by Mark Silva
Last fall, when Gen. David Petraeus reported in from Iraq, President Bush consulted with the commander of U.S. and multinational forces and embraced his recommendation for a start of a drawdown of the "surge'' forces that Bush had deployed in Iraq.
Bush, explaining his stance in a televised address to the nation from the Oval Office, called it a "return on success.''
Today, following an early breakfast with Petraeus at the White House, Bush will again address the nation with a televised announcement from the Cross Hall of the White House -- his remarks scheduled for 11:45 am EDT, before departing for his Texas ranch.
The president is expected to endorse the recommendation of Petraeus for a 45-day pause in any further troop reductions after the roughly 20,000 surge combat forces are withdrawn by July. And Bush is expected to call for a rollback of overseas deployments of each soldier from 15 months to 12 months, after extensions were made for the surge, in response to complaints that deployments are straining the forces.
The surge is working -- succeeding, in the president's terms. Yet not only Petraeus, but also the White House, have conceded that the gains made in Iraq remain "rfragile" and "reversible.''
Initially, 2,200 Marines had come home, followed by an Army brigade of 5,500. By this summer, five Army brigades, a Marine expeditionary unit and Marine battalion will have been withdrawn. But Petraeus wants a pause to evaluate the situation before any further drawdowns.
“The more we succeed, the more troops we can bring home from Iraq,’’ a White House official had said last fall. "The president calls this policy, ‘Return on Success.’’’
The operative phrase from the White House today will be informative about the military's way forward in, and eventually returning from, Iraq.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
oh, good. maybe he'll finally admit that it was a bonehead move to try to replace saddam hussein with a democratically-elected government. perhaps he finally read some history about how hussein came to power in the first place and realized that the reason hussein had to be brutal was that Iraq couldn't be governed any other way.
this is exciting. the president has finally come to his senses.
Posted by: Roger This | April 10, 2008 9:17 AM
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Nose as long as a telephone wire.
Posted by: Janstress | April 10, 2008 9:33 AM
To Roger, as you sit at your computer all comfortable and free, how can you say that any people can only be governed by brutality. You need a good dose of Saddams treatment by his former "electricians" Do you feel the brutality, pal ?
Posted by: bill p | April 10, 2008 9:54 AM
Oh I'm all a tingle with excitement! What kind of lies do we get to hear this time?
Posted by: G. Wright | April 10, 2008 9:54 AM
BTW - if you are already in Iraq, that rollback from 15 months to 12 DOES NOT apply to you.
Nice.
Posted by: BobHusseininAtlanta | April 10, 2008 9:54 AM
New deal should be on the table. Iraq starts paying for our forces to be there or they come home. I can't believe that Republicans support this multi-billion dollar Iraqi welfare program.
Posted by: DD | April 10, 2008 10:03 AM
does this mean that if there is no discernible "success" there will be no "return"? could we maybe borrow some military from China and return them? you know... as a "stimulus" for "success"?
Posted by: sam marotta | April 10, 2008 10:07 AM
As for the Bush Administration's realistic view of troop levels... they have been tragically wrong from the start. And the errors have been fatal.
This from February 25, 2003, regarding the number of troops required to stabilize Iraq:
GEN. SHINSEKI: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence."
In a public rebuke to Shinseki, Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:
DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: "There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine."
[from Wikipedia]
Posted by: Truth | April 10, 2008 10:11 AM
Roger This and Janstress - good posts!
Bush is so bad, I wont even comment.
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Southsider | April 10, 2008 10:22 AM
Just think, ladies and gentlemen, by the end of this year, the most incompetent administration in our history, will be history! Isn't that a comforting thought? It would be, if only McBush wasn't on the horizon, in which case, it could be more of our tax dollars going to warlords or Haliburton and Associates, into that black whole, formerly known as, Iraq!!!!
Come on, America, throw the bums out, elect Democrats and help America regain her former status in the community of nations!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 10, 2008 10:30 AM
‘Return on Success.’’
If Orwell had thought of it first, he might have included it in Big Brother's logic-twisting mottos like 'war is peace' in "1984".
Posted by: Kenneth Janowski | April 10, 2008 11:07 AM