Iraq Buildup Troops In Place -- Now What?

In what appears to be the first official announcement that all of the troops for the "surge" are in Iraq, President Bush told an audience at a Washington fundraiser that the remaining U.S troops comprising the buildup he announced in January are now in place.

"I talked to General David Petraeus today," Mr. Bush said. "The final troops have just arrived."

Even having reached this benchmark — the deployment of approximately 28,000 additional troops to bolster security in Baghdad — Mr. Bush acknowledged that the situation in Iraq has not markedly improved. "Some progress and some setbacks," he said.

In fact, a new report by the Pentagon cites "the rise of high profile attacks" as one of the negative trends since the American troop surge began, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The overall level of violence in Iraq remains unchanged, running at more than 1,000 attacks a week, and casualties among troops and civilians has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad.

In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

Wednesday's broader report, the eighth in a series, said that while violence fell in the capital and in Anbar province west of Baghdad during the February-May period, it increased in other areas, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad province and in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad and in the northern province of Nineva.

The report described Iraq's violence as mainly a result of illegally armed groups engaging in a "cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, executions and indirect fire (rocket and mortar attacks) to intimidate and to provide sectarian conflict."

Unlike the previous such report to Congress, submitted in March, the Pentagon made no reference to the debate over whether Iraq is in a civil war. In March it said "some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a `civil war."'

It noted that al-Maliki had pledged in January, when Mr. Bush announced his commitment to send more U.S. troops to Baghdad, that there would be no political interference in the security crackdown and no sectarian favoritism.

"To date, operations in Baghdad indicate that Iraqi government delivery on these commitments has been uneven," the report said. "For example, there have been reports of political involvement by some leaders in tactical and operational decisions that bypass the standard chain of (military) command."

The report offered a less-than-optimistic outlook for political reconciliation among the rival sectarian groups in Iraq. It said Shiite fear of a Sunni return to power and splits within the Shiite community "will continue to impede formation of a 'Shiite consensus' and complicate reconciliation with the Sunnis."

On the positive side, the report noted that Sunni Arab tribal leaders in Anbar province, where there is no sizable Shiite population, have been joining with U.S. and Iraqi government forces to fight al Qaeda forces.

"With the right mechanisms, these Sunni leaders could pursue reconciliation with the government of Iraq," the report said, adding that the Sunnis currently are limited in their political effectiveness by a lack of unity.

The report does cites a decrease in sectarian killings, and U.S. military officers say there's been a decrease in the horrific market bombings in Baghdad due to the barriers and checkpoints erected around the capital. In response, the terrorists seem to have shifted to bridges — 16 attacks since February.

They don't cause as many casualties but they send the same message: The government cannot protect you from an adaptive enemy.

Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow for Defense Policy at the Council On Foreign Relations, told Martin: "We're dealing with people who have learned through survival over multiple years of warfare how to fight the Americans effectively and are training others in what they've learned" — for instance, attacks using enhanced explosive devices smuggled in from Iran hit an all-time high in April.

Overall, however, the report said it was too soon to judge whether the security crackdown was working.

One of the goals of the U.S. troop surge was to bolster security while allowing Iraqis to put their own security forces in place. But according to one Defense Department official Iraqi security is slow to come along.

Most Iraqi military units arriving in Baghdad for an American-led security crackdown have only 75 percent of their assigned soldiers, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey told a Defense Department news conference Wednesday.

About one in six Iraqi policemen trained by U.S. forces has been killed or wounded, has deserted or has just disappeared.

The slow development of Iraqi security forces — and continued sectarian violence — raises doubts about when Iraq will be able to stand on its own and what the consequences of an early U.S. troop withdrawal would be.

Yet Gen. Dempsey was cautiously optimistic that Iraqi security forces are gradually improving in skill and commitment. He said, however, they must be expanded again next year to fill gaps in units in Baghdad.

Dempsey just completed a 22-month tour in Iraq as head of perhaps the most challenging U.S. military mission there — to train and equip the Iraqi army and police so they can eventually replace U.S. troops. His predecessor in that post was Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is now the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Based on an assessment of Iraqi security forces' performance so far in the Baghdad security push, which began in February, Dempsey said it was recently decided that Iraqi forces should be increased by another 20,000 this year — on top of a 45,000 increase initiated last year — to a total of 390,000 soldiers and police.

In addition, U.S. commanders see a need for yet another increase in 2008, Dempsey said. He offered no numbers.

Dempsey said the 2008 increase would take into consideration the continuing violence, lessons learned during the U.S. buildup for the ongoing Baghdad security operation, and the fact that "at some point we should anticipate a decline in U.S. forces and should build the Iraqi army ... in anticipation of that."

He was expanding on his testimony Tuesday before a House of Representatives subcommittee. And his comments came as Iraqi police were detained in the investigation of a spectacular bombing at a Shiite shrine in Samarra — bringing to the fore again the question of how much of the new force has been infiltrated by militants.

Asked about Dempsey's disclosure of plans for another expansion of the Iraqi forces, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Germany that it was "just a realistic assessment based on conditions on the ground" in Iraq. And he added that the size of the increase was uncertain.

"The need for additional forces," Gates said — which he then referred to as a forecast rather than a fact — "these forecasts are not, in my opinion, are not written in stone. They're estimates on what they expect the need will be."

"So it doesn't surprise me at all that as we have gone along and as we deal with the security situation that exists in Iraq, that there would be the perception of a need for more Iraqi army and perhaps Iraqi police as well."

In a letter to the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Dempsey's remarks on the challenges in standing up an effective Iraqi security force were further proof that Bush's Iraq policy was failing.

"The increase in U.S. forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced America's national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on U.S. forces have increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for U.S. troops," their letter said.

Condemning the president's veto of a bill that would have set deadlines for the participation of U.S. troops in Iraq, they announced their intent to send Mr. Bush legislation to limit the U.S mission there, begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces, "and bring the war to a responsible end."

"In light of the additional evidence since your veto that your plan is not working, it is clear that a course correction in Iraq is needed. That is also the view of a substantial majority of the American people."

White House officials warned not to expect dramatic results by September. "It is naive to think that suddenly, boom, you snap a finger and you've got an instant change in the situation," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said.

The security operation was launched Feb. 14 with an additional 28,000 U.S. forces getting into position in and around the Iraqi capital. The Pentagon is required by Congress to provide its initial assessment of the operation in July, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he will report in September.

Despite criticism from members of both parties, Mr. Bush remained optimistic about the outcome of his decisions on Iraq. "I believe generations from now, Americans will realize the cause was just and necessary for our own security."