So what exactly is going to happen in Iraq?
(Petraeus) was careful to emphasize that any withdrawals — after a recommended 45-day halt this summer — would be based on security conditions at the time, Petraeus’ acknowledgment went slightly further than his stubborn refusal Tuesday to discuss the level of U.S. troops after the July pause.
“I can foresee a reduction beyond the 15 [brigades], yes, sir,” Petraeus said, referring to the number of military units that will remain in Iraq once the surge ends in July. “We have a number of months and a number of substantial actions to take before then, but we are already identifying areas that we think are likely candidates for that.”
Of course that left some in the House Armed Services Committee with grave concerns.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the committee’s chairman, said U.S. military and intelligence leaders have argued any future terrorist attack is likely to come from Al Qaeda operatives based in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“When looking at the needs in Afghanistan, the effort in Iraq, however important, is putting at risk our ability to decisively defeat those most likely to attack us,” Skelton said.
So with the count of troops in Iraq not unlikely to remain the same through to the elections in November, what does this mean for the Cadidates?
For the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who has tethered his political fate to the war, the freeze could hurt or help him, said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University in New Jersey.
The U.S. military role in Iraq “will constantly remind voters about a Republican problem that is unpopular, controversial and seen as a policy failure,” Zelizer said. At the same time, Democrats shouldn’t assume the war issue will break their way.
“Americans often support hawks or military figures to get the nation out of messy wars,” he said, citing Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War in 1953, and Richard Nixon, who brought most U.S. forces home from Vietnam 20 years later.
Obama, Clinton
McCain and the two Democratic presidential candidates — Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York — addressed Iraq yesterday as Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before two Senate committees.
Clinton, 60, said it was time to begin an “orderly process” of withdrawal. Obama said setting a timetable for a pullout would force Iraqi leaders to resolve sectarian disputes.
The Democratic rivals are responding to weak public support for the Iraq war. Sixty percent of all Americans favor setting a timetable for removing U.S. forces, while 35 percent support keeping a significant number of troops there until the situation improves, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken Feb. 21 through Feb. 24.
McCain, 71, reiterated his view that the U.S. troop buildup ordered by Bush last year has been a success and that a premature American withdrawal would be “reckless and irresponsible.”
No `Abyss’
“We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,” McCain said.
At the same time, McCain sought to refute Democratic criticisms that he supported an unlimited U.S. commitment and was overly optimistic about the course of the conflict.
McCain said his goal was “an Iraq that no longer needs American troops.” And he elicited testimony from Petraeus that was critical of the performance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki and Iraqi security forces in fighting against Shiite militias in Basra.
Clinton, like McCain a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also used her moment in the spotlight to counter critics of her position on Iraq — in this case, McCain and his assertion that those supporting withdrawal were irresponsible.
“It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such tremendous cost,” Clinton said.
The administration and its supporters “often talk about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignore the greater cost of continuing the same failed policy,” she said.
`Strategic Blunder’
Obama, 46, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was a “massive strategic blunder.”
“Our military is overstretched and the Pentagon has acknowledged it,” he said. “When you have finite resources, you’ve got to define your goals tightly and modestly.”
One way or the other, with the economy recently being the focal point of election debate leaving all other issues as footnotes, Iraq is likely to get a fair amount of press in the near future.
Popularity: 2% [?]
