|
|
Bush
Agrees to Time 'Horizon' on Iraq
Troop Cuts
 (AP)
- President Bush and Iraq's prime
minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more
U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the
administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of
deadline or timetable. The announcement Friday put Bush in the position
of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged
issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led
Congress at home. It also could complicate the presidential campaign
arguments of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who have
staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular war.
What's changed? The sharp reduction in violence in Iraq — to the
lowest level in four years — has made the country's leaders
increasingly confident and more assertive about its sovereignty, giving
rise to demands for a specific plan for American forces to leave.
Iraq has leverage because the White House is struggling to salvage
negotiations for a long-term agreement covering U.S. military
operations there. The White House said its goal is to conclude that
deal by the end of this month.
Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked about the stalled
negotiations during a secure video conference on Thursday, agreeing "on
a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as
possible," a White House statement said.
The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for
the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting
aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in
their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat
forces from Iraq," the White House said.
Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.
Friday's White House statement was intentionally vague and did not
specify what kind of timelines were envisioned. That allows Iraqi
officials, who are facing elections in the fall, to argue they are not
beholden to Washington or willing to tolerate a permanent military
presence in Iraq. For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework
for keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on
Dec. 31.
"The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of
responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for
Bush's National Security Council. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption
of missions, not on what troop levels will be."
As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly
opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat
troops within 16 months. By talking about a "time horizon," Bush
appeared at odds with McCain and could make his own GOP administration
a tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs.
McCain issued a statement saying, "Progress between the United States
and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further
evidence that the surge has succeeded. ... If we had followed Sen.
Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American
casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized."
However, Ben Rose, a senior adviser to Obama, said, "It's another
indication that the administration is moving toward ... Sen. Obama's
position on negotiating the removal of our forces as part of our
ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bush wasn't going far enough. "After
rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic majority in Congress
to adopt redeployment timetables, the president now proposes a vague
general time horizon that falls far short of a commitment to ending our
involvement in Iraq," she said.
Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has led House
hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said the "time horizon"
cited by the White House was "very vague and nebulous." He also said
the agreement taking shape seemed "far less grandiose than what was
initially articulated."
Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years
after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though
that condition could take years to meet. Iraq's national security
adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said this month that Baghdad would not
accept any security deal unless it contained specific dates for U.S.
troop withdrawals.
So far, the United States has handed control of 10 of 18 provinces to
Iraqi officials. "Obviously, if Iraqis are assuming more missions, then
you need less American troops," Johndroe said.
The White House sought to make a distinction between talking with
Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to force cutbacks.
"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline
issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to
arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on
the ground," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who
was traveling with Bush in Tucson, Ariz.
"All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on
conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are
doing just that," Stanzel said. "We are making progress on the security
situation. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent
months."
A major troop buildup ordered by Bush in January 2007 has ended. In
recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the
five additional combat brigades sent in last year, left the country.
There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — as many as 15,000
more than before the buildup began.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on
Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions this
fall because security has improved.
Rate this Article:
Tell
Us What You Think.
|
|
|
Subscribe
to Our RSS Feed