White House tonight: 'Return on Success' in Iraq

[thedrifter]

White House tonight: 'Return on Success' in Iraq
Chicago Tribune
by Mark Silva, and updated

President Bush will attach a theme to the war policy and withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from Iraq that he explains to a national television audience tonight from the Oval Office: “Return on Success’’

The president will embrace the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, the White House finally acknowledged today after days of speculation. That means a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq to roughly their “pre-surge’’ levels by the summer of 2008.

Initially, that means 2,200 Marines will return home this month, according to a senior administration official. They will be followed by an Army brigade later this year – “meaning … by Christmas, 5,700 troops coming home, without being replaced.’’

By the summer of 2008, five Army brigades, a Marine expeditionary unit and a Marine battalion will be withdrawn, the White House says. That amounts to roughly 18,000 troops -- though combat brigades are supported by many units, making it impossible for the White House or Defense Department to say today, specifically, how many will come home by next summer.

“After consulting with the joints chiefs of staff’’ and with congressional leaders, the senior administraton official said today, “the president has concluded that he is going to accept the recommendations of the general and ambassador’’ to Iraq, Ryan Crocker.

“The more we succeed, the more troops we can bring home from Iraq,’’ the official said. "The president calls this policy, ‘Return on Success.’’’

Ultimately, the U.S. military force in Iraq will be reduced from 20 brigades to 15 brigades by mid-July 2008 – conditions in Iraq permitting. There are 169,000 stationed in Iraq today, which could mean a return to nearly the level of roughly 130,000 troops deployed in Iraq before the president announced a “surge’’ in forces in Baghdad and the western Anbar province in January.

The White House, however, says it cannot set a firm figure on the numbers of troops that will be withdrawn because they will involve not only combat but also supporting forces.

What will be withdrawn by the summer of 2008: Five Army brigades (typically about 3,500 soldiders in each), a Marine expeditionary unit (typically 2,500 Marines) and two Marine battalions (usually about 600 Marines each.) A Defense Department official said today that the DoD cannot specify today how many fewer support people will be needed as a result of that redeployment of Iraq.

All of this is based on the premise that their withdrawal will not jeopardize security in Iraq.

“It is a gradual change in mission based on conditions,’’ another administration official said today, as the White House briefed reporters about the speech that Bush will deliver at 9 pm EDT from the Oval Office. “The president is very clear that we want to rely on conditions on the ground, not the calendar.’’

As forces are withdrawn, the U.S. mission also is shifting from a leading role in the security of Iraq to a supporting role.

“You will see U.S. troops doing less of the leading in combat patrols… and more and more enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves,’’ the second official said. “Before the mission was very enemy-focused, follow him wherever he goes… It was not the sort of neighborhood protection that has been the policy since January… It is now focused on population-security.

“Unless we’re going to be in Iraq forever, ultimately Iraq belongs to Iraqis,’’ the second official said.

Asked about prospects for U.S. force deployments beyond the summer of 2008, the official said the U.S. can expect to have “a long-term, bilateral… relationship with Iraq.’’

Petraeus will make “a fresh assessment’’ of the situation in March, the White House says, to determine what if any drawdown can be made beyond mid-July of 2008.

Asked about congressional leaders criticizing the White House for making an “open-ended commitment’’ of troops, the administration argues that it is preparing the stage for the next administration, with hopes of “long-term’’ security in Iraq.

“What the president has said is that, obviously, he wants to get our position in Iraq into a good place for the next president to come in,’’ the first official said. “I do think the public has seen tangible signs of success in Iraq through the summer… I think also the American people have seen consistent calls for the president to bring troops home from Iraq based on political dynamics.

“The president has steadfastly resisted that, and said, ‘I am going to base decisions relative to conditions on the ground,’’’ the official said. “We do want to see the Iraqis meet the benchmarks they agreed to.’’ The White House must report to Congress by Saturday on Iraq’s progress in meeting 18 benchmarks – with the General Accountability Office already having reported that Iraqi leaders have failed to meet most of the 18 set as a condition for continued congressional funding of the war in Iraq.

“There are other tangible signs of progress that matter,’’ the first senior administration official said today. “It also matters to you if your children can cross the street, and if they can go to school and if they can to market… That is happening in Anbar.’’

“We’re not moving the goal-post,’’ the official said, with the White House insisting that both senior officials not be identified by name. “The benchmarks are important. We want them to be met. However, they are not the only signs of progress and the only things to measure.’’

Posted by Mark Silva on September 13, 2007 3:27 PM

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Iraq: Bush pledges US partial troop withdrawal
Adnkronos

Washington, 14 Sept. (AKI) - US president George Bush has made a televised address to the nation announcing the partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Bush late on Thursday said the number of troops would be reduced by 5,700 personnel by Christmas, while another 2,200 marines would not be replaced when they leave the sprawling central province of Anbar later this month.

Thousands more would be withdrawn by July 2008 when the number of combat brigades is reduced from 20 to 15.

"Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly," Bush said. "Along with the Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January.

"Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains."

He said he had accepted the advice of the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who gave a progress report to Congress earlier this week.

The plan would reduce troop numbers by around 30,000 by mid-2008 - back to the level they were before Bush ordered a "surge" at the start of this year.

"Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and eventually to overwatching those forces," he said.

"As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks."

"The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," he said.

Bush's speech followed the news that a key Sunni ally of the US had been killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq.

Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, led the Anbar Salvation Council, an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that rose up against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Nevertheless Bush applauded the progress he claimed was being made to counter al-Qaeda in Anbar province.

"The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out," he said. "They show al- Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base."

Ellie

[thedrifter]

THE KOREA PARALLEL
NY POST

September 14, 2007 -- President Bush last night told the nation that he will order a modest reduction in U.S. combat strength in Iraq, but he revealed no dramatic changes in overall policy - effectively consigning the future of Iraq, if not the entire Middle East, to the American presidential political process.

For better or for worse.

Some 5,700 soldiers and Marines likely will be withdrawn from Iraq by December, with about four brigades being removed in a year, if conditions allow - although not on a specific timetable.

At the same time, senior administration officials have made it clear all week that they intend for there to be a major U.S. military presence in Iraq for years.

Bush has essentially accepted the political and military recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker - who evaluated the U.S. mission in Iraq and developed specific proposals for both the immediate future and the long term.

"This week, [Petraeus and Crocker] testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing . . . These men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working."

Presidential candidates from both parties quickly hopped on the address - and they'll be picking its bones for weeks.

Suffice it to say that their own perceived best interests - far more than Iraq's, or maybe even America's - will inform the coming debate.

Thing is, one of them is going to be elected president of the United States in 15 months, and that person will no longer be free to address the Middle East with irresponsible rhetoric and little else.

Reality will have intruded.

The calumnies Petraeus and Crocker have endured all week in Washington suggest that the coming campaign will be among the most bitter in American history - more bitter even than the last two, if that's possible.

There are historical parallels with this - one being Vietnam, which roiled American politics for a decade.

But a more apt analogy may the Korean War, and the campaign of 1952.

The U.S. mission to Iraq - in the heart of a region with profound U.S. economic and security interests - will take years to complete successfully.

And, in that respect, Iraq may prove to be another Korea - a seemingly stalemated war in a strategically vital region that dominated a bitterly partisan presidential campaign.

It took decades before most Americans came to understand that the Korean conflict, which ended in military and diplomatic stalemate, played a pivotal role in halting Soviet expansion into east Asia.

And, more than 54 years after the fighting ended, America still maintains a significant military presence there - because the region is still a tinderbox.

But who today would seriously argue against the efficacy of the effort?

Today, the Middle East is the world's most dangerous region. Iran and Syria continue to destabilize the area, mostly through surrogate terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda in Iraq.

A precipitous American withdrawal would not only set the stage for a potential bloodbath in Iraq, but also endanger vital U.S. interests.

Look at it this way: If Hurricane Humberto could push global oil prices over $80 per barrel, imagine what they'll be if Hurricane al Qaeda ever makes landfall in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf Emirates.

And then there is Iran - yearning for regional hegemony and who knows how many (or few) years away from deliverable nuclear weapons.

Bottom line: America's duty is clear - and the debate is largely between those who accept that, and those who don't.

But history won't be fooled.

The Korean War ended when the incoming commander-in-chief arrived with the credibility to force a conclusion that contained the Communists and preserved vital American interests.

Is there a Dwight David Eisenhower anywhere in the presidential herd?

That is the question.

Ellie