An Iraqi Pullout Decided

September 07, 2007

FPF Editorial

All indications point to President Bush having decided to begin the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq within the next few months. He has, it is clear, communicated his decision to Gen. David Petraeis, a skillful but politically astute officer, who will cooperate in the policy reversal, perhaps reluctantly and certainly cautiously, but go along he will.

The first hint of the shift came from Bush on his visit to Anbar on his way to the APEC summit in Australia. After meeting with Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker, Bush said, “if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.” Petraeus pledged to go along. He told the president that he could accept the pullback of a brigade, roughly 4,000 troops by the beginning of next year. Officials working on the general’s congressional testimony next week say he will note the possibility of more significant withdrawals at that time. Bush will then embrace what Petraeus was told to say, thus appearing to rely on advice from those in the field rather than those on Capitol Hill.

Bush and Petraeus both agree that no end date will be made for a total withdrawal, first because there never will be one on their watch and second because the war will be passed along to Bush’s successor. The fallout of a total withdrawal – seen as an admission of defeat – will be avoided.

Clearly and in spite of military conditions, Bush will begin the pullout for domestic political reasons. Of course, “progress” in the security situation will be cited, and a rationale focusing on promoting Iraqi sectarian reconciliation will be promoted. But Bush is facing a domestic political situation demanding that he change course.

What does he face?

Bush finds himself losing control of policy, including the erosion of Republican support in Congress. Sen. John Warner (Va.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, is only the most prominent of GOP defectors and the growing list of potential defectors. Definite indications that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) is willing to compromise with Republicans, notably Warner, has foreshadowed a dramatic confrontation with the White House. Bush has to head that off. He must re-take command of Iraq War policy. And he will do so by initiating a de-escalation. In addition, the Army is stretched thin. A proposal by Sen. Jim Webb (D.-Va.) to make home-leave equal deployment time got 56 votes the last time and is poised to pass soon with more Republican support. (It supports the troops). This would squeeze troop availability. Downsizing rewards necessity. Finally, Bush will call on the Iraqi government and its security forces to take more responsibility for quelling the insurgency, saying the time is right with the success of the “surge.” How else can you evaluate the success of the surge? It must have a payoff. And that is, as Bush said in Anbar, fewer American forces.

The drawdown of troops has the further charm of making Bush appear to be bi-partisan. He is under enormous party pressure to reduce the issue of a failed war dominating the 2008 election. As Nixon did so successfully with troop-withdrawal Vietnamization before the 1972 election – the Democrats did nothing with the war issue that year – Bush will follow the same path.

Bush, by trying to bolster his legacy, to lessen the costs of the war, to reverse his loss of policy control, and to appear less partisan, will begin for these domestic political reasons what he should do for prudent foreign policy reasons. Regardless of the motivation, a disastrous war policy will be on the way out.