Petraeus will never declare victory in Iraq

The general in charge of American soldiers in Iraq has given a mixed assessment of progress in the country.

General David Petraeus says that while the country is in better shape than it was at the start of last year it still faces serious problems.

General Petraeus has overseen the so-called "surge" of American combat troops into Iraq and he is about to leave to take on a more senior role leading US Central Command.

He says the fabric of Iraqi society was being torn apart by "horrific" violence and he would never declare victory there.

"This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan," he said.

However, as security has improved American combat troops could be moved out of a number of major cities, including Baghdad.

When asked whether US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".

The outgoing commander told the BBC that Al Qaeda's battle in Iraq is "going poorly", despite the group's claims to be doing well.

But General Petraeus also says there are still "many storm clouds on the horizon that could develop into real problems".

He is about to become the head of the US Central Command, a post that will also oversee Afghanistan, where American troops are now being sent in greater numbers.

Bush considering 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq

The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN.

President Bush is considering Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation, which the official said is for a reduction of "well over 7,500 personnel," with the number including combat and support troops.

Some units would leave Iraq over the next five months as they complete their missions. But the first possible significant reduction -- an army brigade combat team -- would leave without replacement early next year, said the official, and that would free a brigade to be rotated to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

Petraeus gave his recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who have passed it and other recommendations along to the president.

A reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq would free up personnel for deployment to Afghanistan, a move urged by many commanders. The Taliban has stepped up its fight in that country, posing a challenge for the 33,000 U.S. troops deployed there.

The White House will not comment on the details of the Iraq recommendations. Spokeswoman Dana Perino said only that Bush "has received the assessment and recommendation from the Pentagon and he is considering his options."

The president is expected to make an announcement on troop levels next week, the same time Gates and Mullen are to testify before the House Armed Services Committee about Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Iraq and the United States are working to seal a security agreement that would set down a framework to withdraw troops.

In deciding on troop cuts, officials must weigh the need for sufficient U.S. military presence to help Iraq build its army and the significant sentiment there for U.S. and coalition troops to withdraw swiftly.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been looking at a proposal calling for a complete U.S. military withdrawal by the end of 2011, and a deadline of June 30, 2009, to end the presence of U.S. troops in cities and towns.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed that Gates and Mullen made their recommendations to Bush on Wednesday, but gave no details.

"I can tell you that all these leaders are fundamentally in agreement on how we should proceed in Iraq," he said of Gates, Mullen, Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and acting Central Command chief Gen. Martin Dempsey.

"Of course, now it is up to the commander-in-chief to decide the way ahead," Morrell said.

Officials said senior military leaders agree that the soonest troop levels could be significantly reduced would be early in 2009, when a 3,500-strong brigade from the 10th Mountain Division is scheduled to deploy to Iraq to replace a brigade leaving in mid-January.

Pentagon officials say that would free another brigade combat team to arrive in Afghanistan in mid-February.

The Army has identified units that could be available for Afghanistan, but it would take two to three months from the time the decision is made to assemble all the weaponry and equipment they need and ship them and the troops to Afghanistan, two Army officials told CNN.

The officials said the troops would not need extensive additional training to switch from Iraq to Afghanistan, especially those earmarked to train Afghan forces.

The increase in fighting in Afghanistan contrasts with the dramatic drop in violence across Iraq, where U.S. military is confident that it will continue to make strides.

The military transferred security control to Iraqis this week in the country's Anbar province, a Sunni Arab region once dominated by insurgents and now a bastion of the Awakening Councils, or Sons of Iraq, U.S.-backed groups that help with some security duties.

The military said it plans to transfer management of the Awakening Councils to the Iraqi government next month.

"The government of Iraq and coalition forces have agreed in principle to transfer all 100,000 Sons of Iraq," Maj. John Hall told CNN. "The transfer will start with the Baghdad province, with the other provinces following at a later date."

Under the security agreement still being negotiated, the Iraqi government could ask Americans to extend the tentative deadlines if it sees the necessity of doing so. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would then help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground.

Gen. Petraeus recommends delay in Iraq troop cuts

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has recommended that President Bush postpone sharp troop cuts in Iraq until next year, delaying a large-scale shift of combat forces to Afghanistan and reflecting concerns that widespread violence could return to Iraq.

Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then, a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February, a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public.

The move would represent a compromise between Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comprising the uniformed heads of the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. The Joint Chiefs had hoped for a sharper cut -- of up to 10,000 troops -- by the end of the year. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, had pushed to keep 140,000 troops, or 15 combat brigades and support personnel, until next June.

"It is a compromise solution," said a military official, describing internal discussions on condition of anonymity. "It is about balancing risks and requirements."

Any further changes would be decided by the next administration, military officials said.

The recommendation contrasts with Petraeus' statements before Congress in May, when he predicted an autumn troop reduction, even if a small one. The warning against deep cutbacks also comes amid a sharp debate in the presidential campaign, in which Republican John McCain has praised Bush's troop strategy and Democrat Barack Obama has said he would withdraw troops to send more forces to Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials emphasized that the recommendations have not been accepted by President Bush. But over the last 18 months, Bush has deferred to Petraeus, who has accepted the compromise. The White House said Bush is considering the advice.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, declined to discuss the specifics of the recommendation but said it bridged divisions among military leaders.

"I can tell you that all these leaders are fundamentally in agreement on how we should proceed in Iraq," Morrell said in a statement. "They came to agreement after serious and lengthy discussions about the dramatic security gains in Iraq, the threats that still exist there and the uncertainties that remain."

In recent months, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stressed the importance of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan to counter a growing threat by extremists.

But because of the strains of combat on the armed forces, plans to boost the number of troops in Afghanistan have depended on reducing the size of the force in Iraq.

One source of the strain, the 2007 troop buildup ordered by Bush, came to an end in July, when the last of 21,500 additional combat troops left. Throughout the year, as the troop buildup was ending, the number of forces in Iraq gradually declined.

But Petraeus requested a halt in the troop cuts over the summer while officials assessed conditions.

Among other troop recommendations, the Pentagon has asked Bush to send a Marine battalion -- about 1,000 troops -- to Afghanistan in November. They would replace 3,200 Marines who were sent to Iraq earlier this year and are due to leave.

The troop changes would mean that before next spring, when fighting is expected to intensify, an additional brigade along with the Marine battalion would bolster the U.S. force in Afghanistan by about 1,300 troops. Including the current Marine units, there now are about 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Petraeus' insistence on keeping a larger troop presence in Iraq would prevent a larger shift sought by the Joint Chiefs. Commanders in Afghanistan have requested three additional brigades. And members of the Joint Chiefs had hoped to be able to send at least one brigade by the end of the year.

However, Petraeus has worried over the departure of other nations from the U.S.-led Iraq coalition, including the reduction in forces by Britain and the abrupt recall last month of 2,000 Georgian troops.

White House officials declined to comment on the Petraeus recommendation. Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are expected to testify before Congress about the recommendation next Wednesday. An announcement by Bush is expected shortly afterward.

No time to ignore Iraq

In a land that seems increasingly far away, 140,000 U.S. troops still labor – fortunately with less risk to life and limb than during some previous time periods. And, with a tentative agreement between the U.S. and the Iraqi prime minister to have most troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, perhaps we’re even within sight of a close to this particularly misbegotten chapter in American history.

And yet. As with all things Iraqi so far anyway, powder kegs remain. The much vaunted Sunni Awakening seems to be somewhat less than pleasing to the ruling Shiites, who apparently now want some of the Sunni leaders arrested and tried for their previous ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Provincial elections – scheduled for December, last I saw a report on them – may prove problematic or may get postponed again. Who runs Kirkuk is not resolved. Whether Muqtada al-Sadr chooses to fight or stick to politics is another great unknown. Meanwhile, lots of Iraqis remain refugees.

I would hope that whoever becomes president in January will be able to approach Iraq with a lot of flexibility. I am not enamored of Barack Obama’s call for a specific timetable (although he has plenty of asterisks attached to it), nor do I think much of John McCain’s almost sole emphasis on “victory.” I would mostly like to see an Iraq that is stable and secure for all of its people; that may mean we have to keep a sort of peace-keeping force there for a long time – perhaps even longer than the majority Shiites want. We may also have to acknowledge that most of the time, Iraq is going to be very friendly with Iran. How a president walks this tightrope, I don’t know, except that a huge emphasis on diplomacy would seem to be in order.

Meanwhile, Gen. Petraeus calls the current relative calm tenuous: “It’s not durable yet. It’s not self-sustaining,” he told the New York Times.

I personally can live with an extended, and extensive, troop presence in Iraq as long as it means Iraq is getting safer day by day for its citizens (and our soldiers). I don’t want our troops used to baby-sit a civil war, though, or worse, be on one side or the other of sectarian bloodbaths. Yet there is some room for hope, which certainly didn’t exist two years ago, that we may finally be on something close to the right course. It sort of reaffirms the saying that we as a country usually end up doing the right thing -- after we’ve tried everything else.

Gen. Petraeus insists U.S. needs to stay in Iraq indefinitely

Gen. David Petraeus said Tuesday that at least 140,000 U.S. troops should remain indefinitely in Iraq - and also appeared to move the goalposts for defining the success of their mission.

Despite genuine gains, "We haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible," he cautioned the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The U.S. troop surge "significantly reduced" what had been the main threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq, Petraeus said. But the effort to stabilize the country was in peril from so-called "Special Groups" of terrorists trained and funded by Iran who were behind the recent violence in Basra and Baghdad, he added. "Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Petraeus said in marathon testimony before two Senate committees.

He said the new main threat from Iran influenced him in deciding to stop troop withdrawals at the end of July when the remaining surge troops come home to leave U.S. force levels at about 140,000.

Additional withdrawals would stop completely for at least 45 days, Petraeus said, and would be followed by a "process of assessment" to determine when pullouts could be renewed.

Despite repeated attempts by senators of both parties to gauge how long his assessment might last, Petraeus refused to be pinned down.

"Could that be a month, could that be two months, could that be four months?" asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

It could be less, but, "It could be more than that," Petraeus said. "Again, it's when the conditions are met that we can make a recommendation for further reductions."

Petraeus later said withdrawals would be "conditions-based" and "it is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say this is when it would be or that is when it would be."

Petraeus' statements virtually guaranteed that the next President will inherit a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq and also ensured the war will remain a major issue in the November election.

President Bush will back up Petraeus in meetings today with congressional leaders, who have acknowledged they lack the votes to change his policy.

Bush also was to make a daytime Iraq address tomorrow, announcing that U.S. troop tours in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reduced from 15 to 12 months.

Democrats on the committees generally pressed Petraeus without success for a withdrawal timetable, while Republicans deferred to the four-star officer.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was an exception. In tones of resignation, Collins said that "success always seems to be around the corner" in Iraq.