February 11, 2009 4:20 PM

Report: Top Gen. To Advise Iraq Troop Cuts

(CBS/AP)  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to suggest a reduction in the U.S. troop level in Iraq next year by almost half, according to a Friday report in the Los Angeles Times.

Gen. Peter Pace will make the recommendation to President Bush, the report says, a move that could pit the top military commander against the thinking of many senior White House officials as to how the Iraq war should be carried out.

The Times says administration and military officials have told the paper that Pace will express concerns of his subordinate Joint Chiefs that leaving more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through next year could put too much of a strain on the military.

Pace's advice to Mr. Bush could directly challenge a report being prepared by the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who is calling for sustained troop levels beyond 2008, the Times reports.

According to the newspaper, Pace is expected to give his advice to Mr. Bush privately, instead of making a formal report.

If the report is correct, and such a senior military official does contradict the Bush administration's stated strategy of keeping U.S. force levels high until there are signs of political reconciliation in Iraq, then it could serve to significantly strengthen the position of those who oppose the present course in the war.

On Thursday, senior Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia said President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas, to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. (Read more)

The move put the prominent Republican at odds with the president, who has insisted that conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

Warner said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush earlier this year.

Warner says the departure of even a small number of U.S. service members — perhaps 5,000 out of the 160,000 troops in Iraq — would send a powerful message throughout the region that time is running out.

But the U.S. military commander in one of Iraq's more troubled areas rejected Friday Warner's proposal — and by default, the expected advice of Pace — saying a withdrawal would mean "a giant step backward" in his region.

Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of troops south of Baghdad, said militants pushed from his sector in recent operations would quickly return.

"If coalition soldiers were to leave, having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what'd happen is the enemy would come back," said Lynch.

"He'd start building the bombs again, he'd start attacking the locals again and he'd start exporting that violence into Baghdad and we would take a giant step backward," Lynch told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Iraq.

He said recent gains resulted from the buildup of troops in Iraq and that he needs all the forces he has until Iraqis are able to step up and take over, perhaps some time next year.

President Bush has refused to set any dates for the beginning of a troop level reduction, insisting that the decision will be made based on the judgments of commanders in the field.

In other developments:

  • Sixty suspected al Qaeda in Iraq fighters hit national police facilities in a coordinated attack in Samarra, sparking two hours of fighting that saw three people killed and more than a dozen insurgents captured, Iraqi police said Friday. One policeman, a woman and an 11-year-old girl were killed in the fighting in the city 60 miles north of Baghdad, and nine others were injured. There were no details on insurgent casualties, but police arrested 14 suspects, the spokesman said on condition of anonymity.

  • Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, a U.S. military spokesman in northern Iraq, said he had no details on the incident reported by Samarra police, but that an American patrol got into a firefight with gunmen in the city on Friday. Two of the insurgents were killed and another captured, Donnelly said. There were no immediate reports of U.S. casualties.

  • The U.S. command reported that one soldier was killed in an explosion Friday in Salahuddin province, which includes Samarra, and four soldiers were wounded. It was unclear whether the incident was the same one reported by Donnelly.

  • A new U.S. intelligence report says Iraq's government will become even shakier in the next six to 12 months and that the country's leaders are "unable to govern effectively." It also finds Iraqi security forces still cannot operate independently.

  • The U.S. command said Friday that Iraqi troops and U.S. Special Forces raided a home in the Hit area and seized an al Qaeda suspect believed to have shot down an American helicopter in 2004. The forces detained the suspect and a "second person of interest" in a Wednesday raid. In addition to the helicopter attack, the primary suspect is believed to be involved in roadside bombing and sniper attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces in the region, 85 miles west of Baghdad, the military said in a statement.
  • © 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Add a Comment See all 601 Comments
    by glaswolf August 27, 2007 3:26 AM EDT
    I support disengagement from conflicts within the Iraqi theatre which have restricted Al Qaeda participation. Civil war efforts or internal resolution firefights and operations should be allowed by us. However, under no conditions should we abandon hardened bases beause we need the platforms. Allow the Iraqis to decide how they will be governed and by whom, we can prevent Al Qaeda from participated by focusing on actions in which they involve themselves. We should work with whomever is left to pick up the chips after they fly, regardless of the choice of internal politics or their choice incumbent consequences. It is said that war is hell, and we must tolerate some evil and its devils at least as much as we tolerate priests. As long as the Devil stays out of our way, neither interferring with nor conspiring against us, he can be tolerated as much as his opposing God. It is simply inefficient to waste more time on this dream turned nightmare. The Iraqis will have to wake themselves up. We have terrorists to hunt in other places and in other forms.
    Reply to this comment
    by toolmangler-2009 August 27, 2007 1:41 AM EDT
    Help me out here folks,,, Is thier any other word that describes the opposite of Progressive other than Regressive ???
    Posted by j-whitman at 02:30 PM : Aug 25, 2007


    Here you go j'' "GOP Conservative"
    Reply to this comment
    by toldyouso21 August 26, 2007 10:36 PM EDT
    The Iraqis HAVE been standing up--to the US, but with our blinders on, and the Iraqis fighting out of the box (in ways not in our warfare/strategy manual) many people do not realize that. Because we thought the war was over and those left were either fighting on our side or against us. Here is wisdom--no Iraqis are really fighting on our side. The war never ended, or even was won--it just shifted, now they pretend they are on our side to take money, arms and training and wear us down.

    Our mistake is thinking that after we invaded and bombed a country that those in it would cooperate and be our friends. We are not their friends. We are the real enemy. And whether Shia militia or Sunni or Taliban or Al Qaeda or Iranian spy, THE US is the real target and they just changed how they played that game. YOu gotta admit, Americans want to be liked and respected so much, that they convinced themselves that after attacking people who had done nothing to us, that they forgave us and wanted to help us.

    Get the real picture--82% of Iraqis consistently want us gone. Guns and ammo ending up missing. Shia and Sunni surreptitiously attacking Americans. Iraqi Gov going on vacation and leaving the occupiers to fight for them. Billions in dollars missing. No one tells us where the IEDs are buried. No one helps us find the kidnapped no matter how much the reward. Get a clue America--they never stopped fighting.
    Reply to this comment
    by toldyouso21 August 26, 2007 10:32 PM EDT
    "He said recent gains resulted from the buildup of troops in Iraq and that he needs all the forces he has until Iraqis are able to step up and take over, perhaps some time next year. "

    Okay Army Major General Lynch: and what will you do if the Iraq military never stands up and never takes over? If they continue to take the training and arms and money and use it to outfit their own militias, take over bases and terrorize their own citizens? What then? Limp along year after year and reassure us that the ''next year'' will be the ''standing up year for the Iraqis.

    The thing is ...the Iraqis HAVE been standing up for the past 6 years. Our training and weapons have ended up with insurgents. Intel about our troops have ended up with insurgents and Shia militia, and Iran is funding the Shia AND the Sunnis in Iraq. WAnt to know why?

    see next post
    Reply to this comment
    by toldyouso21 August 26, 2007 10:21 PM EDT
    Yep. he''ll ask that in the hopes that will appease the masses and they don''t notice the other 157,000 that are staying for the next 20 years/ And look for whoever is President next to continue the policy. They will stay to protect our oil--ooops . What I meant to say, was they will stay to protect our access and control of oil and to pretend they are doing it to protect and help a people we invaded, occupied and created their present hell for. Yeah right.
    Reply to this comment
    by bluestardad August 26, 2007 9:48 AM EDT
    WRITE THESE SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION! SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW THEY DEFEND THEIR VOTE TO FUND THIS ILLEGAL WAR!

    Write and tell that to AIPAC as they brag about buying your Elected Representatives while American soldiers are being killed!

    http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm

    Congress email http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

    House Speakers email address: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

    Republican Party email info@gop.com

    Democratic Party email democraticparty@democrats.org


    Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
    Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)
    Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
    Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
    Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)
    Kerry, John F.- (D %u2013 MA
    Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
    Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
    Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
    Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
    Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
    Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)


    Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
    Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
    Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
    Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
    Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
    Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
    Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
    Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
    Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
    Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
    Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
    Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
    Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
    McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
    Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
    Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
    Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
    Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
    Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
    Warner, John- (R - VA)


    SUPPORT AMERICAN FIRST
    Reply to this comment
    by j-whitman August 25, 2007 7:48 PM EDT
    Radio,,,, What''''s changed in the course ?? Come on bro
    -- Since March when Democrats actually took Congress,, We''''ve gone from Wonderfull Accomplishments & You Can Shop In The Streets --- to --- How Fast Can We Pull Out & How Many To Leave Behind
    Reply to this comment
    by bareemperor August 25, 2007 7:46 PM EDT

    Yet another wise General will be sacrificed by Bu$h to complete the Iraq/Iran Oil Grab...

    Reply to this comment
    by radiob-2009 August 25, 2007 7:11 PM EDT
    Posted by Nancy_Naive

    No it was not rhetorical, it was sarcasm at the president.
    Reply to this comment
    by forthepeopl1 August 25, 2007 5:48 PM EDT

    "Because if we''d gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn''t have been anybody else with us %u2014 it would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein''s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That''s a very volatile part of the world.

    And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it%u2026uh%u2026the Syrians would like to have in the West. Part of the eastern part of Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north, you''ve got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It''s a%u2026it''s a quagmire, if you go that far in trying to take over Iraq.

    The other thing was casualties. Uh%u2026everyone was impressed with that fact that%u2026uh%u2026we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn''t a cheap war. And the question for the President in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got that right." JUST FOR MONEY
    Reply to this comment
    See all 601 Comments
    .
    Scroll Left
    Scroll Right More »
    CBS News on Facebook