Why Officers Differ = on Troop Reduction

NY=20 Times.com

Military=20 Analysis

Why Officers Differ on Troop Reduction=20

Published:=20 September 14,=20 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 = =97 The view=20 of the way forward in Iraq=20 that President Bush articulated on Thursday night was the same one that = Gen. David=20 H. Petraeus, the top American = commander in=20 Iraq, has outlined in Washington all week.

Skip=20 to next paragraph It holds that the military effort there is = showing=20 signs of success, that too fast a withdrawal would be foolhardy, and = that while=20 the future will be difficult and full of setbacks, it is possible to = envision=20 that the American strategy will pay off in the=20 future.

But that vision, which = defers a=20 firm decision on steeper reductions in the force, remains deeply = unpopular to=20 some current and retired officers, who say the White House and its = battlefield=20 commander are continuing to strain the troops, with little prospect of = long-term=20 success.

It is the second time = in 10=20 months that Mr. Bush has opted for higher troop levels in Iraq than are = favored=20 by some of his senior military advisers. Among those who supported a = smaller=20 troop increase than the one Mr. Bush ordered last January were members = of the Joint=20 Chiefs of Staff.

Now, some of his = advisers would=20 prefer setting a faster timetable for drawing the force back=20 down.

Some even suggest that = Mr. Bush=92s=20 portrayal of the strategy as relying heavily on recommendations from = General=20 Petraeus has been more than a little = disingenuous,=20 given that it was unlikely that a battlefield commander would repudiate = his own=20 plans.

=93This approach can = work for brief=20 periods in many places, but it=92s not a good long-term solution,=94 = said Douglas A.=20 Macgregor, a retired Army colonel and a critic of the Bush = administration=92s=20 handling of Iraq. He called General Petraeus=92s=20 testimony =93another deceitful attempt on the part of the generals and = their=20 political masters to extend our stay in the country long enough until = Bush=20 leaves office.=94

General Petraeus told lawmakers during two days of = Congressional=20 testimony this week that his plan for reducing the American presence in = Iraq by=20 five combat brigades through mid-July was =93fully supported=94 by Adm. = William J.=20 Fallon, the chief of Central Command and the senior American commander = in the=20 Middle East, as well as by the Joint Chiefs of = Staff.

The general said, = =93There has been=20 no recommendation I am aware of that would have laid out by any of those = individuals a more rapid withdrawal.=94

He acknowledged though = that he=20 and other top-ranking officers had begun =93discussions about the pace = of the=20 mission transition,=94 a debate that remains unresolved and is likely to = flare up=20 again early next year, during a promised further review of additional = troop=20 cuts.

Among active-duty = officers, the=20 voices of skepticism about Mr. Bush=92s approach have been more muted, = but they=20 have been significant. The officers who have pushed for deeper cuts have = questioned whether his timetable =97 a drawdown to 15=20 combat brigades next July, from 20 now =97 would allow the Army to meet = its=20 minimum goal of giving soldiers at least a year at home for every year = they are=20 deployed.

Even before General = Petraeus appeared before Congress this week, Gen. = George W.=20 Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, last week questioned the = significance of=20 what his colleague had achieved.

General Casey, who was = General=20 Petraeus=92s predecessor as the top = commander in Iraq,=20 said that while the decision to send additional forces had produced a = =93tactical=20 effect=94 and brought =93a temporary and local impact on the security = situation,=94=20 the =93$64,000 question=94 was =93whether the opportunities created by = the military=20 could be taken advantage of by the Iraqi political=20 leadership.=94

=93I think a smaller = force will=20 cause Iraqis to do more faster,=94 General = Casey added,=20 speaking at a breakfast sponsored by Government Executive=20 magazine.

Advisers close to = General Petraeus say General Casey=92s comments were = hardly those of a=20 disinterested observer, given that he was effectively dismissed from his = post in=20 Iraq as conditions worsened during his tenure.

But his critique goes = beyond=20 deeper. He and others on the Joint Chiefs of Staff contend that the = current=20 force levels in Iraq cannot be sustained, given the current size of the=20 Army.

Among Mr. Bush=92s = other senior=20 military advisers, differences about how deep the cuts should go = appeared to=20 have been set aside with the decision to postpone further decisions = until next=20 spring.

Admiral Fallon was said = by some=20 officers to believe that only by giving the Iraqi government a clearer = sense=20 that the American troop commitment was limited would the Iraqis take = steps aimed=20 at achieving reconciliation.

He also worries about = having=20 enough forces in reserve to handle contingencies outside Iraq and in=20 Afghanistan.

Adm. Michael=20 G. Mullen, the current chief of naval operations, who takes over = as=20 chairman of the Joint Chiefs next month, has also raised concerns about = force=20 levels, though he also cautions against a withdrawal before the current = strategy=20 is allowed to work.

The deeper doubts = voiced by=20 General Casey about the prospects for Iraqi reconciliation are shared by = the=20 retired general John=20 P. Abizaid, who led the Central = Command until=20 January.

=93It was clear that = putting=20 additional troops in would gain temporary security,=94 General Abizaid said in a rare interview on Tuesday with = The=20 Associated Press.

=93What was not clear = to me was=20 what we were going to do diplomatically, economically, politically and = informationally to make sure that we moved forward = in a way=20 that wasn=92t just=20 temporary.=94