[R-G] White House Shows Signs of Rethinking Cut in Troops

[Anthony Fenton]

White House Shows Signs of Rethinking Cut in Troops

New York TImes
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and THOM SHANKER
Published: January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON — Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq,  
President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not continue  
past this summer, a development likely to infuriate Democrats and  
renew concerns among military planners about strains on the force.

Mr. Bush has made no decisions on troop reductions to follow those he  
announced last September. But White House officials said Mr. Bush had  
been taking the opportunity, as he did in Monday’s State of the Union  
address, to prepare Americans for the possibility that, when he  
leaves office a year from now, the military presence in Iraq will be  
just as large as it was a year ago, or even slightly larger.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush  
wanted to tamp down criticism that a large, sustained presence in  
Iraq would harm the overall health of the military — a view held not  
only by Democrats, but by some members of his own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Within the Pentagon, senior officers have struggled to balance the  
demands of the Iraq war against the competing demands to recruit,  
train and retain a robust and growing ground force. That  
institutional tension is personified by two of Mr. Bush’s top  
generals, David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and George W.  
Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff. General Petraeus’s mission is to  
win the war; General Casey must also worry about the health of the  
whole Army.

“We’re concerned about the health of the force as well, but the most  
important thing is that they succeed in Iraq,” said one senior White  
House official, adding, “If the commanders on the ground believe we  
need to maintain the troop numbers at the current level to maintain  
security for a little while longer, then that’s what the president  
will do.”

That strong White House tilt in favor of General Petraeus comes as he  
prepares to testify before Congress in April about the next step in  
Iraq. In September, based on General Petraeus’s earlier  
recommendation, Mr. Bush announced that he intended to withdraw five  
combat brigades and Marine units — roughly 20,000 troops — from Iraq  
by July. That would leave 15 combat brigades in place.

In his address to Congress, Mr. Bush spoke of those reductions, but  
not of any future ones.

What a continuing commitment of 15 brigades — more than 130,000  
troops — would mean for the Army as a whole is said to be a major  
concern of General Casey, among others on the joint staff. But  
officials said Mr. Bush’s primary concern was not letting military  
gains in Iraq slip away, a warning he issued in his State of the  
Union address.

After meeting General Petraeus in Kuwait this month, he appeared to  
give the general tacit permission to recommend no further troop  
reductions.

“My attitude is, if he didn’t want to continue the drawdown, that’s  
fine with me, in order to make sure we succeed, see,” Mr. Bush said  
then. “I said to the general, if you want to slow her down, fine,  
it’s up to you.”

Mr. Bush hinted in September that there might be more reductions to  
come, although he has never made an explicit promise. The Pentagon  
has also not made any promises, although military planners have  
talked about wanting to reduce the number of brigades to 12 from 15  
by the end of this year, if the security situation improves enough to  
permit it.

Mr. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, has said he would like  
to cut even further, eventually dropping to 10 brigades if possible.  
But Mr. Gates has avoided using specific numbers in more recent  
comments, and says unswervingly that he would be guided by conditions  
on the ground.

At the Pentagon, officials said the withdrawal of 20,000 combat  
troops pledged by Mr. Bush left open the future of the 7,000 to 8,000  
support and aviation troops that accompanied those “surge” combat  
forces.

If those extra support troops remain in Iraq even after the  
withdrawal of the additional combat troops, then it is possible that  
the number of American military personnel in Iraq after the surge  
could be higher than before, officials said.
More Articles in Washington »