NP Rank:
Should We Stay or Should We Go Now?
President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.In a 15-minute address from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT, Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, following their appearance at two days of hearings in Congress, administration officials said. The White House plans to issue a written status report on the troop buildup on Friday, they said.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Bush's speech is not yet final. Bush was rehearsing and polishing his remarks even as the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker were presenting their arguments for a second day on Capitol Hill.
In the speech, the president will say he understands Americans' deep concerns about U.S. involvement in Iraq and their desire to bring the troops home, they said. Bush will say that, after hearing from Petraeus and Crocker, he has decided on a way forward that will reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos, according to the officials.
The address will stake out a conciliatory tone toward Congress. But while mirroring Petraeus' strategy, Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that now-unforeseen events could change the plan.
Petraeus recommended that a 2,000-member Marine unit return home this month without replacement. That would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. Under the general's plan, another four combat brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008.
That could leave the U.S. with as few as 130,000-135,000 troops in Iraq, down from about 168,000 now, although Petraeus was not precise about whether all the about 8,000 support troops sent with those extra combat forces would be withdrawn by July.
Petraeus said he foresaw even deeper troop cuts beyond July, but he recommended that Bush wait until at least March to decide when to go below 130,000 — and at what pace.
At the White House, Bush met with House and Senate lawmakers of both parties and he publicly pledged to consider their views. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the president didn't talk about the nationwide address.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush appears poised merely to bring the country back to where it was before the election that put Democrats in control of Congress — with 130,000 troops in Iraq.
"Please. It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq," she said. "We're as disappointed as the public is that the president has a tin ear to their opinion on this war."
In his speech, Bush will adopt Petraeus' call for more time to determine the pace and scale of future withdrawals and offer to report to Congress in March, one official said.
As Petraeus and Crocker have, Bush will acknowledge difficulties, and the fact that few of the benchmarks set by Congress to measure progress of the buildup have been met, the official said. Yet, he will stress that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would be a catastrophe for Iraq and U.S. interests.
The president will discuss "bottom up" security improvements, notably in Anbar Province, which he visited on Labor Day and where Sunni leaders have allied themselves with U.S. forces to fight insurgents. And, he will note incremental progress on the political front despite unhelpful roles played by Iran and Syria, the official said.
Crocker was particularly keen on detailing diplomatic developments, including Saudi Arabia's move to open an embassy in Baghdad and a third conference of Iraqi neighbors to be hosted by Turkey in Istanbul at the end of October.
Nothing will be enough to quiet Bush's critics. They are still sore from losing to him both in 2000 when Bush "stole" the election and in 2004 when the "draft dodger" beat the Vietnam vet. I hope that this move is not aimed at pacifying the anti-war crowd at home but is a strategically sound move.
And lets not delude ourselves into believing that the democrats would be doing anything different in Iraq. They get the briefings and if, God forbid, one of them gets elected in '08 there will be no immediate troop withdrawals. All of their caterwalling about the progress of the war is just a way to appease their base of far-left bloggers and "peace" activists. BigT









Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 05:03 on September 12th, 2007
It is my expectation that American and coalition forces will stay in Iraq in large numbers for at least 10 years no matter who becomes president, and there will be American forces at some level in Iraq for at least 50 years, if that's what it takes to drag the Islamists out of the seventh century.
at 06:42 on September 12th, 2007
It's worth pointing out, though, that Iraq was a secular state, and not Islamist. Baghdad was like LA: big and modern. (Also, like LA, it had lots of guys with guns runing around)