Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

4 Responses to “Secret US plan for military future in Iraq”

1. JohnKonop says:

   April 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

   Petraeus Calls for Troop Withdrawal Halt

   HP-The U.S. general commanding the Iraq war called Tuesday for an open-ended suspension of U.S. troop withdrawals this summer, reflecting concern about a recent flare-up in violence and leaving open the possibility that few, if any, additional troops will be brought home before President Bush leaves office in January.

   Gen. David Petraeus told a Senate hearing that he recommends a 45-day “period of consolidation and evaluation” once the extra combat forces that President Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause.

   “At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions,” Petraeus said.

   He did not commit to any additional troop withdrawals beyond July.

   “This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit,” he added. “This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable. However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard a sacrificed so much to achieve.”

   The plan gives Petraeus maximum flexibility at a time of rising violence in Baghdad and some others parts of the country. It runs counter to Democrats’ push for a more rapid reduction in the U.S. military commitment and a faster transfer of responsibility to the Iraqi government.

   Petraeus said his approach takes account of the fact that security gains achieved over the past year are fragile and reversible, and he said it is intended to “form a foundation for the gradual establishment of sustainable security in Iraq.” But he did not say when he thought that goal would be reached.

   “Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year,” Petraeus said.

   Bush has said he intended to accept Petraeus’ recommendation. On Thursday, the president will make a speech about the war, now in its sixth year, and his decision about troop levels.

   Under questioning by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus said he could not predict when troop reductions would be resumed or how many U.S. troops were likely to remain in Iraq by the end of this year. There currently are 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and the Pentagon has projected that when the scheduled troop withdrawals are completed in July there will be about 140,000 troops there.

   Levin reminded Petraeus that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said a pause in troop reductions should be brief, and the senator said the Petraeus plan amounted to an open-ended suspension.

   “What you’ve given to your chain of command is a plan which has no end to it,” Levin said. He asked Petraeus when he would be in position to recommend further troop cuts, once the 45-day evaluation period ends in September.

   “It could be right then, or it could be longer,” the general said. He declined to be pinned down, saying he would recommend further cuts when conditions were right.

   Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopeful who has been a sharp critic of the administration’s Iraq policy, asked Petraeus for more clarity on what factors he would take into consideration in deciding when he could recommend more troop reductions, but she did not press him at length. She reiterated her view that Bush’s policy has failed and that the time has arrived to disengage from Iraq in order to focus more fully on other security problems like Afghanistan.

   “It’s time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops,” she said.

   The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, attended the hearing as the committee’s ranking Republican.

   “Our goal _ my goal _ is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops,” McCain said. “And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that to promise a withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership.”

   During the exchange with Levin, the hearing was briefly interrupted by one protester repeatedly shouting, “Bring them home!” The protester was removed from the hearing room by two members of the Capitol Police force. In general the anti-war protests were less boisterous than at Petraeus’ testimony last September.

   Inside the packed hearing room, members of the group Code Pink scoffed loudly at suggestions by Petraeus that Iran was aiding the insurgency in Iraq and a comment by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., that detainee torture was a left-leaning delusion.

   Petraeus said the recent flare-up of violence in Basra, in Baghdad and elsewhere points up the importance of the cease-fire declared last year by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and highlighted the role Iran allegedly plays in funding and training Shiite militias through cells the U.S. military calls “special groups.”

   “Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus said.

   Testifying beside Petraeus was Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who echoed Petraeus’ assessment of real but fragile security gains.

   Crocker also focused on the violence in the southern city of Basra, where Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dispatched Iraqi security forces to combat Shiite militias.

   “Taken as a snapshot, with scenes of increasing violence, and masked gunmen in the streets, it is hard to see how this situation supports a narrative of progress in Iraq,” Crocker said. “There is still very much to be done to bring full government control to the streets of Basra and eliminate entrenched extremist, criminal, and militia groups. When viewed with a broader lens, the Iraqi decision to combat these groups in Basra has major significance.”
2. JohnKonop says:

   April 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm

   John McCain Repeats Al-Qaida Shiite Confusion

   John McCain again confused Shiites and Sunnis during today’s Senate Armed Services hearing, undermining suggestions that the conflation is simply a “McCain moment.”

   In the past month, the veneer of Sen. John McCain’s foreign policy expertise has been muddied by his repeated confusion of Sunnis and Shiites. During his Middle East tour, McCain repeatedly claimed that al-Qaida, a Sunni terrorist organization, was receiving funding and training from Shia Iran. Only later, after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered a correction in his ear, did McCain acknowledge his error. Nevertheless, MCain has since repeated the mistake.

   Lieberman’s lesson has not quite sunk in, it seems. While questioning Gen. David Petraeus about the presence of foreign fighters, McCain referred to al-Qaida in Iraq as a Shia organization. Realizing his error, he quickly added a reference to Sunnis:

   JOHN MCCAIN: “There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?”

   GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: “It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major a threat as it was say, 15 months ago.”

   MCCAIN: “Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?

   PETRAEUS: “No, sir.”

   MCCAIN: “Or Sunnis or anybody else then?

   WATCH VIDEO
3. JohnKonop says:

   April 8, 2008 at 4:39 pm

   Onward the Revolution!

   Pat J. Buchanan

   TH-Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a “realistic idealist,” he told the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles.

   But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a realist than he is a reflective man.

   Speaking of our five-year war in Iraq, McCain declares, “It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal.”

   Fair point. There is surely a great risk in a too-rapid withdrawal.

   But if a U.S. withdrawal, after 4,000 dead and 33,000 wounded, and a trillion dollars sunk, runs the risk of a genocidal calamity, what does that tell us about the wisdom of those who marched us into this war?

   READ MORE
4. Bill says:

   April 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

   Buchanan rocks! Although some people will cringe at some of his more divisive statements he still has fans from across the spectrum. Constitutionalists, ect…

|