Military chief acknowledges new strategy has failed to produce political progress, writes Denis Stauntonin Washington
Before Gen David Petraeus started his testimony in front of two congressional committees yesterday, Democrats made clear that nothing he would say could change their minds about the disaster they see in Iraq.
House foreign relations committee chairman Tom Lantos said he expected the general to report that the surge in US forces that has seen 30,000 extra troops deployed to Iraq was on course for victory.
"With respect, I just don't buy it," Lantos said.
Most Americans share that grim view, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll that shows more than half of the respondents believing that the troop increase will have no impact or will make matters worse. Three out of four want to withdraw some or all US troops from Iraq.
Scepticism about the surge crosses party boundaries and in an interview with GQ magazine published yesterday, former secretary of state Colin Powell joined the critics.
"You can surge all of the American troops you want, but they can't stop this. Suppose I'm a battalion commander. My troops ask, 'What do I do today, boss?' "Let's go fight the Shia militias!" 'What do I do tomorrow?' "Let's go fight the Sunni insurgents!" 'What do I do the day after tomorrow?' "Let's go chase al-Qaeda!" 'What do we do the day after that?' "We're going to guard streets!" Our kids are fantastic. But this is not sustainable. Our surge can work only with an Iraqi political and military surge," he said.
Gen Petraeus told the congressmen that, on a military level, the surge is working, reducing sectarian violence and making parts of Baghdad and Anbar province safer. He acknowledged, however, that the new counter-insurgency strategy had so far failed to produce much political progress.
The general has told president George Bush that a reduction in US force levels could begin within weeks, with one of the 20 US brigades currently serving in Iraq coming home before the end of the year.
If the 30,000 troops sent to Iraq as part of the surge return home at the end of their 15-month postings, there would be about 130,000 troops still in Iraq next August - the same number that were present before the surge began.
"I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level . . . by next summer without jeopardising the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve," he said.
Gen Petraeus said that further reductions were likely in the second half of 2008 but he warned that it was too early to make specific recommendations.
Last December the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that most US combat troops should withdraw from Iraq by next April, a position most Democrats and some Republicans supported.
Nine months later, despite public impatience with the war, the Democrats have failed to make any impact on the president's strategy in Iraq. Democratic leaders protest that, with a majority of just one in the 100-seat senate, they have little hope of winning the 67 votes necessary to override a presidential veto.
Anti-war activists complain that, fearful of being tarred as soft on national security or neglectful of the needs of the armed forces, Democrats have refused to use the single, most effective measure available to them by cutting off funds for the war.
Twenty-nine Democratic senators, including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, voted on May 19th to cut off funds but five days later, the senate approved new funds for the war.
Despite Democratic grumbles about Gen Petraeus's report, there is little sign of an adequate congressional majority to force Bush to change course.
The president's strategy could benefit Democrats in next year's presidential and congressional elections, as Republicans struggle to explain to voters why more than 100,000 US troops remain in Iraq. Republican presidential candidates are already torn between the temptation to cut loose from the president over Iraq and the fear of accusations of disloyalty from the party's core voters.
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, warned congressmen yesterday that victory in Iraq may only become apparent in retrospect.
The American public may not be willing to wait that long and if a Democrat is elected to the White House next year, the new president will start withdrawing from Iraq almost immediately.
Clinton, who is more cautious on Iraq than some of her rivals, has promised to end the war if she wins office, although she believes that a residual US force should remain in Iraq. In common with other Democrats, Clinton wants to build on tentative talks that have started between Crocker and his Iranian counterpart over the future of Iraq.
Talks with Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria, were among the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that Bush rejected. If the president gets his way and Congress swallows Gen Petraeus's medicine, US forces will remain in Iraq in substantial numbers until he leaves office.
After that, the new president is likely to dust down the Iraq Study Group report and, two years late, start putting it into action.