Bush to cut 20,000 troops
No timeline for pulling rest of force from Iraq
WASHINGTON - President Bush announced last night that the number of US combat troops in Iraq will be reduced by more than 20,000 starting this month, but gave no hint of when the remaining American occupation force -- which will still be larger than it was before the troop surge earlier this year -- might be withdrawn.
In a nationally televised address, Bush also said that later this year the mission of the US troops would shift from patrolling Iraqi neighborhoods to providing support for Iraqi troops. The American force would turn its attention to hunting down Al Qaeda terrorists, he said.
The president said his decisions are based on recommendations from General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. In a series of high-profile appearances before Congress this week, Petraeus told lawmakers that stepped-up military operations in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province have achieved limited success in securing the Iraqi population from violent extremists, including those linked to Al Qaeda.
"Our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home," Bush said in the 18-minute speech from the Oval Office. By next July, he said, "we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15."
The principle behind those decisions, the president said, "is 'return on success.' The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home."
But Bush also made clear in his speech that he has no intention of yielding to his critics -- including a growing number of fellow Republicans -- who want him to give up the fight and disengage from what many believe is an increasingly violent, unresolvable civil war. Bush also said he is committed to keeping a large US military presence in Iraq through the end of his term, to ensure the Iraqi government can survive.
The president insisted that the United States can still prevail in Iraq after four years of guerrilla war, billions of dollars spent, and more than 3,700 US soldiers killed.
"Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late," Bush said. "They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to Al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win."
The speech drew swift rebukes from lawmakers in both parties, some of whom are demanding far deeper cuts in the US troop presence. They assert that although the surge of 30,000 additional troops Bush sent to Iraq earlier this year has secured parts of the country, the bitterly divided Iraqi parliament -- led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- has failed to reach a political settlement crucial to long-term national stability.
The Associated Press reported last night that a new White House report on Iraq will show progress in just one of 18 political and security goals Congress established earlier this year.
"Unfortunately, it is clear that the president will continue to stubbornly push, as he has for the last four years, for the same open-ended commitment of our troops," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and longtime war opponent. "The president's policy has made our troops hostage to Iraqi politicians who have yet to show any willingness to make the tough decisions required to end their civil war."
In his speech, Bush insisted that "Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done," and pointed to a national budget, an agreement to share the country's oil revenues with outlying provinces, and a deal allowing former loyalists of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein to rejoin the military and receive government pensions.
The president announced that he decided to adopt Petraeus's recommendation to launch the "next phase" of the military's mission in Iraq by the end of the year: allowing Iraqi security forces to "assume more control" over security while the US military focuses on hunting terrorists and training and supporting Iraqi forces.
However, the part of the speech that drew the most attention -- and criticism -- was the announcement that some troops will begin to come home.
When roughly 2,200 Marines rotate home by the end of this month, they will not be replaced, Bush said. By Christmas, the reduction will include an Army brigade of 3,500 troops and will culminate with four additional Army brigades and two Marine battalions by July, senior administration officials told reporters yesterday.
The officials, who briefed reporters earlier in the day on the condition of anonymity, said the reduction would be roughly equal to the extra 21,500 combat troops that Bush ordered to Iraq in January. But it would not include the nearly 8,000 support personnel -- logistics experts, military police, and intelligence troops -- who were sent to Iraq to support the combat units.
The plan would still leave about 140,000 US troops in Iraq, among the highest level since the US-led invasion to topple Hussein in 2003 -- and slightly larger than the US force before the surge.
As of yesterday, there were more than 160,000 US troops in Iraq, according to official military figures.
Bush said any decision on when the United States might make further cuts would wait until March, when he said Petraeus will deliver a "fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need."
The speech did not satisfy members of Congress who want a more sweeping military withdrawal. Pentagon officials have said for weeks that the surge level could not last past summer 2008 without extending deployments, redeploying units more quickly back to the battle zone, or causing irreparable damage to the Army, already under heavy strain.
"This is not a turning point," said Representative Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat and retired Navy admiral who was elected to Congress last year on an antiwar platform. "This is a continuation of where we were a year ago."
Sestak and others were disappointed by what they said appeared to be Bush's decision to base his Iraq policy almost purely on the advice of his military commanders, rather than making a broader assessment of whether the four-year-old war is harming overall US interests.
Many Democrats and Republicans say the war has hampered the ability of American ground forces to respond to other potential global hot spots. Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the "minimal" troop reduction plan "does not do enough to get us out of the civil war in Iraq and ready to deal with our many other strategic challenges."
Edward Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the president's warning that staying in Iraq keeps Iran in check is not logical. He said Iran wants the US bogged down in Iraq.
"What Iran is terrified of is a United States that is not tied down in Iraq and is free to deal with Iran," Luttwak said. "You don't prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq by ineffectively patrolling a few streets in Iraq. The way you deal with Iran is to recover American freedom of action by disengaging from this futile attempt."
Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com. 