Petraeus: Troop Buildup In Iraq Unlikely

Top General Addresses Burden On U.S. Ground Forces; Bush To Announce Shorter Tours

(CBS/AP)  America's war commander in Iraq told Congress Wednesday he is unlikely to endorse any fresh buildup of troops even if security in the country deteriorates, signaling that the limits of the U.S. military have been reached for now.

Gen. David Petraeus, closely questioned by lawmakers for a second day, described Iraq as a frail state still struggling to provide its own security. That volatile situation figured in his recommendation to President Bush that a gradual pullout of U.S. troops be halted this summer - a recommendation Bush is expected to embrace in a speech Thursday.

But Petraeus also spoke of the burden on U.S. ground forces, and Bush will address that, too. In his speech at 11:30 a.m. EDT, Bush will announce plans to cut the combat tours of active-duty soldiers from 15 months to 12 months. The reduced deployments will not apply - at least initially - to any soldiers currently serving in Iraq, unless conditions improve to the point that commanders believe some could go home early.

Petraeus said, "I am keenly aware of the strain" on the military, noting his own deployment since 2001. "And I can tell you that there is nothing that a commander feels more than, in fact, the losses that we have sustained over there."

His resistance to the idea of any renewed increase of troops for Iraq reflects - at least in part - the reality that the rotation pool of some 1.3 million soldiers and Marines has been exhausted. Army soldiers in particular have faced repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and senior officers warn that the service's "strategic reserve" is at an all-time low.

U.S. military officials say Petraeus is unlikely to recommend any further cuts until after provincial elections are held in October and that troop strength will not go below 130,000 by the end of the year - about where it was before the surge started, reported CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, says current troop commitments in Iraq make it impossible to send extra forces into Afghanistan.

Andrew Krepinevich, president of the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, noted that Petraeus' promise to the House Armed Services Committee was a limited one. The four-star general is expected to resign his command position at the end of the year.

While Democratic contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have promised voters they would start withdrawing troops if elected, Republican John McCain supported last year's troop increase and believes conditions on the ground should dictate force levels.

Still, Krepinevich said, it's easy to imagine that Army officials agreed to the 2007 buildup on the assumption that Petraeus would give troops a "breather" at some point. Every commander "rotates them out of the line every once in a while to get rested and refitted. Otherwise, you really do burn up the force," he said.

Petraeus wants the U.S. to complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 troops that were sent to Iraq last year to deal with the violence there. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day evaluation period, to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.

The plan leaves open the possibility that roughly 140,000 U.S. troops will be in Iraq when voters head to the polls this November and Bush leaves office next year.

"We think it makes sense to have some time, to let the dust settle, perhaps to do some adjustment of forces, re-evaluation," Petraeus told House members on Wednesday.

When asked by Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, whether he would call for another influx of U.S. troops if security conditions deteriorated during that 45-day window, Petraeus said that would be a last resort.

"That would be a pretty remote thought in my mind," he said.

Instead, the military would try to reallocate existing troops. It also would increase its reliance on Iraqi forces, including highly specialized army and police teams that have been improving in capability, he said.

As on Tuesday, Petraeus faced Democrats and even some Republicans who said they were skeptical Baghdad was doing all it could to calm sectarian violence.

Lacking the votes to order troops home, Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he would introduce legislation that would require the Iraqi government pay "for the cost of the security that we're providing them." Under his bill, the stipulation would be written into a legal agreement currently being negotiated with Baghdad on the U.S. military presence in Iraq, called a "status of forces agreement."

"The American people can't carry this load forever, so we're looking forward to a time when someone else can pick up some of it," said Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, said some political progress has been made, but he acknowledged it was slow. Asked what would happen if U.S. troops were to leave in large numbers in the next six months, the ambassador said, "You would see a spiral down, and that would lead to expanded sectarian conflict, levels we have not seen before."

[prinzowhales]

Border Patrolmen Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean did their job! They arrested a drug smuggler--and shot him after he tried to run them down with a car...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19493

...the drug smuggler was freed and the border patrolmen went to prison! Bush won''t do anything for them...NO!--Instead, he works to overturn the conviction in Texas courts of Mexican nationals who murdered two teenage girls after raping them.

The Washington Regime is a Criminal Conspiracy against the Constitution and the Republic!

Free Compean and Ramos!!

[prinzowhales]

Cele Costillo--Vietnam sniper, DEA and local law enforcement officer as well as many other accomplishments in on the Alex Jones Show found at infowars.com or at the Genesis Communications Network.

He was a resource for a SHOWTIME special and is telling the story of his harrassment by the criminal swine from BATF for talking about he widespread Regime involvement in the narcotics trade. They harrassed and threatened his 84 year old grandmother and when they had permission to search. He reports that Daniel Casey, who headed the search threatened that if his wife didn''t sign a consent to search, they would wait till his grandchildren came home and truamatize them...These people are scum!! Bush has authorized increases in the size of this bureau to harass gun owners....He is a weasel. He is a liar. He is a murderer of Americans and a thief!!

His website is powderburns.com...This is a man who should be supported.

[prinzowhales]

Ted Olson lied about his phone calls from his wife from Flight 77 on 9-11! The FBI, in court documents in the Zacarias Moussaoui case, they say only ONE Unconnected Call was made by Ms. Olson.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

[prinzowhales]

TIME OUT!!....I hope everyone has had the chance to visit www.sott.net and see the Cheney photo at a government website with a naked girl reflected in his sunglasses from a ''hunting'' trip out West. It has long been rumoured that Cheney hunts humans for sport.

There is also a rumour that Cheney is unusually endowed...There is a picture there of Cheney with either a partial erection or a ferret in his britches.

I suspect it is an implant...considering his cardiovascular status, I suspect he would need a Viagra drip to engage in anything more strenuous than a peck on the cheek.

[prinzowhales]

Its the lying, murdering pigs in Washington who are keeping our troops in Iraq...not Iran. Most Iraqis want us gone...Go to antiwar.com and the link to the interview with the Iraqi who helped bring down the Saddam statue on the fall of Baghdad...HE IS SORRY NOW AND SAYS ALL HIS FRIENDS ARE SORRY THAT SADDAM IS GONE! Is this your idea of "success"?

Iran has not fought a war of aggression for centuries...Its influence in Iraq, regardless of how great, could not be worse that the living h.ell that America has made out of Iraq during it''s five years of occupation.

TROOPS HOME NOW!! DOWN WITH THE DEMOPUBLICAN REGIME!!

[brianbwb-2009]

"IRAN has put us in a crapppy situation." Posted by demslie

No they did not, Bush chose to put us there. Iran had no chance of influencing Iraq while Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda was also not in Iraq. Bush''s lie created the entire situation, and this is where your reasoning errs. Even Bush''s own "war gamers" predicted that this would happen, Bush chose to think that the mess was worth lying to create.

The situation in Iraq is entirely the making of the US, specifically Bush and his klan. You might be tired of hearing it, but that does not make it any less true.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Its IRAN keeping the troops from leaving IRAQ and its the Anti-American Rants of Democrat keeping terrorists motivated to kill our soldiers. Thank for you support, Democrats." Posted by demslie

You would be among those who would blame the victim of rape for your actions. Iran, Al Qaeda, and any others you care to mention wouldn''t even be there had we not lied our way in first, to decapitate the existing government.

You insult the troops by implying that our government is not in control of our soldiers'' destinies. Iran and Al Qaeda are not keeping us there, what is keeping us there is the delusion of a liar, who refuses to admit he was wrong, and now stays there to try to save his own illusion of "face", and his death worshiping supporters, who continue to make up their own reasons as to why we are occupying a country that has been proven innocent of all the charges used to justify our invasion.

We could pull out tomorrow, this will not change what will eventually happen there, the person with the most power will eventually fill the void.

To use an analogy, If some heavily armed group invades your house, shoots, rapes, and tortures your family members, refusing to leave as long as you resist them being there, you should think that proper. If your next door neighbor offers to help you, you would be ok with the occupying group preparing to invade their home also.

[demslie]

MAYBE you have a reason to want to blow Iran up. It''''s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black to want to trash Iran for helping those in Iraq who are allied with them. I mean this IS a civil war and WE HAVE taken sides in that haven''''t we?

Posted by skyk

I agree 100%. IRAN has put us in a crapppy situation. Even the troops say gains will be difficult if we cannot stop the outside influence. My point was that Democrats blame America for everything and if you did not notice, even the Liberal CBS (Communist News Network) is polling McCain ahead of O''bama And Hitlery because Americans are tired of hearing all the "negative" screamed about the US and nothing said about the geoncidal murderers.

[skyk-2009]

Not one post here mentions the influence of IRAN that the General talked about. Even the Democrat members of the Senate purposely did not even mention IRAN in any question. Iran has supplied millions of dollars worth of weapons and training to militia and Al Qaeda forced to help kill Iraqi and American Troops but all the Angry Hateful Democrats can do is scream at America. No one post here blames the terrorists for anything. The terrorists are the complete partners of Democrats. Its IRAN keeping the troops from leaving IRAQ and its the Anti-American Rants of Democrat keeping terrorists motivated to kill our soldiers. Thank for you support, Democrats.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by demslie at 05:54 AM : Apr 10, 2008
+ report abuse

It absolutely amazes me how you people can continue to be fed LIE after LIE and never figure it out. The PEOPLE attacking us LIVE in IRAQ. They do NOT want us there and they are willing to fight because we are there. IRAN, unlike the US, does NOT have troops in the fight there. IF we were to leave the Country and stop trying to dictate to these people how to govern themselves, MAYBE you have a reason to want to blow Iran up. It''s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black to want to trash Iran for helping those in Iraq who are allied with them. I mean this IS a civil war and WE HAVE taken sides in that haven''t we?

[demslie]

"why don''''''''t we partition the country and work on keeping the factions moderates and allies committed to combatting terrorism? Then get the heck out!"

Posted by SamTheTVCat

As for "get the heck out", that is the most intelligent move we could make, but, as you can see by some of the posts, there are still a few death worshipers out there who want to use nuclear weapons against everybody, based only on vague speculation about improbable futures. McCain is one of these nuts, so we can see that some of these deluded death worshipers are even in government.

Posted by brianbwb

Not one post here mentions the influence of IRAN that the General talked about. Even the Democrat members of the Senate purposely did not even mention IRAN in any question. Iran has supplied millions of dollars worth of weapons and training to militia and Al Qaeda forced to help kill Iraqi and American Troops but all the Angry Hateful Democrats can do is scream at America. No one post here blames the terrorists for anything. The terrorists are the complete partners of Democrats. Its IRAN keeping the troops from leaving IRAQ and its the Anti-American Rants of Democrat keeping terrorists motivated to kill our soldiers. Thank for you support, Democrats.

[watcher269-2009]

Petraeus: Troop Buildup In Iraq Unlikely

---------------

That''s because they need to send those troops to Afghanistan to fight the REAL Terrorists and Al Quaida - That''s where the REAL WAR is and that job was not finished - therefore we need to fight that war again!

It''s all FUBAR!

[brianbwb-2009]

"but ask them to fight in the name of the government against their own people and they suddenly don''''t understand orders and feel the need to go for lunch." Posted by SamTheTVCat

As they should. If my own government ask me to fight my own people, so that my government could continue its corruption against us, my answer to them would be a lot less polite than what you describe about the Iraqis.

[brianbwb-2009]

"why don''''t we partition the country and work on keeping the factions moderates and allies committed to combatting terrorism? Then get the heck out!" Posted by SamTheTVCat

The first part won''t work, because it is not our right to partition another sovereign state, and Iraq is recognized as such by the UN. As for "terrorism", this is the name given to all who actively oppose Bush''s occupation, Reagan called his terrorists "freedom fighters" The truth is there are no terrorists.

As for "get the heck out", that is the most intelligent move we could make, but, as you can see by some of the posts, there are still a few death worshipers out there who want to use nuclear weapons against everybody, based only on vague speculation about improbable futures. McCain is one of these nuts, so we can see that some of these deluded death worshipers are even in government.

[samthetvcat]

pt 1

--"Gen. David Petraeus, closely questioned by lawmakers for a second day, described Iraq as a frail state still struggling to provide its own security"--

They showed a clip of these Iraqi troops on CNN and like they''re supposedly cool when it comes to protecting their own neighborhoods against competing interests (like Sunnis will guard against Shiite militias, and vice versa), but ask them to fight in the name of the government against their own people and they suddenly don''t understand orders and feel the need to go for lunch.

Isn''t ''fragility'' and ''struggle'' a product of the lack of desire for a centralized government that forces these disparate groups to cooperate and compromise? I mean, if Sunnis and Shiites have basically been at war for thousands of years doesn''t that seem to show that they''re just fundamentally not likely to be able to form a ''democracy'', even ignoring the presence of the oil (which inhibits democracy)?

[samthetvcat]

pt 2

If Sunnis and Shiites agreed to a cease-fire but haven''t demonstrated any desire to meet the political benchmarks that have been laid out, doesn''t that seem to show that they really have an agenda different from Bush''s ''democracy'' and that they''re just biding their time right now?

Like if we KNOW democracy can''t exist when a country''s economy is oil-based, why don''t we partition the country and work on keeping the factions moderates and allies committed to combatting terrorism? Then get the heck out! If McCain gets elected on the assumption that it''s the surge that is keeping violence down rather than militias who were saving their firepower to fight each other which forces the militias to turn on the troops instead, what then? Is no-timeline McCain and his supporters willing to institute a draft to have that go at ''democracy'' through maintenance of ''security''?

[brianbwb-2009]

"Who Knows?" Posted by dumbshun

No one knows, and few care, because it won''t happen.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by davidnina

Keep your porn site spam to yourself, or take it to the site you spam about, you should be welcomed there.

Reported.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by SHURCH4TRUTH

Do you really expect someone whose lies resulted in our occupying a country that never attacked us, to criticize another country that also subjugates?

It is clear that Bush doesn''t thing that anything is wrong with that.

[briannorwood]

Oh, I forgot General. You will be resigning on January 9th. Then you will just complain about how we should have won the war!

[briannorwood]

Oh, Almighty Petreus. You are above criticism. You are to be honored for your selfless service to this country. You are the Savior of all Iraq.

Now stop acting like a politician, and give us the straight scoop.

I wonder what your tune will be when a Democrat is in the White House.

Trust me, we''re watching!