Gen. David Petraeus: Envisions a redeployment of the "surge'' forces by mid-2008. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
by Mark Silva, and updated
“The United States will be in a position to reduce its forces in Iraq in the months ahead,’’ Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill today.
“I have recommended a draw-down,’’ the Army general told a joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.
Later this month, he said, a Marine unit that arrived with the “surge’’ of forces ordered this year will leave, to be followed by a brigade – about 5,000 troops – in mid-December.
Petraeus said he will recommend a drawdown of several more brigades in the first seven months of 2008. This, he said, will enable U.S. forces to return to their “pre-surge’’ level by mid-July. That was about 130,000 troops, before the surge which President Bush first announced in January and which was fully deployed this summer.
It will be mid-March, however, before commanders will be able to say for certain how much further they will be able to go with any redeployment without jeopardizing security inside Iraq, Petraeus said.
The president, who has promised a national address this week that "leaders of both parties'' will be able to support, clearly had the general's expected remarks today in mind.
See the full written testimony of Petraeus: Download file
And see the slides that he presented in illustration: Download file
Read on, and please share your comments below:
Petraeus reported that two weeks ago he made several recommendations "for the way ahead in Iraq'' to his own chain of command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I have recommended a drawdown of the surge forces from Iraq,'' he said.
Specifically, a Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed as part of the surge will depart later this month. Beyond that, if his recommendations are approved, he said, a brigade combat team will leave without replacement in mid-December and four other brigade combat teams and two surge Marine battalions will leave during the first seven months of 2008 -- "until we reach the pres-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008.''
For any military gains from the surge which Petraeus cited today, however both he and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, were candid about the failure of Iraqi's governmental leaders to take advantage of added security by pressing for a political reconciliation of warring factions.
"I will limit myself to one question,'' Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said after Petraeus and Crocker testified.
"While American sons and daughters are sweating and fighting as the true professionals that they are, it appears, Mr. Ambassador, using your phrase, that the key pieces of legislation have not been passed by the (Iraqi) parliament… It appears to this country lawyer that the leaders and Iraqi parliamentarians have been sitting on their thumbs.''
“Mr. Ambassador,'' Skelton asked, "why should we… expect the next six months to be any different than it has in the past?''
‘You are frustrated,'' Crocker replied. "The American people are frustrated. I am frustrated, every day I spend in Iraq, on the lack of legislative initiatives... That, to my mind, does not mean there has been no progress toward reconciliation. There has been.''
"I frankly do not expect that we are going to see rapid progress through these benchmarks,'' Crocker allowed of the several benchmarks for political progress that Congress has set as a condition for continued war funding.
The White House, which has conceded mixed progress in meeting those 18 military, political and rebuilding benchmarks, will make its next report on the progress of meeting all the milestones by Saturday, as required by Congress.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Petraeus: Return To 'Pre-Surge' Force By Mid-2008"
More crap from the Draftdodger in Chiefs #1 lapdog, mid-08 is when they will HAVE to bring home more troops because the military is already stretched to thin, anyone with a brain (not Republic Party goons) already knows this.
Posted by: John E | September 10, 2007 2:31 PM
ALL OF WHAT HE HAS SAID IS CRAP! "Lapdog" is a GREAT label for this clown.
"W"'s folley has ALREADY COST US A TRILLION DOLLARS!! We'll be paying for this fools' lunacy FOREVER!
Posted by: RB-Chicago | September 10, 2007 2:43 PM
John E., your analysis and ability to think intelligently and rationally is about on par with a drug addict's addiction to try some pot and see what happens. Ooops,that pretty much sums you up to a tee!!!
Really, the treatment of the General by those on the Left and their lapdogs in the Demoncratic party would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. You sickos would denigrate anyone for your own means.
Doug Zook, you've been amazingly quiet. Anyway, the treatment of the Democrats and those on the Left of Petraues has been horrendous. They continue to denigrate a fine man, and a great military. The treatment of Petraeus only proves the Demoncrats and Leftist Ilk have nothing but contempt for him, the military, the men and women in the military. The Left never has had any respect for the military, in fact they hate the military. Period.
Posted by: John D | September 10, 2007 2:44 PM
Bush will "listen to the general"
since he told the general what to say.
And, uh, isn't 130,000 still over the 120,000 we were supposedly going to be drawing down from prior to the surge?
One more Friedman Unit gets us close enough to election time to either
a) declare victory and bring them home in time for an electoral victory
b) drag out one last Friedman Unit and hand this disaster over to the next sucker to fix
And then blame the Democrats that actually fix it for losing Bush's glorious war.
Grag your flags and start chanting "USA", Wingnuts.
Posted by: John E | September 10, 2007 2:47 PM
John D-
Is asking the General hard questions acceptable?
Is disagreeing with the General accepatable?
Is civilian control of the military acceptable?
Posted by: Tony | September 10, 2007 2:57 PM
He is calling for a drawdown but it does not seem like it is drawing down enough. It looks more as if he is doing it as a saving face measure for compromise. Things don't seem to be changing for the better.
Posted by: Erica | September 10, 2007 2:58 PM
No, Bush! Enough is enough. Don't bother addressing the Nation, I don't want to hear your voice and lies anymore. The answer is NO! Let's hope Congress does not buy this load of Crap and does something about it this time.
Posted by: Tim | September 10, 2007 3:00 PM
This sounds like Vietnam part 2 and considering that our "leadership" (Prez McFlightsuit, Darth Deerhunter, Crying Karl Rove) found a way to avoid fighting in that war it doesn't surprise me that they would repeat those same mistakes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fe9N-eP3O4
Posted by: not John D | September 10, 2007 3:09 PM
After finding the battle against our military men more difficult than first believed, the Democrat leadership stopped fighting but continued whining with Lantos in the lead.
Posted by: whatnow | September 10, 2007 3:09 PM
Hey, John D., do you still want to chop off the heads of the monkeys in Washington who've created and perpetuate this god-awful mess? Oh, no ... I forgot, you love them. You only want to chop off the heads of the people who want to stop the killing.
Never mind. for a minute there I thought you were rational.
Holding the military - AND PARTICULARLY - the civilian leadership (stupid as sh*t, but still the leadership) accountable IS the American way. Goosestepping while chanting JaVol! is your rightwing nutcase way to govern.
Posted by: snalg | September 10, 2007 3:16 PM
Slightly off subject but, because I know John D and Bruce love polls I'd like to get there take on this one.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"
Yes 33%
No 58%
Unsure 9%
So my question is: How can anyone be dumb enough to still think Sadam was involved with 9/11? If, as you say, the media has a liberal bias how can fully a third of the population still be so ignorant?
Where do these people get their news? It's like there must be some massive network that spews out ignorance for partisan reasons. But who would do such a thing?
Posted by: nisleib | September 10, 2007 3:27 PM
Whats left to say-? Patraeus and Crocker have made a clear, reasonable, fact based presentation that supports the goal of decreasing troops without sacrificing gains that have clearly been made to reduce violence.
At the break- General/Ambassador-1
Congress-people hoping for a grandstand opportunity- 0
Posted by: heartburn | September 10, 2007 3:30 PM
Iraq will be better 6 to 9 months from now. I have heard it so many times before.
Posted by: PD | September 10, 2007 3:45 PM
To paraphrase an old song: "Where have all the soliders gone? Gone to graveyards, everyone one."
This is the goal of the Cheneybush Regime: to have all the soldiers "go to their reward," by the time they leave office.
Not bad for two draft-dogers, eh? Yes, yes.... I know, Bush the Inferior was granted a pass into the Texas Air National Guard, where he was famously fitted for an athletic cup then worked on republican political campaigns in between drunken-drug binges.
Posted by: snalg | September 10, 2007 3:56 PM
6 more months,more lives,billions more dollars....6 more months,more lives,billions more dollars...georgie boy's war is such a waste for his ego!
Posted by: akie | September 10, 2007 4:16 PM
Looks like Bush is getting everything he wants, Harry and Nancy and Rahm notwithstanding.
When he leaves office in 2009 the troops will likely still be at pre-surge levels. Rather clever to do the surge because
it allows him to do the drawdown from surge levels not from pre-surge levels. The Dems have been outmaneuvered again. I sense Dick Cheney in there somewhere.
And if the war is going full blast in November, why would we give the presidency to the Democrats. They are useless. Maybe we should just continue on with another war prez. Like Giuliani.
Posted by: helena | September 10, 2007 4:47 PM
Why do i sense that the bush haters are using more then one name postings on this site. I can't believe they are still bringing up the old election propaganda, they still are fighting the florida vote count. Get over it
Posted by: sam | September 10, 2007 5:30 PM
Troop levels could not be maintained in Iraq past the
mid-late spring of 2008 without extending deployments or reinstating a draft.
Army Secretary Peter Geren stated in April 2007 that troops must be drawn down no later than April 2008. His sentiment was echoed by many active and retired
military personnel.
Thank you for stating the obvious, General Petraeus.
Posted by: johnf | September 10, 2007 6:41 PM
This is the true picture of what has happened over there.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
She has finally posted since April...I am glad to know she and her family are safe. How much more is this administration going to make these people tolerate?n
Posted by: lochnessmonster | September 10, 2007 6:56 PM
We get back to pre-surge troop levels by next summer. Then what, back to only fifty to sixty dead soldiers a month. For how long? We are looking at years more in Iraq after paying with thirty seven hundred American lives and twenty seven thousand injure and maimed. How many more Americans destroyed and dead are acceptable?
Posted by: c. perry | September 10, 2007 8:56 PM
Come on the "decider" had a little too much hard cider back in the day....anyway of course he won"t take betrayus advice either ever hear about ego... when will this disaster be over...special thanks to the troops!
Posted by: richard | September 10, 2007 9:50 PM
[quote]
Really, the treatment of the General by those on the Left and their lapdogs in the Demoncratic party would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. You sickos would denigrate anyone for your own means.
Posted by: John D | September 10, 2007 2:44 PM
[/quote]
Let's talk about what Karl Rove and the Republicans did to Max Cleland (D-GA) in the 2006 election, then. How people like you enabled the Republicans to smear a Vietnam veteran, a man who lost both legs and an arm on the battlefield. People like you attacked his patriotism, all for political gain.
Posted by: BC | September 11, 2007 11:28 AM
BC, as usual, you have your facts wrong. But then why am I not surprised that someone with the mental capacity of roadkill would have facts wrong?
Posted by: John D | September 11, 2007 12:05 PM