Bush stakes Iraq on general’s report

Analysis:

This story is based on the upcoming report from US Military Commander in Iraq, General Patraeus, to the White House and Congress about the status of the so-called surge. There are several sources cited in the story, Bush Patraeus, and at least two anonymous sources. The story begins with Bush expressing confidence in Patraeus and that is followed by a recent New Yourk Times/CBS poll on public confidence on US government vs US Military ability to “bring a successful end to the war in Iraq.”

The story is just a day before the General’s report and lists the three major points: that the surge is beginning to succeed, the central government in Baghdad has failed, and the consequences of US troop withdrawal would be catastrophic. There is nothing in story to verify these claims and every comment made after this summary of the report are from anonymous sources. One of Pataeus’s staff said a hasty withdrawal could produce “a failed state in the middle of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you’d have huge problems getting oil to the world market, where you’d potentially have a humanitarian disaster,” a statement he made to the right wing think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations. The article provides no dissenting perspectives on this issue, not even the Government Accounting Office’s report on Iraq, which claims that most of the benchmarks have not been met.

Story:

Ever since last spring, President Bush has publicly staked the future of his strategy in Iraq on a series of briefings that an Army general will deliver to Congress today and Tuesday — the long-awaited report by Gen. David H. Petraeus on the state of the war.

“Why don’t you wait and see what [Petraeus] says?” Bush pleaded with Congress in May. “Fund the troops, and let him come back and report to the American people.”

Bush’s reasoning, aides said, was simple: An assessment of the war from Petraeus, a widely admired officer, was likely to enjoy more credibility with Congress and the public than anything the president could say. Aides knew, as well, that Petraeus was likely to support Bush’s strategy in Iraq — because the general himself was one of the architects of the yearlong “surge” of additional troops to try to stabilize Baghdad and other areas.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the briefing room. Petraeus’ report may not have as much impact as the White House hoped, because his message has already been widely anticipated — and even previewed by Petraeus himself.

“The surge will run its course,” Petraeus told ABC News last week, forecasting a gradual drawdown of some of the estimated 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. “There are limits to what our military can provide, so my recommendations have to be informed … by the strain we have put on our military services.”

Officials have said they expect Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker to make three major points: The surge is beginning to succeed, but it is too soon to withdraw significant numbers of troops; the central government in Baghdad has failed to meet the administration’s political goals, but there are signs of progress at the local level; and, finally, the consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal would be catastrophic.

Administration officials expect Petraeus to report that the initial phase of the surge has improved security in Baghdad, in Anbar province to the west, and Diyala province to the northeast. He is likely to announce that U.S. forces can reduce their presence in Anbar and Diyala, but not yet in Baghdad.

Petraeus does not intend to deliver a specific recommendation to Congress on how soon and how far to reduce troop levels; that will be up to Bush, who is expected to announce a decision this week. Officials have said that Petraeus and his aides have been considering the possibility of a nominal drawdown of a few thousand troops around the end of the year, but that the general does not want to reduce his force by significant numbers until absolutely necessary.

Petraeus “wants to keep as much force on the ground as we possibly can, for as long as we possibly can,” said one administration official. Instead of withdrawing troops, Petraeus has recommended relocating troops from Anbar and Diyala to Baghdad or another hot spot. Or they could be sent to Kuwait to create a reserve U.S. force.

A military official in Baghdad said that while the forces will be rearranged, he does not expect a major drawdown until the surge forces begin to leave in March or April of 2008.

“Why take a chance of losing the gains we have made?” the official said.

In his remarks to Congress, Petraeus is expected to emphasize the problems large troop withdrawals would create.

A hasty withdrawal could produce “a failed state in the middle of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you’d have huge problems getting oil to the world market, where you’d potentially have a humanitarian disaster,” Army Col. Michael J. Meese, an adviser to Petraeus, told the Council on Foreign Relations last week.

“Do not think if we pull out that it will not be horrible. If you don’t like Darfur, you won’t like Baghdad,” another officer said.

Administration officials expect Petraeus to recommend, in either his public or private remarks, that U.S. forces can be removed from the areas where the Iraqi force has the strong leadership or long-standing partnerships with U.S. leaders that allow it to undertake operations independently.

“We have already made some decisions out there in areas where success has occurred,” said a senior military official.

But military officers close to Petraeus believe he will avoid making precise predictions of when the Iraqi army will be able to take over, arguing that such predictions in the past have always failed to materialize and have eroded the credibility of U.S. commanders.

Administration officials have pointed to reductions in attacks and killings, but congressional critics regard the figures as unreliable. Petraeus is expected to point to statistics as indications of improvements, but will be careful not to overstate their importance, Meese said.

On the political front, Petraeus is expected to talk about the success U.S. forces have met in working with formerly anti-American insurgents in the Sunni Muslim communities of Anbar province. Officials say the administration hopes to try the same strategy in other parts of Iraq, including those now dominated by Shiite Muslim militias.

But officials also acknowledge that political progress has been piecemeal and slow. Petraeus and Crocker are expected to de-emphasize the likelihood of a national reconciliation and instead talk about the importance of smaller steps of local “accommodation” first, one official said.

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Petraeus will address Tuesday, said Sunday the general is “dead flat wrong” for warning against making major changes.

Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

“The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province, where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence,” said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits Petraeus and Crocker from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus’ assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, is the only way to foster reconciliation among warring factions.

“I really respect him, and I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Biden said.

Biden contended that Bush’s main strategy was to buy time and extend the presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

“This president has no plan — how to win and/or how to leave,” Biden said.

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out,” except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

Recommendations by Petraeus and Crocker follow a series of reports that have given bleak assessments of the situation in Iraq but offered no quick solutions.

Over the weekend, the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank, issued a report recommending U.S. troops in Iraq be cut by half in three years and removed within five years. The report was based on recommendations by many experts who advised the Iraq Study Group, a White House-backed commission that recommended a change in strategy last December.