Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Petraeus: Limited troop withdrawal

By
September 10, 2007

Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. troops by next summer, beginning with a Marine contingent later this month.

In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter’s buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives “in large measure.”

As a result, he told a congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, “I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level … by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve.”

Testifying in a military uniform bearing four general’s stars and a chestful of medals, Petraeus said he had already provided his views to the military chain of command.

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House’s bidding, he said firmly: “I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress.”

His testimony came at a politically pivotal moment in the war, with the Democratic-controlled Congress pressing for a troop withdrawal deadline and the Bush administration hoping to prevent wholesale Republican defections on the issue.

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number stationed there last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

He said he believes withdrawals could continue even after the 30,000 extra troops go home, but he added that it would be premature to make any further recommendations.

Initial reaction from Democrats was sour.

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it was a “token withdrawal,” and Petraeus rebutted him swiftly.

“A very substantial withdrawal,” he countered.

Petraeus didn’t say so, but Ambassador Ryan Crocker strongly suggested that the administration’s troop buildup had prevented a debacle.

Testifying alongside the general, Crocker said 2006 was a “bad year for Iraq. The country came close to unraveling politically, economically and in security terms. 2007 has brought improvement.”

The extent of any improvement has been a matter of debate. The Government Accountability Office, a congressional agency, recently reported that Iraq has partially achieved only four of 18 political and military goals.

While Petraeus focused his remarks mostly on military matters, he also noted the failure thus far of the Iraqi government to take the actions needed to stabilize the country for the long term.

“Lack of adequate governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and various forms of corruption add to Iraq’s challenges,” he said.

Using 13 pages of colorful charts, Petraeus said “the level of security incidents has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June of 2006.”

Petraeus also said the Iraqi military is slowly gaining competence and gradually “taking on more responsibility for their security.”

He cited Anbar province as an example of Iraqis turning against terrorists, adding, “We are seeing similar actions in other locations as well.”

Bush and his political allies have worked forcefully in recent weeks to shore up Republican support. One organization with ties to the administration has spent millions on television advertisements, and Bush traveled to Anbar province last week to highlight improved security in the vast western stretches of Iraq.

Bush also called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the hours before Petraeus spoke, and is expected to deliver a nationwide address on the war in the next few days.

Despite the administration’s efforts, fresh polls reflected significant public opposition to the war.

An AP-Ipsos survey found that only 36 percent of those questioned believe the troop increase has helped stabilize Iraq. That was up only marginally from 32 percent in February, as the buildup was beginning.

A USA Today-Gallup poll taken in the past few days found that 60 percent of those surveyed favor setting a timetable for removing troops. Only 35 percent favor keeping the troops in Iraq until the situation improves.

Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were the only witnesses at a nationally televised hearing punctuated by numerous protests by anti-war demonstrators. Cindy Sheehan, a prominent critic of the war, was among those hustled from the room by police.

Over and over, Rep. Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat presiding, ordered police to remove the demonstrators. “This is intolerable,” he said at one point.

Skelton and fellow lawmakers spoke first, as is customary in Congress, and Petraeus listened to more than 45 minutes of political rhetoric. His testimony was delayed another 10 minutes by a malfunctioning microphone, but when he began to speak, the lawmakers arrayed on the dais across from him listened intently.

Crocker followed Petraeus to the microphone, and employed some of the most stark rhetoric of the hearing.

Saying al-Qaida had “overplayed its hand” in Anbar province, he said, “Anbaris began to reject its excesses, be they beheading school children or cutting off people’s fingers for smoking.”

Skelton, a moderate midwesterner and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, welcomed Petraeus to the hearing with wistful words of praise.

Petraeus is “almost certainly the right man for the job in Iraq, but he’s the right person three years too late and 250,000 troops short,” he said.

The war is in its fifth year and has claimed the lives of more than 3,700 U.S. troops.

Petraeus’ greeting elsewhere wasn’t nearly as warm as Skelton’s praise.

“Cooking the books for the White House,” charged the newspaper advertisement by MoveOn.Org — an allegation that Republicans swiftly challenged Democrats to disavow.

Nearly two dozen senators, all Republicans except for Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, called for Democrats to denounce the advertisement.

Democrats have been critical of Petraeus, but not nearly as scathing — or as personal — as the MoveOn advertisement.

“General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” it asked, a wordplay on his name.

16 Responses to Petraeus: Limited troop withdrawal

  1. Steve Horn

    September 11, 2007 at 10:01 am

    “I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level … by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve.”

    I’m not a lawyer, but I did take a few business law classes in my college years and had a law prof who used to say “don’t tell me what you believe, don’t tell me what you feel, tell me what you know”

    What he believes is meaningless, believing that some event may happen means nothing, belief in Santa Claus doesn’t make him real. General, Sir, in all due respect, tell us when you KNOW the troops will be coming home.

  2. JudyB

    September 11, 2007 at 11:26 am

    The war in Iraq is now and always has been a campaign of deception perpetrated by Bush/Cheney etc.
    The only reason we are still there is that there are oil rights at stake, and the fact that “We The People” have had our voices & votes ignored once again. What we heard yesterday was exactly what the White House wanted us to hear, not the truth bound by an oath preceding it. The highly decorated Gen. Petraeus may have written his own report with no one telling him what to say, but I have absolutely NO REASON TO BELIEVE HIM and I don’t!!!!!

    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Adolf Hitler

  3. Donnat

    September 11, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Did anyone doubt it would be vague promises and double speak? Every day you can pull up a news site and see that we’re going to send more troops or we’re going to reduce troop levels. But nothing changes.

    And you know things gotta be rough for Bush when he sneaks into Iraq again for a quick photo-op.

    Donnat

  4. nuQler Ostrich

    September 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    General Pinnochio…

    Only it isn’t his nose that grows when he lies, it’s the number of stars on his shoulder.

    Give that man The Medal of Freedom!

  5. Bill Robinson

    September 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    More lies from the military and more inaction from Congress.
    We need to end the war now, today, not next year. Bring home our troops before more die nedlessly in an illegal war started and maintained to enrich our executive and legislative representatives.
    What a contradiction in terms is THAT word–‘representatives’. They represent their own financial interests, nothing more.
    Dump em all, dump on em all
    Bill Robinson

  6. bryan mcclellan

    September 10, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    I watched, I listened, same old line,different messengers.Smirkco’s fingerprints are all over the testimony.Anbar holds 5% of the population and this was the example used to sell the lie of reduced violence in Iraq meaning progress has been made.The rest of the bull they squeegeed out for us were the same circular arguments we’ve been hearing all along.We end up where we started,bleeding our military,bleeding our economy.Crocker rolled out the line that we have to make it safe for investors and pulling back would jeopardize gains we have made.Who pray tell are these investors? You can bet the fallen and the American tax payer are not among them.This is purely a corporate war,no more no less, and Crocker made that perfectly clear when he let that cat out of the bag of smirkco shit he hauled before the committee.Shameless Sons of Bitches.Oh and by the way,I tuned in at the beginning and don’t recall either man taking an oath to tell the truth and nothing but..Interesting No?

  7. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    September 10, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    And many Dems are singing the Chimps song too.

    Bush is singing: “All I am saying is give General Betrayer a Chance”!

  8. shag11

    September 10, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    Petraeus is a liar. He’s beholden to his boss, and in the face of all other sane people telling how poorly things are in almost all of Iraq, he chooses to lie.

  9. adamrussell

    September 10, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Either he is telling the truth or moveon.org is telling the truth when they called him a liar.

  10. nuQler Ostrich

    September 10, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    So let’s get this straight… In 9 months, our troop deployment will look like it did 9 months ago.

    And then something might happen, or might not happen.

    Or something…

    Gawd, I swear I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole and wound up on the other side of the looking glass.

  11. acf

    September 11, 2007 at 2:53 am

    In the 2006 elections, the voters told Bush and the then Republican majority that it was over, enough was enough. It wasn’t an invitation to try different things to ‘stay the course’. It wasn’t an invitation to negotiate. It was the end, Get out of Iraq.

  12. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    September 11, 2007 at 3:43 am

    Bush is trying to to co-opt the Democrats empty message of trying to end the occupation and draw down the troop levels, and of course, the Dems are all to happy to roll over anyway, but this makes it worse. It’s war of the babblers between Shrub, Republikaners & Wobblykrats, the hollow men.
    It’s funny, the Chimp can’t degrade the Democratic party to much since they’re already as lowly as they could be.

  13. SEAL

    September 11, 2007 at 4:56 am

    I couldn’t watch the testimony today because I had to be at the hospital for tests. I really wanted to get the visual because I am old military brass and I can tell what line of bullshit one of us is presenting just by watching and listening. What you have to understand about military brass is the only time they speak the absolute truth is when the bullets and bombs are making them duck.

    From what I have read about the general’s presentation I can tell he was telling the truth without giving a true picture of the situation. That is an art form used by all of them. The mentality is to never lie because being caught in an actual lie about facts is a career ender. But you can present the facts in whatever way you think will cause people to conclude what you want them to. It’s obvious that the general has attempted to lead congress to accept what his boss wants which is a continuation of Bush’s unrestricted control of the war. His job was to provide the excuse for congressmen and senators to go along with the crime.

    Now, we wait to see what congress will do. Don’t be surprised if, after all the condeming rhetoric, we hear just enough of the senators of both parties saying words to the effect that “I just hate to have to do this but we are forced allow this thing go on for a few more months and see if the general’s promises come true.” Of course, they will make it sound much better than I can.

    On the other hand, there is so much pressure on those repugnants coming up for reelection that they may force Bush to accept some sort of timelines. But those would just be for show to get them off the political hook. Bush can accept timelines because he knows he can ignore them when the time comes and the only thing that will happen is a lot of uproar. He knows this congress will never impeach him.

    We all know this congress will not do what should be done and flatly tell Bush there will be no more funds for anything other than a plan for a complete withdrawal of all US forces by a certain date next year. I would estimate that no more than 25% of congress would support that. All the rest would rather authorize the crime. And, if you wonder why I continue to call it a crime, I do so because our invasion of Iraq is a war crime by definition. That is a fact.

  14. SEAL

    September 11, 2007 at 4:57 am

    I couldn’t watch the testimony today because I had to be at the hospital for tests. I really wanted to get the visual because I am old military brass and I can tell what line of bullshit one of us is presenting just by watching and listening. What you have to understand about military brass is the only time they speak the absolute truth is when the bullets and bombs are making them duck.

    From what I have read about the general’s presentation I can tell he was telling the truth without giving a true picture of the situation. That is an art form used by all of them. The mentality is to never lie because being caught in an actual lie about facts is a career ender. But you can present the facts in whatever way you think will cause people to conclude what you want them to. It’s obvious that the general has attempted to lead congress to accept what his boss wants which is a continuation of Bush’s unrestricted control of the war. His job was to provide the excuse for congressmen and senators to go along with the crime.

    Now, we wait to see what congress will do. Don’t be surprised if, after all the condeming rhetoric, we hear just enough of the senators of both parties saying words to the effect that “I just hate to have to do this but we are forced allow this thing go on for a few more months and see if the general’s promises come true.” Of course, they will make it sound much better than I can.

    On the other hand, there is so much pressure on those repugnants coming up for reelection that they may force Bush to accept some sort of timelines. But those would just be for show to get them off the political hook. Bush can accept timelines because he knows he can ignore them when the time comes and the only thing that will happen is a lot of uproar. He knows this congress will never impeach him.

    We all know this congress will not do what should be done and flatly tell Bush there will be no more funds for anything other than a plan for a complete withdrawal of all US forces by a certain date next year. I would estimate that no more than 25% of congress would support that. All the rest would rather authorize the crime. And, if you wonder why I continue to call it a crime, I do so because our invasion of Iraq is a war crime by definition. That is a fact.

  15. nuQler Ostrich

    September 11, 2007 at 7:50 am

    It’s not just a WAR CRIME.

    It’s a violation of THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, under Article Six of the Constitution.

    Richard Perle admitted as much when he spoke at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London on November 19, 2003.

    The UN Charter is a treaty, ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President [Truman] and states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”

    Article VI – “All treaties entered into… shall be the supreme law of the land.”

    Ooooops!

  16. Sandra Price

    September 11, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Petraeus was not sworn in prior to his testimony.

    House Democrats were on edge over any possible affront to Gen. David Petraeus during his Iraq War testimony.

    So much so that when former CIA officer Ray McGovern made the vocal suggestion — during a technical delay to fix a microphone — that the witness be sworn in, McGovern was forced to leave the hearing room.

    In this first-person account, McGovern notes that Petraeus then gave his pro-escalation testimony without ever swearing to tell the whole truth.

    For the full story, go to http://www.consortiumnews.com.