The Washington Post - Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by '08

The Washington Post
Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by '08
By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 1, 2006; Page A01

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S.
combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train,
advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of
U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday.

The commission plan would shift the U.S. mission in Iraq to a secondary role as
the fragile Baghdad government and its security forces take the lead in fighting
a Sunni insurgency and trying to halt sectarian violence. As part of major
changes in the U.S. presence, sources said, the plan recommends embedding U.S.
soldiers directly in Iraqi security units starting as early as next month to
improve leadership and effectiveness.

The call to pull out combat brigades by early 2008 would be more a conditional
goal than a firm timetable, predicated on the assumption that circumstances on
the ground would permit it, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity because the commission's report will not be released until next
week. But panel members concluded that it is vital to set a target to put
pressure on Iraqi leaders to do more to assume responsibility for the security
of their country.

"It's really about transitioning from a combat to a support role, and basically
making very clear that this is no longer an open-ended commitment and we're
going to get this done whether the Iraqis like it or not," said one of the
sources. "Everybody understands that we're at the end of the road here."

The choice of early 2008 as a goal could also, intentionally or not, change the
nature of the debate over the war at the height of the U.S. presidential primary
season. If the commission's plan is successful, the war might recede as an
issue, as many strategists in both parties hope. But if U.S. commanders do not
meet that goal, or if they do but violence only escalates, it may inflame the
struggles for both parties' nominations.
Democrats, who captured control of both houses of Congress in last month's
midterm elections, and some Republicans have pushed strongly for a timetable for
withdrawing U.S. troops. But President Bush has firmly resisted such demands,
warning that it would amount to surrender and could destabilize Iraq even
further.

At a news conference yesterday after a summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, Bush seemed to douse the idea of withdrawal in
response to news reports about the Iraqi Study Group's recommendations. "This
business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever," Bush
said.

But aides later cautioned against interpreting that as opposition to any change
in the U.S. troop posture. "That's not the case," said one senior official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity. "His position is he's not entering this
process with defeat on his mind" for the sole purpose of getting out, the
official said. Some options being discussed by the Iraqi Study Group and his own
administration's internal policy review, the official said, are "things that
he's very open to."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with CBS News, sounded more
open to the concept of drawing down forces. "The whole goal here is to transfer
responsibility to the Iraqis and to give them enough capability to take those
responsibilities," she said. "Obviously, as those responsibilities are
transferred, as the capability improves, then American forces will be less in
evidence and less needed. That's a natural outcome."

The Iraq Study Group, chartered by Congress and led by former secretary of state
James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), concluded
its deliberations this week with a draft report about 100 pages long. The report
is scheduled to be released next Wednesday and will include a variety of
conclusions and recommendations about the region. Among other things, the
commission considered proposals to reach out to Iran and Syria and to convene a
regional conference to bring all of Iraq's neighbors into the process of
stabilizing the country.

The panel included a significant caveat for the 2008 goal for troop withdrawals
by recommending that commanders should plan to pull out combat units by then
unless "unexpected developments" make them decide that such a move would be
unwise, the sources said. Still, they said, the plan would put the onus on U.S.
commanders to try to meet the goal or explain why they failed to.

Pulling out combat units would not mean the end of the U.S. military involvement
in Iraq, which could continue in a different form for years. The withdrawal
would be partially offset by an influx of advisers, trainers and embedded
troops. The number of such troops now stands at roughly 5,000 and should be
quadrupled to about 20,000, the group's plan says, according to a source. The
commission envisions leaving at least several thousand quick-strike U.S. combat
soldiers to protect all those other American troops.

Although it was not clear how many U.S. troops would be left in Iraq by 2008,
some people knowledgeable about the commission's deliberations have said that it
might be possible to reduce the force of 140,000 to half by then. "There'll
still be a presence there that will be significant just because of the nature of
embedded forces," said one of the sources familiar with the commission's report.
"It won't be what we have now, I'll tell you that."

The transition from a combat mission to a support mission would be a radical
shift in the nature of the U.S. presence in Iraq, in place more than 3 1/2 years
since the invasion that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. The
commission sees this shift in emphasis as so crucial that it suggests that U.S.
commanders begin by reassigning troops directly out of military units already in
Iraq, rather than waiting for new advisers to deploy from the United States.

But some military specialists warned that such a transition could result in more
violence or even let the country slide into a full-scale civil war. Many U.S.
military commanders believe that the American presence is keeping a lid on
Iraq's civil conflict. "I think as we pull down troops, the violence is going to
get worse -- and that will make it harder to get the Iraqi army stood up," said
Frederick W. Kagan, a defense scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Nor would cutting the troop presence increase pressure on Maliki and other Iraqi
leaders, a senior U.S. intelligence official contended earlier this week.
Rather, he said, it would likely make Iraqi officials feel more endangered and,
so, less likely to take risks and make difficult decisions.

Others in Washington cautiously welcomed the emerging report. "I think that the
Baker report is . . . going to change the debate in this country," Sen. John F.
Kerry (D-Mass.) told CNN.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), speaking on MSNBC's "Hardball," said that "I
suspect there may be a growing bipartisan support in this country for what Jim
Baker, Lee Hamilton, the other members of that commission have put together."

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee who has called for beginning a pullout within six months, offered a
careful assessment of the few details made public. "It's a welcome change in
course," he said, "although it's not as specific, or it's not as pointed, or
it's not as clear as I would like."