Warner: A White House-Pentagon Split on Troop Levels
"Differences of views and approaches" toward troop levels in Iraq will be worked out this week in a conference between the White House and Iraq commanders who want to keep the current number of forces, said the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
President Bush's 30,000-troop "surge" plan, announced in January, was intended as a short-term strategy to secure Iraq while the country's elected officials forged a working national government.
Now Iraq commander David H. Petraeus's team "wants to stay there with full force as long as they can," Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a former Navy secretary, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"The team back home are looking at the broader picture," Warner said, such as whether the United States confronts another conflict and has to use its ground forces. Would enough "trained and ready" troops" be available in such a scenario? "The answer is no," Warner said. "Clearly, we have a problem and we'd better solve it."
"We all know that the surge of forces was temporary in nature. And we all know that's going to come to an end and we all understand that. And it's important that we decide when those forces begin to leave," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Petraeus's deputy commander, said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of '08, and then we'll have to start to reduce," Odierno added.
Republicans and Democrats agreed that the "surge" approach cannot last much longer, no matter what the president or Iraq commanders desire.
"The surge can't go on forever. We don't have the manpower to do that. And I think the surge is going to end over a period of time," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday."
"The surge will end next spring in April 2008 because we cannot simply supply additional forces at that level," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said on Fox.
The effectiveness of the Bush strategy and whether the Iraqi government has made political progress are central topics in reports due from Petraeus and other U.S. officials in Iraq in the first half of September. A National Intelligence Estimate last week reported that the government had failed to make any progress and was unlikely to do so.
Republicans made clear they expected some course adjustment from Bush after receiving the September reports. But they also suggested they were unlikely to force his hand.
"I do think there's a good chance that in September we'll go in a different direction," McConnell said. "I don't think that means an arbitrary surrender date, but I think it's entirely possible that the president will lay out a strategy that ... ends up with some American troops forward-deployed in the Middle East at the end of this drawdown."
Warner made news last week when he suggested that President Bush announce the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Iraq to press the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to forge ahead on political reconciliation.
"I think we've got to show resolve in the face of the Iraqi government's inaction, but I want the president to make the decision as to when the troops stay and when they leave," Warner said. And if Bush asks for the surge to continue, "that's his right to do that and I will respect it."
At the same time, Warner left the door slightly ajar to backing more dramatic congressional efforts to compel the president to alter strategy.
"What I'm trying to do ... is to get the attention of our president, those making a decision, and indeed the American public of the necessity to bring some type of decisive pressure on this government to deliver on the reconciliation," Warner said. "I think the president ... has got to put teeth in his comments that we're not there forever. ...
"Am I going to suddenly go breaking [with him]? I'm going to have to evaluate it and as all other senators ... we'll have to make our decision about what we have to do," Warner said.
Democrats acknowledged that the additional troops had successfully brought a measure of security to Iraq, but said the U.S. strategy was still off course because the Iraqi government had failed to move toward national reconciliation.
"Our forces are doing a magnificent job. They're on the ground. They're making progress," Reed said. "But unfortunately, that progress is highly reversible because there's been no political buy-in by the Iraqi political leadership, no political progress."
Another Democrat on the Armed Services committee, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), focused on comments Bush made last week that linked the Iraq conflict and the Vietnam war. Bush said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could unleash the same bloodshed seen in Vietnam after U.S. forces left.
"They simply are not comparable," Webb said on ABC's "This Week," adding that years into the Vietnam War, the American public backed the idea that South Vietnam must not fall to communism. "The overall strategic objective was strong; the implementation became flawed. In Iraq, we're having a reverse situation. We have an overall strategic objective that was not directly related to what we were attempting to do in the war against international terrorism. We have good people implementing a bad strategy."
Warner, the senior Virginia senator, also addressed his own political future. The 80-year-old senator is mulling whether to run for a sixth term next year. He said he would announce his decision next month.
For the past five months, he added, he has kept a diary of his mental condition to help him decide. "I've got to assess at this age whether it is fair to Virginia to ask for a contract for another six years," he said, describing the heavy time demands and physical activity required of a senator.
"Meet the Press host" Tim Russert noted, "That sounds like a lot to ask a man between 80 and 86."
"That is correct," Warner said. "But anyway I'm going to make that decision. I'm going to do what's right for my state."
2008 candidates
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) continued trying to thrust himself into the first tier of GOP candidates after his second-place showing at the Iowa straw poll a few weeks ago. On Fox, Huckabee said he has seen huge increases in fundraising -- especially online. "We're seeing a momentum that we just weren't seeing before, people sort of holding back, wondering did we have the traction ...," he said. "We've been everything from no shot to long shot now to slingshot."
Huckabee also defended himself against claims from conservative organizations that he was a tax-hiking, free-spending governor. "If you look at our state spending compared to any others, it's about the same, because state spending is based often on federal pass-throughs on things like Medicaid, over which we have no control," he said. "... That's a big difference than simply throwing out these wild accusations that I'm a tax and spender."
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards (D) defended his criticism last week of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) after she said a terrorist attack would give the Republican candidate an advantage in 2008 and that she'd be the best person in charge if that happened.
"I don't agree that the Republicans would have an advantage. I would never cede that ...," Edwards said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "And the second issue is, I think when you're talking about something as serious as an attack on the United States of America, particularly if you're a presidential candidate or a president, the focus should not be on politics and on votes. The focus should be on what's going to have to be done to unite America and keep the American people safe."
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said on CNN that he'd like to remove all troops from Iraq as soon as possible -- over the next six months -- by using local roads into Kuwait and Turkey and leaving light equipment behind. "It's a matter of logistics," he said. Richardson also rejected the idea that the current military strategy is working: "What we have more deaths of our troops in the last summer than ever before."
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said on CNN that, while he was not supportive of the "surge" originally, it has worked and there is an opening for a U.S. delegation of statesmen to go to Iraq to help the country strike a deal among its sectarian factions. "I think we should push Iraq into a three-state solution," Brownback said.
--Zachary A. Goldfarb
By Post Editor |
August 26, 2007; 1:35 PM ET
Previous: Rove defends Bush agenda |
Next: Senators to Bush: "Be a Uniter" With New AG
Posted by: bradcpa | August 26, 2007 2:49 PM
We're being bait-and-switched. After enough time ran out and most people forgot that the surge was for political progress, the wholly expected albeit meager military progress is being hailed as a first sign of real success. But military success wasn't the point, it was to "buy time" for Shia-Sunni reconciliation, which is not happening.
Looks like it's only "buying time" for Bush to dump Iraq in his successor's lap.
And we all know what happens then .. Krauthammer and Will and Kristol doing column after column on how well Iraq had been going before the "defeat-o-crats" "cut and run."
And a depressingly large percentage of Americans will howl with hollow-eyed conviction that this is so.
Posted by: Chris Fox | August 26, 2007 2:51 PM
I have heard Warner double talk and sound off before like He would break with his party, but when it comes to a Vote he always supports Bush. I don't put much stock in what he says!
Posted by: Arnold Helkin | August 26, 2007 4:28 PM
If one take note, comments like.."perhaps more time" or "the government is showing progress" or "civilian death are down" or lastly, "at last we are seeing improvement".
These empty phrases mean nothing. They mean nothing to the millions of Iraqi's tonight (Sunday, 26 August 2007) that have no water, no electricity, no jobs, no money and perhaps no hope. For many, they comment how it was never this bad either for Shia or Sunni under the rule of Saddam.
That said, comments which have no definitive meaning but open ended "phrases" should be discounted. Hopefully, General P will be direct, forthwidth and honest in his appraisal of the strategic and tactical situation in Iraq. But, everything has a ring of politics..that's why in part, why General P got the job. Do you think a doubting General would of been selected has he questioned the wisdom of the American Enterprise Institute or the conservative think tanks in Washington..I think not!
General P should realize that thousands of faceless soldiers of our other wars will be looking down to assess his candor, his honesty and his integrity..something the United States Army needs to improve (ie, the Tillman case).
After April or March, there will be no more BDE's to send, as most have been there, are there or are scheduled to go again in the months ahead.
The American people who provide the young men and women and fund this war need to be informed and speak to their political leaders on the collective thoughts of their community and themselves.
Posted by: RH | August 26, 2007 5:00 PM
To save any remaining credibility, the Brookings Institute must immediately publicly rebuke and sever ties with Mike O'hore for taking money as a paid propagandist for the Bush White House. We all knew that Broder was a butt buddy of Rove's, but Mike too.
Outrageous in the extreme and even more outrageous that this rage continues to fail to disclose and report all of these conflicts of interest.
Posted by: erict | August 26, 2007 5:10 PM
It's a sad commentary on the state of the Republican Party that at this pivotal time the only Congressional Republican willing to push the administration toward even beginning a new course in Iraq is a Senator older than my long-retired father.
All the rest of them seem to think they are showing courage and independence when they don't go on the talk shows and repeat a list of debating points written by a lot of pasty-faced, snot-nosed White House staffers. It's a mystery to me why most of these guys are in politics; some of them were very successful in their earlier careers, at least to the point where they made a lot of money and could afford to run for office -- and cower behind President Bush as Bush cowers behind Gen. Petraeus. There are Republicans who spent years out of their lives trying to get elected to Congress and the Senate. Why on earth did they bother?
Posted by: Zathras | August 26, 2007 6:17 PM
The "surge" portion, to buy time for the Iraqi Government was the bringing in of additional troops; the surge, which took about 4 months to complete (that's not a "surge", that's a build-up or an enhancement or an increase; surges are quick) this was in reality an escalation as it's apparent temporary nature no longer seems temporary. Every "drawdown" scenario talks of drawing down 5,000, 20,000 or even 30,000 troops, which is not a drawdown, but is at best, returning to the troop level before the "surge". What's sad is that what Senator Warner is doing is seen as either courageous or a retreat (and turning his back on his party, his President, and his party's leader). What Senator Warner has done is, as a man who was an enlisted man during World War II, an officer in during the Korean War, Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam War, and as a long time member of Congress, looked at the issue and came to a view and a conclusion different that earlier because the situation and circumstances have changed. Whether I agree or disagree with Senator Warner, he is not blindly following party or President, but is coming to his decisions based on how he sees the facts and the issues. I respect him for that.
Posted by: Dungarees | August 26, 2007 6:57 PM
It's time to admit that we need to bring our troops home and pull out faster and stop whining about it.
Only Red Bushies and their communist brethren in Red China who finance this Quagmire want our US tax dollars and our children's Social Security reserves spent overseas in Iraq on a political civil war we should NEVER have been involved in.
I'm tired of going to military funerals for my friends.
Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 26, 2007 8:26 PM
Voted against Warner in all republican primaries when in Virginia. Too bad other Republicans didn't follow suit.
Posted by: john | August 26, 2007 8:51 PM
I hope Maliki is watching his back. With the attacks from the Washington political establishment and the "backing" from Bush, he might end up like Diem (that's the Vietnam parallel Bush meant to convey).
Posted by: Ted | August 26, 2007 9:20 PM
It appears to me clearly now that president Bush has gone over his boundary as a commander in chief. Since the 9/11 president Bush took the advantage from the momentum of Americans want a retribution. He orders the U.S. troops with the approval of Congress into Afghanistan but he just simply could not stop there. Why he could not stop there because the U.S. Congress was lobbied by other interest groups whom have a great interest in eliminating Saddam Hussein who was unfavored to president Bush at the time. Now that factions are no longer in the same plane of interests with president Bush's ideology as far as finding a peace solution to Middle-East. Now president Bush has no options to back-out and neither options to move forward. However, Bush now has a lower-hand compare to the upper-hand that all parties involved in Iraq as a poker game is concerned. If he chose the option to pull-out, he lost all his chips. He he chose to stay i the game, he must raise the bet. If he can't check, because he has a lower-hand anyhow. He can't make a move without facing a lost. If he joins the opponent, then his option will be attacking his own house and can never retrieve his political collateral. So he is now not a commander in chief. He is just simply a thug to a simple Iraqi and the rest of the world or a typical Texan cowboy who loves to shoot from the hip.
Posted by: Scorpion92867 | August 26, 2007 10:48 PM
warner, clinton, baird, levin, and wyden have this and only this to say; " i will do anything to politically survive, integrity is not at issue here.
Posted by: lonewolf | August 27, 2007 8:13 PM
This is just too funny!! I bet he was in the deepest bunker in the middle of the green zone!
Senator Lindsey Graham, an Air Force reservist returning from a two-week tour of duty in Iraq, said "the surge has worked" and has provided a level of security in the country he had not seen before. "The government at the central level is dysfunctional, but it is not a failed state," Graham said, predicting that there would be a major breakthrough in the coming weeks.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/09/senators_to_bush_be_a_uniter_o.html
Posted by: JD | September 2, 2007 3:52 PM
The ego- mania phase of Petraeus-- going on Fox for his propaganda blitz.
Petraeus-- So inappropriate.
Petraeus-- He needs bipartisan support if he is leading our troops to their death.
Petraeus-- Going on fox will only serve his Senate run (which has no chance), not the interest of the troops.
Petraeus-- Shame on him for this horrible behavior and this missed opportunity.
Posted by: jim | September 9, 2007 7:16 PM
Great work!
My homepage | Please visit
Posted by: Angie | September 24, 2007 8:29 PM
adipoid anticous fuscescent quantimeter anharmonic mangling hexapla exophoria
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/2.html >94577
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/3.html
Posted by: Luis Doyle | October 7, 2007 8:16 PM
adipoid anticous fuscescent quantimeter anharmonic mangling hexapla exophoria
http://www.angelfire.com/hnamatzh/7sg.html >Samuel F B Morse
http://www.angelfire.com/hnamatzh/ne8.html
Posted by: Ronna Gibbs | November 3, 2007 6:00 AM
Another big drug maker, Pfizer, for example, was harshly criticized in 2001 for reporting that its painkiller Celebrex caused fewer ulcers than older drugs after six months of use. Pfizer’s study had originally been designed — but failed — to show that Celebrex caused fewer ulcers after a full year of use. Yesterday, Merck and Schering said they did not yet know the results of the trial. They said they were changing the endpoint only because they want to be able to analyze the data more quickly. A panel of outside scientists recommended the change last Friday, said Lee Davies, a spokesman for Schering. Mr. Davies declined to disclose the members of the panel. Dr. Howard Weintraub, the clinical director of the New York University center for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, said cardiologists were especially concerned about the trial’s results because Zetia works...
http://coolnews-4u.com/
Posted by: iiawumngrz | November 24, 2007 8:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
I think it way past time for the Bush administration to come clean with American people. They need to say that for success this surge in going to go on for the next decade, and be sure the American people can expect a thousand American casualties a year. I think the subject of Viet Nam is relevant to this discussion and we should start reserving space for a war memorial on the mall now.