WASHINGTON, March 26, 2008
Two-Front War Strains Putting U.S. At Risk
Military Tells Bush That Troops Sent To Iraq For Surge May Be Needed In Afghanistan
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Another Troop Surge?
Advisors to President Bush have told him that additional troops are required to sustain the war in Afghanistan-- and the only option is to relocate troops stationed in Iraq. David Martin reports.
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
-
Fast Facts
Afghanistan
Learn about the people, economy and history.
But reinforcements would have to come out of troop levels in Iraq, leaving the president with a stark choice of pulling too many troops out of Iraq or putting too few into Afghanistan. The chiefs also told the president the two-front war has created a significant risk of not having enough forces to respond to other crises.
The chiefs endorsed the recommendation of Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, that there should be a several-week pause in withdrawals when the surge ends this July and American troop levels are down to 140,000, Martin reports.
That will allow the Army to end its 15-month combat tours and go back to slightly less-punishing 12-month deployments. But neither the chiefs nor Petraeus are willing to make any commitment to further withdrawals. And the president agrees.
"We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast," he said.
But Afghanistan, where there are nearly 60,000 NATO troops, 31,000 of them American, is facing rising levels of violence, and the top commander there has warned the Pentagon he may send out a call for reinforcements.
"We have to assume that at least half of the reinforcements are going to have to come from the U.S.," Former Special Envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins said.
With or without more troop withdrawals from Iraq, there will be no let up in the pace of combat operations for the remainder of the Bush presidency, Martin reports.
In the war zone itself, two more American soldiers were killed Wednesday in separate attacks in Baghdad, raising the U.S. death toll to at least 4,003, according to an Associated Press count. Volleys of rockets also slammed into Baghdad's Green Zone for the third day this week, and the U.S. Embassy said three Americans were seriously wounded. At least eight Iraqis were killed elsewhere in the capital by rounds that apparently fell short.
Wednesday's 90-minute Pentagon session, held in a secure conference room known as "the Tank," was arranged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide Mr. Bush an additional set of military views as he prepares to decide how to proceed in Iraq once his troop buildup, which began in 2007, runs its course by July.
"Armed with all that, the president must now decide the way ahead in Iraq," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The discussion covered Iraq and Afghanistan, where violence has spiked, and broader military matters, said Morrell, who briefed reporters without giving details of the discussion. Some specifics were provided by defense officials, commenting on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely.
The Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned about Afghanistan and an increasingly active Taliban insurgency.
The United States has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq.
U.S. forces in Iraq peaked at 20 brigades last year and are to be cut to 15 brigades, with a total of about 140,000 combat and support troops, by the end of July. A key question facing Mr. Bush is whether security conditions will have improved sufficiently by then to justify more reductions.
One of the leading advocates of Mr. Bush's troop buildup last year, military historian Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, said in an interview Wednesday that security conditions in Iraq, while better, are not good enough to justify any commitment to troop reductions beyond July.
"The military reality is that it's virtually inconceivable that it will make sense to draw down below 15 brigades this year," Kagan said.
Gates has said he would like to see the total drop to 10 brigades by the end of this year, but that now looks unlikely.
Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has argued that it would be reckless to shrink the American force so rapidly that the gains achieved over the past year are compromised or lost entirely.
Mr. Bush is expected to endorse Petraeus' approach. If, as expected, Petraeus is given until August or September to weigh the effects of the current round of reductions, then it is unlikely that the force would get much below 15 brigades by the time Mr. Bush leaves office in January.
Mr. Bush is unlikely to announce his decision until after Petraeus and the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, return to Washington next month to report to Congress.
The Joint Chiefs, who do not command troops but are legally responsible for ensuring the fitness of the forces they provide to commanders, have grown increasingly concerned that the weight of five-plus years of war in Iraq could create severe, long-term problems, particularly for the Army and Marine Corps.
In their session with Mr. Bush, the chiefs laid out their concerns about the health of the U.S. force, several defense officials said. Mr. Bush was accompanied by his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten; his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and Vice President Dick Cheney.
"The conversations today with the Joint Chiefs were much broader than just Iraq," Hadley said later. "It was a step-back look of what are the challenges we face here in the next decade."
A senior administration official said the chiefs generally are in sync with Petraeus on slowing the pace of troop reductions.
Morrell said Mr. Bush is "constantly asking the Joint Chiefs about the health of the force, about retention rates, about family life, and so that was a large part of the conversation today."
The session was led by Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He presented the consensus view of the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps on Iraq strategy.
Mullen and Gates have said repeatedly that in addition to reducing troop levels in Iraq, they want to shorten tour lengths for soldiers from 15 months to 12 months as soon as possible. A decision to do that is expected, perhaps shortly after Bush reaffirms that the number brigades in Iraq will be cut to 15 by July. The Army calculates that at that point it could drop tours to 12 months and still give units at least 12 months at home to recover, retrain and rearm before deploying again.
Morrell said a decision on shortening tour lengths would be made by Gates in consultation with Bush.
"We are not there yet," Morrell said.
Shortly after they Petraeus and Crocker reported to Congress last September, Mr. Bush announced the decision to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15.
At the time, Petraeus said additional cuts would be made but that he needed to wait until this spring to recommend a timetable. Since September, violence in Iraq has ebbed and U.S. and Iraqi casualties have declined markedly, although violence has jumped in recent weeks.
The president is to give a speech Thursday in Ohio on the political and economic situation in Iraq.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
'Thanks USA'
-
Video
Vacation Visa
-
Video
Cheney's Top Secret Plan
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 417 CommentsHow many of us have been saying this for the past few years?
It doesn''t bother Bush/Cheney one iota what they''ve done to the US and Iraq and they will fight withdrawing troops from Iraq til the end and longer.
Why our government isn''t taking action against these two militants is beyond me.
The majority of Americans are tired and frustrated by the actions of these two warmongers.
Contacting our representatives is a waste of time--they probably don''t even read what we send them--if they did things may change.
The United States has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq.
Nice way to go after Bin Laden, right from the onset--more troops in Iraq than Afganistan--proof positive Bush had no intention of going after Bin Laden--what more ammunition do we need?
Go figure...
Posted by liberalme at 07:25 PM : Mar 26, 2008
Short answer?
A Dem majority too thin to impeach AND convict.
Posted by jamesm12341 at 07:24 PM : Mar 26, 2008
Bush and Cheney have gotten an Oscar the last 5 years for making things up...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jamesm12341 at 07:24 PM : Mar 26, 2008
+ report abuse
LOL Right. I''d suppose you are like McSame... change the enemy every other day? ROFLMAO You wacked out Fascist have been out done in Iraq plain and simple. The world has witnessed a royal butt whoopin and Afganistan is going to require that we move our troops there... the Joint Chiefs know it, anyone that''s been in Combat knows it. YOU freaks were just outsmarted and out manuvered... in other words YOU freaks got a royal butt whoopin!! Sieg Heil Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by guadalcanal3 at 07:36 PM : Mar 26, 2008
+ report abuse
Why should I be ashamed of telling the TRUTH!! I''ll tell you what Sparky, take a trip down to Ga or Alabama, attend a Republican Party meeting out in the country...see how they say hello to each other. Now get off you high horse and start discussing the INCREDITABLE mess that piece of human trash LIAR you call a president has gotten us in!! Sieg Heil Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by guadalcanal3 at 07:36 PM : Mar 26, 2008
+ report abuse
Oh and if you will pull up the German Media you''ll find that in Poll after Poll the GERMAN Citizens find today''s Republican Party and Bush to be FASCIST. Now who would know a fascist better. Also, it should be noted that Jews was Hitlers, Blacks. Sieg Heil Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by IdlePugilist at 07:42 PM : Mar 26, 2008
+ report abuse
No I think you have to qualify him as a Southern Fascist... he''s associated with and supported by groups that aline themselves with Christian Identity and the American Nazi Party if you care to research it. They always great each other with a Sieg Heil and they absolutely worship Hitler.
Watch for a big increase in college tuition.
Anyone feel a draft...
Posted by guadalcanal3 at 07:36 PM : Mar 26, 2008
You obviously know nothing about the Nazi regime..For starters, Ahmadinejad just gave millions to build a new synagog in Tehran and Iran probaly has more native middle eastern jews than Israel or the United States. As a matter of fact, Jews serve in the supreme council in Iran.
Is that his son...err ha hem... of "Leave Britney Alone" fame. Or his wife...LOL!
Posted by guadalcanal3 at 07:36 PM : Mar 26, 2008
Naziiasm went way beyond being anti-semitic. Anyone who understands the Nazi approach to governing can see several srtiking similarities between Naziism and neoconism.
First off, both ideologies believe in invading other countries to effect regime change.
Secondly, both call dissenters to their agenda unpatriotic.
Thirdly, both believe in manipulating the truth to obtain their objectives.
The comparisons go on and on...
Your Daddy Bush needs you over in Iraqi, forever.
That''s ok kids cause Exxon and Halliburton have had excellent years! Don''t worry.
You''ll all be getting a nice support our troops bumper sticker in the mail courtesy of Bush and the RNC.
That''s ok kids cause Exxon and Halliburton have had excellent years! Don''t worry.
You''ll all be getting a nice support our troops bumper sticker in the mail courtesy of Bush and the RNC.
That''s ok kids cause Exxon and Halliburton have had excellent years! Don''t worry.
You''ll all be getting a nice support our troops bumper sticker in the mail courtesy of Bush and the RNC.
Posted by formrusmcsgt
Nazism/Neoconism:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
15. Vigorous DENIAL of all of the above!
Many say that Iraq is the single biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. I say Bush is.
You need to get off your biblical trip dude, your religious believes didn''t come about untill the 16th century ---- Nobody, no God gave Isreal to anyone
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler''''s Nazi Propaganda Minister.
Posted by TheGateway1
---------------
No ***!! Look at what the Bush administration did in convincing YOU to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11....and that Iran is going to attack America and so on....
Jews in Iran say Israel is wrong.
Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime.
You crackpots think he wants actually destroy Israel & all the Jews is flatly ignorant & wrong.
Posted by TheGateway1
It actually came from a poster who got it from some political professor who studied facist regimes. I had my own list (it''s easy to do with Bush) but his is worded better.
But you want proof? How about your own d@mn eyes and ears the last seven years? Do I need proof that the sky is blue and the grass is green?
But just for you, I''ll give you some examples in the next post(s).
- Iran has no intrest in Israel other than regional stabilization & defense of his country''s intrests in neighboring countries.
Get back to the issue, Iraq is a major strain on the War on Terror, our troops & their families.
Any person who even suggests a policy different from Bush''s is instantly branded a traitor by you neocons. The last few years around here is evidence of that.
===2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights===
America now has an official pro-torture policy of prisoners thanks to Bush and the neocons.
===3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause===
Mention the word Muslim or liberal in America and watch the jingoism fly from neocons. Muslims have become the new boogyman of the 21st century, replacing communists from the 20th century.
===4. Supremacy of the Military===
This one is obvious.
5. Rampant Sexism
Mention any woman of power, and watch neocons describe her in the crudest way possible. No respect for strong willed women at all.
Risk of Bankruptcy?
Won''t allow coverage of returning bodies or military funerals, systematic trashing and hatred of media (the so-called "liberal media").
===7. Obsession with National Security===
Neocons would give up their own mother if Bush uttered the words "national security". Your paranoia over it is staggering as you all cower in fear of a bunch of guys living in caves.
===8. Religion and Government are Intertwined===
Neocons would turn America into a Christian state like Iran is a Muslim one. Except at least Muslims actually believe in their religion, unlike neocons, weho only use religion as a tool to further their power.
===9. Corporate Power is Protected===
Another easy one - basically, a corporation can do no wrong as seen by a neocon. Exxon makes record profits, despite record gas prices? No problem say the neocons.
===10. Labor Power is Suppressed===
Mention "unions" to a neocon and take cover.
Neocons'' love of college professors and teachers is legendary, right?
===12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment===
Some neocons actually argued recently that the guy who spent 26 years in prison for a crime he didn''t commit was treated fairly.
===13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption===
As long as you are "loyal" to Bush, competency does not matter. Ask FEMA.
===14. Fraudulent Elections===
Somewhat controversial and open to interpretation in regards to Bush. There were "descrepencies" during the 2000 and 2004 elections, but can''t really say if there was out-and-out fraud.
===15. Vigorous DENIAL of all of the above!===
What you are doing right now, Gateway.
That was over a year ago, and the surge troops are still there with additional reinforcements and will probably be going to Afghanistan instead of going home!
If I were a soldier, I would be pretty ticked off realizing that my own "Commander in Chief" lied to me and the only way I will come home is in a pine flag-draped box! Being the son of a soldier and a Vietnam vet, I know what it''s like to have your government lie to you and you have no where to go, no recourse, no rights, just salute and say "Yes Sir!", while your private life goes down the toilet.
It''s time for a draft, time to have the neocons put on a uniform and do their duty for Bush and country, time for the kids of the elite to find out what war really is, and time to bring them home!!!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, (more of the same), McCain????
That was over a year ago, and the surge troops are still there with additional reinforcements and will probably be going to Afghanistan instead of going home!
If I were a soldier, I would be pretty ticked off realizing that my own "Commander in Chief" lied to me and the only way I will come home is in a pine flag-draped box! Being the son of a soldier and a Vietnam vet, I know what it''s like to have your government lie to you and you have no where to go, no recourse, no rights, just salute and say "Yes Sir!", while your private life goes down the toilet.
It''s time for a draft, time to have the neocons put on a uniform and do their duty for Bush and country, time for the kids of the elite to find out what war really is, and time to bring them home!!!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, (more of the same), McCain????
Are you for real? As I said, I have eyes and ears and SEE what''s going on. I don''t need to post links to partisian web sites like some loser to prove what I have seen myself for the last seven years.
You sound like the kind of ''**** that if he didn''t know about the WTC attacks and walked by the wreckage and saw it with your own eyes, you would still ask for "proof" that the buildings actually fell down. Sounds more like denial.
Yikes.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 417 Comments