Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush’s nominee to become the new commander in Iraq, warned lawmakers Tuesday that a rapid U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq might lead to increased sectarian bloodshed, regional instability and even could disrupt the world economy.
Petraeus, in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and first public statement since his nomination was announced this month, cautioned that there are tough days ahead in Iraq. But the general said he believes that Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq could give the Iraqi government the “breathing space” it needs to rein in militias and forge a political solution that could help stem the violence.
“The situation in Iraq is dire,” Petraeus said. “The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard.”
Petraeus commanded the Army’s 101st Airborne Division during the March 2003 invasion and later oversaw the training of Iraqi security forces. While he has been tapped to carry out Bush’s new war plan, Petraeus was greeted with platitudes from senators on both sides of the aisle who questioned him during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing.
House hears military’s worries
Meanwhile, the top generals in the Army and Marine Corps voiced concern before the House Armed Services Committee that the military may be overextended.
“We have examined other war plans and our capability to respond to those plans, and we see that we are lacking in some areas in our ability to do so,” said Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps. “We feel we would be able to respond with those forces that are not committed to Iraq or Afghanistan–that the response would be slower than we might like.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, said that a vote to give Petraeus the promotion in rank needed for him take over as commander in Iraq could come in a few days. Bush nominated Petraeus to replace Army Gen. George Casey.
Petraeus said he has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to move five brigades of U.S. troops to Baghdad as soon as possible. He said, however, that troop flow would be stopped if the Iraqi government fails to keep up with its commitments. The general also told the Senate committee he would not hesitate to tell Gates and Pace as well as the committee if he concluded the plan wasn’t working.
In an unusual move for a battle-hardened commander still in uniform, Petraeus spoke against pending Senate resolutions disapproving of Bush’s new war strategy. Active-duty officers rarely weigh in on political matters.
Petraeus first answered a question from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that such resolutions would not have a “beneficial effect” on troop morale. He later said he agreed with another lawmaker’s assertion that such resolutions would give the enemy encouragement by exposing divisions among the American people.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, voiced strong disagreement with Petraeus and other lawmakers’ assertions that it was wrong to consider such resolutions.
Clinton also pointed out that according to the U.S. military manual on counterinsurgency operations, which was largely written by Petraeus, the troop levels in Baghdad fall considerably short of what military experts say is needed to fight an insurgency.
Baghdad force of 85,000
If the increased deployment of U.S. and Iraqi forces is carried out as planned, there would be about 85,000 combat troops in Baghdad, according to Petraeus. About 120,000 combat troops would be needed to properly pacify an insurgency in the sprawling Iraqi capital, which has a population of 6 million people, according to the military counterinsurgency manual.
“You wrote the book, General, but the policy is not by the book,” Clinton said. “And you are being asked to square the circle, to find a military solution to a political crisis. I, among others on this committee, have put forward ideas about disapproving the escalation not because we in any way embrace failure or defeat, but because we are trying to get the attention of our government and the government of Iraq.”
Petraeus later backed away from his opposition to the Senate resolutions and said he did not intend for his statements to be taken as opposition or support.
———-
amadhani@tribune.com
