|
Reaganite
|
 |
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:50:54 PM » |
|
While everyone else is worried about the sex life of Gov Palins daughter ... something very nice is happening in Iraq.
----------------
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said declining violence in Baghdad raised the possibility that American combat troops could leave the capital by next summer.
Asked in an interview with the Financial Times whether it was feasible that US combat forces could leave Baghdad by July, he said: “Conditions permitting, yeah.”
His comments come as the US and Iraq hammer out the final details of a long-term security agreement that reportedly outlines a potential timeline for US combat troops to leave Iraqi cities by next summer, and the country by 2011.
“The number of attacks in Baghdad lately has been, gosh, I think it’s probably less than five [a day] on average, and that’s a city of seven million people,” said Gen Petraeus.
While declining to comment on the details of the security agreement, Gen Petraeus said US combat forces had already pulled back from cities in 13 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The sight of US soldiers exiting Baghdad would be highly symbolic given the scale of violence that gripped the city in 2006 and 2007.
Gen Petraeus leaves Iraq later this month to become head of Central Command, which oversees US operations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa. Before his departure, the four-star general will give President George W. Bush his final recommendation for troop levels as commander in Iraq. He will continue to help shape policy on Iraq in his new role.
Senior brass in the Pentagon have hoped conditions in Iraq would permit further reductions this autumn following the withdrawal this summer of the five “surge” combat brigades to reduce the stress on the military and free up troops for Afghanistan.
Gen Petraeus declined to outline his recommendation, but conceded that the recent unexpected withdrawal of 2,000 Georgian troops during the conflict with Russia had caused “some wrinkles”.
“You have to look at various contingencies and make assumptions, and in some cases if you have an uncertainty, then needless to say you hedge your bets a bit.”
His recommendation will come during the closing stretch of the US presidential campaign in which Iraq remains a key issue. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, has outlined the kind of fixed timetable opposed by Gen Petraeus and other senior brass by vowing to remove troops within 16 months of taking office.
Gen Petraeus declined to say whether he would continue to voice such opposition if Mr Obama became the next commander-in-chief.
“What needs to take place is a good discussion on missions, on objectives, on levels of risk associated with various courses of action and that’s, I think, what will take place whoever’s elected, frankly.”
Overall, Gen Petraeus said Iraq was a “dramatically changed country” from when he assumed command in February 2007. He said attacks had plummeted from a daily rate of 180 in June 2007 to about 25 recently. He mused that “there is certainly a degree of hope that was not present 19 months ago”.
Gen Petraeus welcomed the increased capability of the Iraqi security forces and the fact that 70 per cent of Iraqi army battalions are now taking the lead in military operations. The US military passed a milestone when it this week handed over responsibility for the former bloody province of Anbar province to Iraqi security forces.
But he also urged caution, saying there were ”innumerable challenges out there still. Make no bones about it”. These include resolving the final status of oil-rich Kirkuk, key provincial elections, and remaining ethno-sectarian tensions. And while al-Qaeda was greatly diminished, he said, it still had the capability to deliver lethal attacks.
Military experts attribute the decline in violence to the surge, as well as to a ceasefire by Shia militias aligned with Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric, and the emergence of “Sons of Iraq”, roughly 100,000 predominantly Sunnis who switched sides to fight with the US against al-Qaeda.
In recent weeks, however, the US has grown concerned about an apparent crackdown by Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister, on some senior members of the Sunni groups. Gen Petraeus said that while it was “a concern”, Mr Maliki had promised not to “cut loose” the “Sons of Iraq” who are paid about $300 a month to protect local neighbourhoods.
Gen Petraeus expressed frustration at the slow speed of integrating some of the “Sons of Iraq” into the Iraqi army, although he acknowledged that it was a “very emotional topic” for many Iraqi politicians because of previous sectarian fighting between the Shia and Sunni.
When Gen Petraeus last testified before Congress in April, he was very critical of alleged Iranian support for Iraqi militias. Asked why his command had never produced the evidence it promised to support its allegations, Gen Petraeus said the move was in deference to the Iraqi leadership who wanted to deliver the evidence privately to Tehran.
Asked whether Iranian meddling in Iraq had subsided, Gen Petraeus said the leaders of the so-called “special groups” militias had fled Iraq during the recent military campaigns initiated by Mr Maliki in Basra and Baghdad. “They’re in Iran, they’re in Lebanon, they’re in Syria and so…there’s very much a wait and see attitude.”
At Centcom, Gen Petraeus will also assume overall responsibility for Afghanistan. He declined to speculate about whether Afghanistan would require an Iraq-like surge of more than the three additional brigades the Pentagon currently believes are necessary. But he pointed out that the situation in Afghanistan was very different to that in Iraq.
“There are limitations in Afghanistan that are not found here…Iraq’s infrastructure is still vastly greater than that of Afghanistan. So, there was an ability here to absorb a substantial number of forces in a relatively short period of time,” he said.
“I think, again, the infrastructure challenges, the transportation and logistical challenges, and perhaps, again, the desires of national authorities and so forth are all different. So, again, it would be very premature to speculate about what might or might not be added to Afghanistan.”
|
