At first blush, it may seem encouraging that Gen. David Petraeus is suddenly open to the idea of withdrawing about 4,000 troops from Iraq in January. The news, however, isn’t nearly as heartening as it may appear.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has indicated a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 U.S. troops from Iraq early next year, with more to follow over the next months based on conditions on the ground, according to a senior U.S. official.
The pullouts would be contingent on the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to sustain what the administration heralds as recent gains in security and to make further gains in stabilizing Iraq. President Bush signaled the possibility of drawdowns after visiting Anbar province earlier this week. After meeting with Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Bush said he was told that “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.”
If someone were really trying to put a positive change-in-policy spin on all of this, I suppose they could come up with a pitch that’s vaguely coherent. It would go something like this: Bush wants to continue with the status quo indefinitely, but here we have Petraeus agreeing with Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) that a brigade can come home fairly soon. Last week, far-right activists were saying Warner was “hurting the cause of freedom” by even suggesting a modest drawdown, but now Petraeus is apparently on board with the idea. It’s a step in the right direction.
Except it really isn’t. Scratch the surface of yesterday’s comments, even just a little, and you see this is a shell game.
First, by suggesting a drawdown would be possible in January, Petraeus is arguing that nothing at all will change in the administration’s Iraq policy for the next four months. The reward, in other words, for failing the benchmark test, is two-thirds of a Friedman and a new spending bill from Congress.
Second, the withdrawal of a single brigade in January is conditional. Petraeus is effectively arguing that the “surge” policy is working (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), and if it continues to work, then about 4,000 troops can come home. That’s hardly an iron-clad guarantee.
Third, Petraeus is describing what can only be described as a very modest drawdown. . The troops added for the surge brought the total force level to 160,000 in Iraq. Petraeus is suggesting he might be willing to cut the force by 2%, but only in the new year, and only if he’s satisfied with the conditions.
Fourth, suggesting that we might be able to bring home one brigade in January seems a little disingenuous when we know that a few months later, the surge has to end anyway because we’ll be out of troops.
The headlines make it sound as if Petraeus is being conciliatory here. He doesn’t want to drawdown, but he’s willing to be open-minded about a major change: “Petraeus Open to Pullout of 1 Brigade,” “Top general to back gradual cut,” “Petraeus mulls Iraq troop pullout.” The truth is far less than advertised.
And the fact that Congress may actually buy into this scheme is perhaps the most frustrating thing of all.
Petraeus’s apparent agreement to a small withdrawal beginning early next year could fit into a narrow consensus that is beginning to emerge on Capitol Hill. Many Republicans and Democrats agree that some troop withdrawal should begin soon, though major disagreements remain about how quick and deep the subsequent withdrawals should be.
As Slate’s Daniel Politi explained, “[I]n the end, everyone benefits from the (meaningless) agreement because Democrats can say they’re helping to end the war, while Republicans can tout a drawdown as a sign that Iraq has improved.”
But the ineffective policy remains unchanged. Don’t fall for the shell game; there’s a lot less here than meets the eye.