Powell: US will pull troops out this year

Former Bush aide who urged caution over Iraq signals start of withdrawal by end of 2006

Ned Temko
Sunday January 22, 2006
The Observer

Colin Powell, who warned President Bush on the eve of the Iraq war that US forces would have to stay for the long haul after toppling Saddam, yesterday predicted that troop withdrawals would begin by the end of this year.

He spoke as final results of the elections for a new Iraqi government left the Shia Muslim alliance 10 seats short of an outright parliamentary majority - boosting US and British hopes of a coalition including Sunni and Kurdish groups. Britain's ambassador to Iraq, William Patey, said after the results were announced that an 'inclusive government of national unity' would help chances of a 'significant' withdrawal of the UK's 8,000 troops.

Powell, the former Secretary of State, told The Observer that, while the 'characteristics of the new government' would be clearer in the weeks ahead, the US role was to 'make sure the process [of transition] unfolds successfully'.

During his policy battles with Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon hawks in the run-up to the Iraq war, Powell at one point reportedly cautioned Bush: 'If you break it, you own it.' Since stepping down as the administration's senior diplomat after the 2004 presidential election, he has reiterated his view that America must not cut and run.

But asked whether his 'break-it-and-own it' remark implied staying for as long as it takes to get a fully functioning and stable Iraq, Powell replied: 'No. It means fixing it to the point where we can give ownership back,' - a process which he suggested had taken a major step forward with the election of the new Iraqi government.

'We did break that [Saddam] government and I'm glad we broke it,' he said. 'It was a rotten government and something that should be broken. But we then immediately assumed ownership - and we've been working hard for the past two-plus years to return that ownership.'

Powell, who also served as America's military chief-of-staff, said the specific numbers and pace of US troop pull-outs would be decided by 'my junior officers', generals whom he said he had trained as lieutenants. But he said: 'I think we'll probably see some drawdown in numbers in 2006.

'I hope we'll see a reduction in forces as the Iraqi forces become more competent and the Iraqi political system begins to take hold,' he added.

His remarks came amid growing pressure on Bush's administration over Iraq, where 160,000 US troops form by far the largest share of the international military force and where more than 2,000 American soldiers have been killed.

Recent media reports have suggested the Pentagon has plans in place to begin to reduce the number of US troops, but Bush has emphasised that he remains committed to ensuring that a democratic government in Baghdad and Iraq's own security forces can exert control before any full-scale pull-out.

Powell was speaking after a visit to Britain last week to address a series of fundraising dinners for the JNF, a British Jewish charity. In remarks during his visit, he said that in retrospect he felt the Americans should have committed more troops to the Iraqi invasion and ensured that law, order and a functioning government were in place when Saddam's regime collapsed. In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, he added that 'when the insurgency started, we didn't act quickly enough to try to stop it'. But, he added, 'that's all history... the more important issue is what we do now'.

Speaking to The Observer, Powell was generally upbeat about the prosects for early progress in the move to hand over ownership to the Iraqis.

He also said that while military force to prevent neighbouring Iran getting nuclear arms remained 'an option', he was confident the Iranians remained some distance from getting a nuclear weapon. The emphasis now, he said, was on intense diplomacy by the international community on the Iranians.

I think BushCo knows exactly when they're going to withdrawal from Iraq.  And it will be timed perfectly for the election season - the U.S. election season.

Yep! The elections and trial of Saddam are all shams held in abeyance for 2006's election year.

The violence is getting worse and Iraq is more divided than ever, but NOW Bush is starting pullouts.....while spouting war-mongering statements to Iran.  Can he have it both ways?  Or will his 'base' see the irony here?

Bush is a lying sack of s__t.  He's a war president because he made himself one, using lies and the natural patriotism of the American people as his ammunition.

US troops in Iraq cut by up to 20 percent: US general

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - The United States has reduced its forces in Iraq by up to 20 percent in the last two months, but may choose to raise the number of troops if the situation worsens, a top US General reportedly said.

"We have reduced our forces already in Iraq by about 15 or 20 percent over the past couple of months," General John Abizaid, commander of the US Central Command, told Kuwaiti daily Al-Qabas.

"I would expect that they will continue to come down, but only based on the degree of stability that is achieved there. You wont see a rapid withdrawal of American forces," he said.

"You will see American forces starting to come down as Iraqi forces start to come up, but if there is a spike in the security situation that would send Iraq in a bad direction, we are also willing to put in additional forces. So, well judge it," he said.


Abizaid said that about 220,000 Iraqis are currently serving either in the police or in the armed forces that have "good capacity to ultimately defend Iraq and work against the insurgents and the terrorists."


He said stability would only return to Iraq with improvements on the political, security and economic levels.


Veteran Democrat Congressman John Murtha said earlier this month he expected the US administration to be forced to pull out all troops from Iraq by the end of the year.


More than 140,000 US soldiers are currently deployed in Iraq.


© Copyright Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Agence France-Presse.


01/28/2006 13:55
AFP

 

The Boston Globe
By Rick Kleine
Monday 20 February 2006

    Washington - After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

    The concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

    Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq - Jack Reed of Rhode Island - and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

    The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

    But in its broad outlines, many leading Democrats say the Korb plan represents an answer to Republicans' oft-repeated charge that Democrats aren't offering a way forward on Iraq - and to do so in a way that is neither defeatist nor blindly loyal to the president.

    "We're not going to cut and run - that's just Republican propaganda," Dean said in a speech Feb. 10 in Boston. "But we are going to redeploy our troops so they don't have targets on their backs, and they're not breaking down doors and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. . . . It's a sensible plan. It's a thoughtful plan. I think Democrats can coalesce around it."

    Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the "false dichotomy" suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are "stay the course" or "cut and run."

    "It's important to note that it's not withdrawal - it's redeployment," Reed said. "We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it's a method to improve the security there and around the globe."

    The idea of a phased deployment of troops out of Iraq recognizes that a huge US military presence in the country is straining the armed services as well as feeding the insurgency, Reed said. He added that many military commanders agree that the nation should be moving toward taking American troops out of Iraq, to better equip the military to respond to threats around the world and give the Iraqi government a greater incentive to handle its own security.

    Under Korb's outline, all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas - Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa - with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq.

    Korb said in an interview that setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

    "The Iraqis want us to go," said Korb, who has opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start. "If you're out by the end of 2007, we'll have been there almost five years. That's not cutting and running."

    But some strategists say the goal of a near-total withdrawal within two years is overly optimistic. US troops that are a plane ride away won't be an effective deterrent, and Iraqi security forces appear unlikely to be able to handle the violence on their own in the near future, said Michael O'Hanlon, a centrist defense specialist who is a lecturer at Princeton University.

    "You're demanding that the political system produces a miracle," O'Hanlon said. "Any plan that envisions complete American withdrawal in such a period of time is still a prescription for strategic defeat."

    The war has been a source of long-running tension among Democrats. Twenty-nine Democratic senators and 81 House Democrats voted to authorize the president to invade Iraq, and while most are now critical of Bush's handling of the war, some - notably Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut - remain staunch supporters.

    Although "strategic redeployment" could draw a large portion of Democrats into the same fold, Reed and other Democrats disagree with setting a timeline for troop withdrawal, saying that such decisions should be dictated by commanders on the ground.

    Still, Reed noted that the Bush administration has begun modest troop withdrawals. The Senate in November overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," and on Friday, the White House issued a statement reiterating its position: "In 2006, it is anticipated that the Iraqi military will take more of the lead for security throughout Iraq."

    But the president has strongly rejected issuing any time frames, arguing that they would be exploited by insurgents who would strike as soon as troops leave Iraq. Democrats who have suggested time frames for withdrawal have faced harsh attacks from Republicans, who paint them as offering a strategy of defeat.

    In November, Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, shook much of Washington with his call for an immediate withdrawal of troops, and his estimate that all troops could be out of Iraq within six months. The generally hawkish Vietnam veteran also called for quick strike forces to remain close to Iraq - similar to the Korb plan - but that was largely overlooked in the barrage from Republicans.

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Murtha plan amounted to "surrender to the terrorists."

    Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, delivered a blistering speech on the House floor aimed at Murtha, who spent 37 years in the Marine Corps: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said, in remarks she later withdrew from the Congressional Record.

    The attacks on Murtha demonstrated the political peril that could face Democrats who offer plans involving troop withdrawals.

    Although Murtha has 99 House cosponsors for his plan, some Democrats remain skittish about offering a plan that they know would be attacked harshly - and, they say, almost certainly misconstrued - by political opponents.

    Still, Dean, Reed, and others in the party are trying to develop a united Democratic vision for Iraq, based in part on the calculation that the war will be a big factor in many 2006 congressional campaigns.

    Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat who voted in favor of the war and now supports the Murtha plan, said that while the war remains Bush's responsibility, Democrats should be able to tell voters what they would do differently.

    "There are a lot of different views, but I personally believe that putting forward specifics about how to move forward in Iraq is important to do," said Meehan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "I would like to see Democrats coalesce around a strategy like Korb's strategy."

    This fall, in elections that Democrats hope will bring them back to power in Congress, more than 50 military veterans are running in congressional races as Democrats.

    Those candidates are asked about Iraq all the time, and the idea of strategic redeployment is appealing to many of them, said Eric Massa, who is challenging an incumbent Republican in upstate New York and is helping to organize strategy for the veterans who are running.

    "You can't stand in front of people and say, 'We want your vote,' and not tell people what it is they're voting for," said Massa, a former Navy officer. "We all know that staying the course is not a strategy that's going to work."