No word for now on Iraq troop cuts
WASHINGTON -- Gen. David Petraeus said Thursday he is likely to recommend further troop reductions in Iraq but won't promise more details until fall -- timing that plunges the four-star Army general into the heart of this year's presidential elections.
The fall assessment would come at a critical time in both American and Iraqi politics. U.S. voters likely will be deciding between a GOP candidate committed to keeping troops in Iraq as long as Petraeus and other ground commanders say is necessary, and a Democratic challenger who supports the immediate withdrawal.
At the same time, Iraq will be headed into its much-anticipated provincial elections, which U.S. officials have described as a crucial step in building national reconciliation by increasing participation by the Sunni minority.
Meanwhile, in a stunning vote that illustrated President Bush's diminished standing, the Senate on Thursday ignored his veto threat and added tens of billions of dollars for veterans and the unemployed to his Iraq war spending bill.
A majority of Republicans broke ranks with Bush on a veto-proof 75-22 vote while adding more than $10 billion for various other domestic programs, including heating subsidies for the poor, wildfire fighting, roads and bridge repair, and health research.
Democrats crowed about their victory. But the developments meant more confusion about when the must-pass measure might actually become law and what the final version will contain.
The Senate action sent the bill back to the House, which last week endorsed the help for veterans and the unemployed, but kept its version clean of most other domestic programs. The House also included a one-half of a percentage point income tax surcharge on wealthier people to pay for the expanded GI bill.
The House also failed to approve the war money in a vote last week. Republicans unhappy with the Democrats' add-ons joined with anti-war lawmakers to defeat it.
Because of the differences between the two versions, it will take weeks to pass a final compromise, which Bush is expected to veto, and then send him one he can sign.
Petraeus said conditions on the ground will still dictate his decision. But by September, when he is slated to assume control of U.S. Central Command, "my sense is that I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for some further reductions," he said.
Petraeus cautioned that he was not implying that that means a particular brigade or major combat formation. "But I do believe there will be certain assets that, as we are already looking at the picture right now, we'll be able to recommend can be either redeployed or not deployed to the theater in the fall," he said.
In a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., President Bush said progress in Iraq was undeniable and that "we are on our way to victory." He also said he looked forward to hearing what his generals would recommend, and he didn't tip his hand as to what he wants to hear.
"My message to our commanders is you will have all the troops, you will have all the resources you need to win in Iraq," Bush said at the Army base, where he was speaking to 17,000 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division.
In recent months, Petraeus has helped to tame growing opposition to the war in Congress by providing measured assessments of progress and warning that an exodus of U.S. troops would result in chaos.
His unflappable style was on display again Thursday in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to confirm him for the Central Command post. The hearing was considerably less contentious than his past appearances on Capitol Hill and even came with an endorsement by the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Also receiving a warm reception was Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, expected to replace Petraeus as the top commander in Iraq. Odierno previously served 15 months in Iraq as Petraeus' deputy.
"Regardless how long the administration may choose to remain engaged in the strife in that country, our troops are better off with the leadership these two distinguished soldiers provide," said Levin, D-Mich.
Clinton, D-N.Y., thanked the generals for their "incredible leadership."
Petraeus has previously been reluctant to say when his next assessment of troop levels might be. This spring he recommended -- and Bush agreed -- to withdraw by July the 30,000 extra troops sent to Iraq last year as part of a major security push to blunt increasing sectarian violence.
In testimony last month, Petraeus said he needed a 45-day period of evaluation and then an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts, holding his ground against Democrats demanding to know whether more withdrawals were possible before Bush leaves office in January.
Levin said Petraeus' more recent pledge to review troop levels by September was "good news to most of us."
On a less-optimistic note, Petraeus said it is unlikely that Iraqi security forces will take the lead in all provinces this year, as was recently predicted by the Defense Department. Petraeus said events in the past month and a half -- an allusion to the spike in violence in Basra -- have pushed that goal to 2009.
Provincial elections also are likely to be delayed by one month this fall, taking place in November instead of October, he said.
Odierno told the committee he did not anticipate a need to boost troop levels, even temporarily, in advance of the elections.
"I will never say never, but my assessment now is, with the progress we're making, the progress we're seeing in the Iraqi security forces, and what I'm seeing is the security environment on the ground, currently I do not believe we will need an increase," Odierno said.
Petraeus would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon as the senior commander of troops in the Middle East, which includes such troubled hotspots as Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, parts of Africa and Afghanistan.
If confirmed, he said, one of his first trips would be to Pakistan, where U.S. officials say al-Qaida fighters are regrouping along the Afghan border.
"I think that the key need is to asses whether the overall concept that is guiding (operations) on the Pakistani side in particular, or course, is adequate or not," Petraeus said.
Clinton said she was concerned that not enough attention was being paid to the terrorist threat there, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, including Africa.
"It has been the forgotten front lines in the war against terrorism. And we have allowed what was an initial success to, if not deteriorate, certainly stagnate," she said.
{BC-Congress-Iraq Funding, 7th Ld-Writethru,890}
{Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending}
{Eds: AMs. INSERTs new graf 16, 'The House ..., and last two grafs} to UPDATE with House last week rejecting war funds, House defense bill debate. Moving on general news and financial services.
{With BC-Congress-Iraq Funding-Glance}
{By ANDREW TAYLOR}=
{Associated Press Writer}=
Senators voted 70-26 to approve $165 billion to fulfill Bush's request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, when Bush's successor will set war policy. Overall, the measure contains $212 billion over the coming two years -- $28 billion more than the administration sought -- plus about $50 billion more through 2017 for veterans' education benefits.
Bush has promised to veto the Iraq spending if it exceeds his request. He has enough GOP support in the House to sustain a veto.
But the spectacle of 25 Senate Republicans abandoning the White House and voting to extend jobless benefits by 13 weeks and boost the GI Bill to provide veterans enough money to pay for a four-year education at a public institution made it plain that Bush's influence is waning.
"What influence?" said a triumphant Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate's top Democrat. Reid had been skeptical of adding dozens of items favored by the free-spending Appropriations Committee to Bush's war request.
But the committee's plan contained so many smaller items favored by senators in both parties -- including money for Gulf Coast Hurricane recovery, NASA, and additional food and drug safety inspectors -- that even GOP conservatives such as Larry Craig and Mike Crapo of Idaho rebuffed the White House. The duo were strong supporters of $400 million to subsidize schools in rural counties hit hard by declines in timber revenues.
The bill also contained $490 million for grants to local police departments, $451 million to repair roads damaged by natural disasters, $200 million for the space shuttle program, and $400 million for National Institutes of Health research projects.
Time is slipping, though Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified Wednesday that the Pentagon can scrape by until late July by shifting funds from other accounts to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
First, however, lawmakers left Washington for a weeklong Memorial Day recess.
A popular plan in both the House and Senate bills would block new Bush administration rules that would cut spending on Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled by $13 billion over the next five years. Governors in both parties pressed for the relief.
The White House had braced for defeat even as Democrats initially expressed skepticism they would prevail. Yet the magnitude of the defeat was startling.
"Our troops deserve better than having essential war time resources held hostage to billions in unrelated spending," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "Congress should pass a clean war funding bill when they return from Memorial Day recess."
Still, it seems clear that Bush will have to accept some Democratic additions.
"When it comes to Iraq, it appears that money is no object for President Bush," said the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. "Yet when it comes to important priorities here at home, he turns into Ebeneezer Scrooge."
Domestic programs included $8.2 billion for Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters, with $5.8 billion for levees around New Orleans and $348 million for restoration of Mississippi coastal islands.
There is $850 million for international food aid, $1.9 billion for military construction projects, and several billion dollars in various foreign aid programs -- all requested by the administration.
In a 63-34 vote, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to urge Bush to begin redeployment of combat troops and place other limits on his ability to conduct the war in Iraq.
The House was on track to pass a bill authorizing $601.4 billion in defense spending for next year and raise troop pay by 3.9 percent. The legislation would trim money for missile defense and some modernization projects, while boosting spending on heavily armored vehicles.
The White House has threatened to veto the bill because of several provisions, including the more than $700 billion shaved from missile defense efforts.