WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2008
Bush Advised To Delay Iraq Troop Cuts
Top Defense Advisers Recommend He Maintain Troop Levels Until End Of Year, Sources Say
-
U.S. Army soldiers from Hawk Company, 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, patrol in a village near Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad in Iraq's volatile Diyala province, Aug. 2, 2008. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay Week In Iraq Photos A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
Military leaders told the AP that the closely held plan would send a small Marine contingent to Afghanistan in November to replace one of two Marine units expected to head home then.
If Bush follows the recommendations, he would delay any additional buildup in Afghanistan until early next year, when another brigade would be deployed there instead of to Iraq.
That move would cut the number of brigades in Iraq to 14 in February.
The plan is aimed at taking advantage of security gains in Iraq to bolster the military effort in Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise. Several senior military and defense officials described the recommendations on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.
They also acknowledged the plan is a compromise since Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, argued to maintain the current force levels in Iraq - about 146,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades and thousands of support forces - through June.
Bush is weighing the recommendations; in the past, he has largely accepted the military's advice. If he adopts them, it would be left to the next president to execute further troop reductions in Iraq and a greater buildup in Afghanistan. Bush's term ends in January.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has advocated pulling all U.S. combat forces out of Iraqi within 16 months of taking office. GOP nominee John McCain has said he would rely on the advice of U.S. military commanders to determine the timing and pace of troop reductions. Both candidates have said more troops are needed in Afghanistan.
Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams."
But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, he said, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war.
Republicans repeatedly have accused Obama of denying the military progress being made in Iraq and of wanting to pull out when victory is within reach.
Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Obama was more effusive than usual in describing the reduction in violence that resulted largely from Bush's decision to send thousands of more troops to Iraq in 2007. But he stuck to his assertion that "the surge" has not led to the political reconciliation among quarreling factions that was its larger goal.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are to testify before Congress on Iraq on Wednesday, suggesting that Bush will have announced his next move by then. Petraeus has given widely watched updates to Congress over the past year, assessing the effect of Bush's order to increase troops. He is not scheduled to testify before he leaves his post in mid-September.
It had been widely expected that Petraeus would recommend a faster pullback in Iraq, perhaps calling for a reduction in the number of combat brigades from 15 to 14 this fall. But several recent events may have changed the calculus.
Among the more important changes was the unanticipated decision by Georgia to bring home its contingent of about 2,000 soldiers after Russia invaded the former Soviet republic in early August.
Quote
Also arguing in favor of a smaller reduction this fall was the inability of the Iraqi government to move ahead with provincial elections in October as originally planned. No firm date for the balloting has been set, but it is generally believed that the long-anticipated elections will not happen before December.In Afghanistan, we do what we can; in Iraq, we do what we must.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffAt the same time, however, military leaders have become increasingly concerned about escalating violence in Afghanistan, and they don't want to sit idle as the winter approaches, giving the enemy more time to build its forces.
One senior military official said it was considered critical to replace the Marines in Afghanistan beginning this year.
"We believe the risk in Afghanistan is such that we need to do something, and the risk in Iraq is such that we can go into Afghanistan without risking unduly the posture in Iraq," said the official.
Pentagon officials believe the greatest challenge is to identify enough support troops to provide essential logistics and intelligence assets for the additional U.S. units heading to Afghanistan.
Without that support - which includes the delivery of weapons and food and the construction of roads and runways - the fighting forces cannot be as effective.
Looking ahead, the Pentagon's plan would require a significant increase in military facilities in Afghanistan, including forward operating bases, like those in Iraq.
Pentagon leaders have struggled to balance the two warfronts, repeatedly stressing that Iraq is the priority.
On several occasions, Mullen has said that, "In Afghanistan, we do what we can; in Iraq, we do what we must."
But a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, coupled with the improved security in Iraq has forced a greater emphasis on Afghanistan.
Violence has plunged in Iraq's western Anbar province, which until early last year was a stronghold for the insurgency. That will allow a battalion of Marines - or roughly 1,000 - to go to Afghanistan to train security forces in November rather than going to Iraq as initially planned.
They would replace a Marine unit currently training Afghan security forces, but a second Marine unit now doing combat operations would not be replaced until early 2009, probably by an Army brigade.
There has been speculation that the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, which is slated to go to Iraq, will instead go to Afghanistan. That unit, which is based at Fort Drum, N.Y., has previously served in Afghanistan.
Military leaders have insisted in recent months that over time they need to beef up forces in Afghanistan by as many as 10,000 troops - the equivalent of about three combat brigades.
More than 4,000 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003.
In other developments:
As of the end of August, there were 62 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers and Guard and Reserve troops called to active duty, officials said. Another 31 deaths appear to be suicides but are still being investigated.
If all are confirmed, that means that the number for 2008 could eclipse the 115 of last year - and the rate per 100,000 could surpass that of the civilian population, Col. Eddie Stephens, deputy director of human resources policy, said at a Pentagon news conference.
The sprawling complex, which has not held prisoners since 2006, will be refurbished with the goal of taking new inmates in about a year, the government said Thursday.
Also, a section of the 280-acre site just west of Baghdad will be converted into the museum featuring execution chamber exhibits and other displays of torture tools used by Saddam's regime - including an iron chain used to tie prisoners together.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From World
Add a Comment See all 39 Comments
- The American taxpayer doesn''t want all this war stuff, we want better schools, better highways, secure social security and better medical care. These neo-coms are making life a misery for the American people and for the poor souls around the world that we are brutally murdering.
- Reply to this comment
- The dogs of war are trying to create an empire of paid mercenaries. They go out and attack foreign countries and steal their oil for the benefit of big oil companies. None of this has much benefit for the American taxpayer, and we are paying for it.
- Reply to this comment
- The propaganda system raves the surge worked!All the middle class tax $ still going into the sewer,the troops still rotting in that hell-how can any swallow what is presented as "news"-the job of the US news is to be sure the US does not get the news!
- Reply to this comment
- Bush is trying to keep Petraeus from testifying before Congress.
Is this the reason?
Sunni regions were considerably less organized than the Shiite and Kurdish regions because of their initial violence levels and non-participation were not aided with the passage of the Reconciliation Law. The Reconciliation Law (a falsely claimed success), intended to reinstate qualified Sunnis excluded in the initial post-war setup of the government, backfired as significant numbers of "previously qualified" Sunnis were disqualified (not expected) and fewer "previously disqualified" Sunnis were reinstated than expected.
Further indications of failure came with the backsliding provincial elections (another claimed success) as first delayed and then canceled for 2008. The Sunnis remain under represented and their regions remain disorganized due to a boycott of the national elections and the cancellation of provincial elections.
The formal sharing of oil revenues between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is only a interim agreement as the Oil Law is not completed.
Sunnis insurgents (most are still disqualified by the government) were paid and guaranteed future jobs (government) by US forces in exchange for their cooperation (the "Anbar Awakening") cannot be satisfied with the proceeding issues. Especially considering the risks associated with the pending withdrawal of US troops, opening the real possibility for civil war a between the factions considering all the unresolved issues. - Reply to this comment
- Bush & Cheney spying on the Prime Minister is a no brainer. Risk of Oil contracts with Russia.
The reason the US wants to stay in Iraq is they don t want the Russians signing contracts for Iraqi oil.
Before the Iraq invasion & occupation Russia was one of Iraqs largest oil customers. Russia is the second largest supplier of Oil on the planet. They are the Saudis competition.
The Saudis and BIG OIL used Bush to get rid of Saddam because he was undercutting their oil sales and profits by selling cheap to Russia. This caused a depression of oil market prices which hit historic lows prior to the Iraq invasion. - Reply to this comment
- still, the fact remains that the Republicans are completely insane, as demonstrated over and over at their "convention." I will vote for Obama, and if he loses, that''''s it for me, this country is lost.
Posted by superdem at 10:31 AM : Sep 05, 2008
------------------
I think your post speaks for millions of voters throughout America! I know if McSame/Barbie steal
their way into office, this country''s eclipse as
an empire will be one of the quickest in history
for a technological nation this size! - Reply to this comment
- Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures,OBAMA IS AN UNCLE TOM, yes sssaa''''r
Posted by Hacker2xy
Well, now that all the false statements about Obama have pretty much been disproved--one bigot has the nerve to tell it like it is!
Your a bigoted racist jerk--but hey---at least you''re an honest one!! LOL - Reply to this comment
- McCain/Palin 2008
Resistance is futile.
Posted by tuffone3 at 11:56 AM : Sep 05, 2008
------------------
McGeezer and Caribou Barbie? I don''t think so!! - Reply to this comment
- Reading some of the posts on this board really disenheartens me about the folks in this country. Anyone who says anything degrading about our Military folks should be shipped right out of this Country, they don''t deserve to live here, end of story!
- Reply to this comment
- - The unemployment rate soared to a nearly five-year high in August as employers trimmed jobs for the eighth straight month, the government reported Friday.
The unemployment rate rose to 6.1%, the highest level since September 2003. That''s up from 5.7% in July and 4.7% a year ago.
In addition, the economy suffered a net loss of 84,000 jobs in August, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, compared to a revised reading of a 60,000 job loss in July.
The U.S. economy has lost 605,000 jobs so far this year. - Reply to this comment
- Jesus Christ: Community Organizer
- Reply to this comment
- Obama says things I don''''t agree with, and Biden does, too. Surge or no surge Iraq is a horrendous mistake, I don''''t agree that we can do anything in Afghanistan but lose American lives and more millions of scarce American dollars, and I think it''''s crazy to confront Russia over Georgia - still, the fact remains that the Republicans are completely insane, as demonstrated over and over at their "convention." I will vote for Obama, and if he loses, that''''s it for me, this country is lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by superdem at 10:31 AM : Sep 05, 2008
That pretty much sums it up for me as well. - Reply to this comment
- Obama says things I don''t agree with, and Biden does, too. Surge or no surge Iraq is a horrendous mistake, I don''t agree that we can do anything in Afghanistan but lose American lives and more millions of scarce American dollars, and I think it''s crazy to confront Russia over Georgia - still, the fact remains that the Republicans are completely insane, as demonstrated over and over at their "convention." I will vote for Obama, and if he loses, that''s it for me, this country is lost.
- Reply to this comment
- Put shrubs daughters in Bagdad ... Why didn''''''''t they enlist? If neither the Clinton`s or Bush`s children think the wars are worth fighting for, ...WHY SHOULD MY CHILDREN??
Posted by aeasus at 09:47 AM : Sep 05, 2008
==========================
Wh
ile this always sounds wonderful, the result will be to get soldiers, who might have survived, killed.
1) Putting them on the front lines invites attacks, which will surely kill somebody.
2) Putting them in the rear eschelons will only free up to poor SOBs who WERE in the rear to be sent to the front.
3) Allowing the children of out leaders to claim that they "participated" in a war ensures that when they are old enough and we are stupid enough, we will elect them...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 09:57 AM : Sep 05, 2008
That''s BS and you know it. UK can send the children of their first families to front lines. American first families children didn''t even enlist for support or desk jobs. - Reply to this comment
- Did you all not see your boy Obama on Fox News state that the SURGE was a huge success? Reinforce success has always been the best option for military operations.
- Reply to this comment
- Another leak. Didn''t expect to hear this until afteer the election.
- Reply to this comment
- Put shrubs daughters in Bagdad ... Why didn''t they enlist? If neither the Clinton''s or Bush''s children think the wars are worth fighting for, ...WHY SHOULD MY CHILDREN??
- Reply to this comment
- Bush Advised To Delay Iraq Troop Cuts
Since when has Bushie followed the advise of any military expert, he know everyting. - Reply to this comment
- Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures,OBAMA IS AN UNCLE TOM, yes sssaa''r
- Reply to this comment
- Obama "I''''ve already said it''''s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." Yes ssaa''r
- Reply to this comment
How gold pays for 
