and
holding so we can secure the area and create a
political and economic climate in which people can
have a normal life and establish some kind of
links to the central government," said Cordesman.
The testimony of Petraeus and Crocker on
Monday comes at a critical time for the US
administration. President George W Bush's policy
of adding more troops in hopes of giving Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri a-Maliki's government more
time to make significant political strides is on
trial with members of the US Congress - who hold
the purse strings when it comes to future war
funding.
Opinion polls show that most
Americans want to start bringing the troops home
now. With the next election little more than one
year away, lawmakers are keenly aware of the need
to reflect public sentiment if they want to hold
on to their seats.
Indeed, even before
Petraeus began to speak, anti-war protesters
threatened to steal the show inside the
congressional hearing room.
In a scene
reminiscent of the political hearings during the
Vietnam War, anti-war hecklers interrupted
Petraeus' testimony several times and committee
co-chairman Ike Skelton had to warn the audience
repeatedly against causing disruption.
Petraeus' appearance before Congress was
mandated by legislators last May, when they
approved the last round of war funding. Lawmakers
insisted that the money be tied to a status report
three months on. Since al-Qaeda attacked the
United States on September 11, 2001, Congress has
provided some US$600 billion for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, with about 70% of that going to
Iraq.
Monday's hearing was the first of
three this week on the future of the war and comes
in advance of Bush's own address to the public,
expected by Friday, on his plans for US engagement
in Iraq.
Heather Maher is a
senior correspondent in RFE/RL's Washington
bureau.
(Copyright 2007, RFE/RL Inc.
Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20036.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
