Sen. John W. Warner
Calls for Pullouts By Winter

GOP Senator Suggests Move Would Prod Iraq 

PETER BLAKE & JONATHAN WEISMAN / Washington Post 24aug2007

Sen. John W. Warner, one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security, called on President Bush yesterday to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in time for Christmas as a new intelligence report concluded that political leaders in Baghdad are "unable to govern effectively."

Warner's declaration — after the Virginia senator's recent four-day trip to the Middle East — roiled the political environment ahead of a much-anticipated progress report to be delivered Sept. 11 by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq. Although Warner had already broken with Bush's strategy, this was the first time he endorsed pulling troops out by a specific date.

Warner's comments followed the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that provided a mixed assessment on Iraq seven months after Bush ordered more U.S. troops to the country. The report, produced by the CIA and 15 other intelligence agencies, determined that "there have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq's security." But it predicted the Iraqi government "will become more precarious" in the next six to 12 months with little hope of reaching accommodation among political factions.

The NIE seemed to support an emerging consensus among politicians in Washington that the troop buildup has made a difference in quelling violence in some pockets of Iraq but that the political reconciliation needed for long-term resolution appears broken. Advocates of withdrawal and supporters of the war alike quickly picked out parts of the report to bolster their arguments on future U.S. strategy in Iraq.

Democratic and Republican leadership aides said last night that Warner's new stance, coupled with the intelligence assessment, may have stalled any political momentum Bush seemed to have been building in recent days. Although Warner did not embrace more sweeping Democratic legislation on troop withdrawal, his call to start a pullout makes it easier for wavering Republicans to break with the president.

At his Capitol Hill news conference, Warner, a former Navy secretary and Armed Services Committee chairman, threw Bush's own words back at him by noting that the president has said the U.S. commitment in Iraq must not be "open-ended." Warner said it was time for the president to come up with an "orderly and carefully planned withdrawal," suggesting that Bush "send a sharp and clear message" to the Iraqis by announcing a pullout plan by Sept. 15 — one that would involve at least a symbolic fraction of the 160,000 troops coming home by the holidays.

"I can think of no clearer form of that than if the president were to announce on the 15th that in consultation with our senior military commanders, he's decided to initiate the first step in a withdrawal of armed forces," Warner said. "I say to the president respectfully, 'Pick whatever number you wish.' . . . Say, 5,000, could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later than Christmas of this year. That's the first step."

The White House politely rejected Warner's advice, saying any decisions would wait until after Petraeus's presentation next month. "I don't think that the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal," said spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "I just think it's important that we wait right now to hear from the commanders on the ground about the way ahead."

Throughout the congressional fight over the war, Warner has proved to be a key figure, especially in brokering deals across the aisle and bringing along moderate Republicans. In 2005, he crafted a bipartisan proposal making 2006 a "year of significant transition" in Iraq. After opposing Bush's troop buildup this year, he wrote the measure that laid out 18 political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government and U.S. military to meet and set mid-September for a progress report on those goals.

Over the summer, he proposed legislation with Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) calling on the president to develop a troop-redeployment plan by Oct. 16. But yesterday's withdrawal proposal puts him at the leading edge of a broader Republican revolt against the president's Iraq strategy.

Warner emphasized that he still does not want Congress to mandate timelines for withdrawal as some Democrats propose. Instead, he wants Bush to preempt such legislation. Warner suggested that after the first contingent is pulled out, the administration could assess the impact on the battlefield and on the Iraqi government's reconciliation efforts. Then the White House could decide the timing and size of the next withdrawal.

Although he traveled to Iraq with Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) last week, Warner pointedly did not repeat Levin's call for the Iraqi parliament to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But he was unsparing in his criticism. "I really firmly believe the Iraqi government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki, have let our troops down," he said.

The declassified key judgments of the NIE released yesterday echoed Warner's judgment on Maliki but warned of the consequences of pulling out troops in the short term. Although Iraqi security forces have "performed adequately," they have "not improved enough to conduct major operations" in multiple locations over time without U.S. help, the assessment said. Scaling back the U.S. mission to supporting Iraqi forces and hunting al-Qaeda in Iraq, as many Democrats and some Republicans have advocated, "would erode security gains achieved thus far," it added.

On the other hand, if U.S. forces continue their current strategy, the report predicted, security "will continue to improve modestly" over the next six to 12 months, though violence will remain high and political accord will remain elusive. The intelligence analysts were scathing in their judgment of Maliki's government, saying that political progress has "stalled" and that a leadership void has increased the prime minister's "vulnerability" to being toppled. Broad political compromise is "unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift" in Iraq.

Maliki's Shiite-led government has fractured through resignations and boycotts. He has proved unable or unwilling to enact measures demanded by Washington to govern distribution of oil proceeds, hold provincial elections and welcome lower-level members of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led Baath Party back into government. The main factor saving Maliki at this point, the NIE said, is the belief among fellow Shiite leaders that agreeing on a replacement "could paralyze the government," much as it did for the five months it took to choose him in the first place last year. That is a major reason Bush is standing behind Maliki for now, too, aides have said.

The NIE, released by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is the first such assessment to focus on Iraq since January. It notes the new alliances between U.S. forces and Sunni Arab tribal leaders against al-Qaeda in Iraq, describing such "bottom-up" developments as "the best prospect for improved security." But it also says such deals must translate into wider accommodation and "could pose risks to the Iraqi Government" by arming a sectarian minority.

Democrats said the intelligence assessment undergirds their desire to end the war and effectively demonstrates that Bush's strategy of boosting troop levels to create space for political agreement has failed.

"As today's NIE makes clear, a political solution is extremely unlikely in the near term," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "Further pursuit of the administration's flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation's best interests."

The White House said more time is needed. "It is frustrating, but it's not surprising that the political reconciliation is lagging behind the security improvements," Johndroe said. "I think that is the way the strategy was laid out."

The NIE is only one of several reports on Iraq in the weeks leading up to Petraeus's return. The Government Accountability Office late next week will deliver its assessment of the Iraqi government's performance on the 18 benchmarks for success. House leaders, in a conference call with much of the Democratic Caucus yesterday, set hearings for Sept. 4 on the GAO's findings. Another report on the security situation in Iraq, led by former Marine Commandant James L. Jones, should be delivered the first week of September.

source: 23aug2007

Warner:
Bring Some Troops Home

KATE PHILLIPS / New York Times 23aug2007

Senator John Warner, veteran of wars past and longtime Republican of Virginia, today called on President Bush to issue a strong signal to the Iraqi government by withdrawing a small contingent of American troops home around Christmastime.

Senator Warner’s demand, if you will, was bookended by Mr. Bush’s speech yesterday in which he invoked the Vietnam experience and today’s gloomy new National Intelligence Estimate that basically suggested the Iraqi government can’t pull it together within six to 12 months without outside military support.

And the senator’s announcement followed his own trip to Iraq with Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan; the two of them have off and on traded the chairmanships of the Armed Services Committee depending on which party controlled the Senate. (Three-by-three, Mr. Warner mentioned today.)

Even though we’re in the so-called dog days of August, it’s been a heady week for news about Iraq and the Bush administration’s policies, with the Democratic and Republican candidates, as well as Mr. Bush, addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Mo.

All of the speeches and policy-driven reports are part of a layup on the war court to September’s much-anticipated (or dreaded, take your pick) report by American military commanders of how the president’s latest plan — the so-called surge or troop buildup — is working to quell the rampant, seemingly unstoppable violence that is called sectarian conflict or civil war, depending on your point of view.

Mr. Warner’s views also come amid nervousness among Republicans in a summer campaign at home that has seen anti-war ad campaigns and pressure ad campaigns from a new stay-the-course group led by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. The senator and other leading Republicans have attempted, over time, to express their own unease with the pace of war in the troubled nation, and the lack of the Iraqi government’s ability to meet certain benchmarks to counter the insurgents and terrorists and achieve some measure of stability.

So today, Senator Warner emerged from meetings with top White House advisers following his trip to Iraq, to propose a “symbolic’’ withdrawal of a few thousands troops from the battleground around Christmas.

He said he had not talked to Mr. Bush directly, but felt it his duty to call for a small drawdown that could act as a warning to the Iraqi government that things could not stand. As a top Democratic aide pointed out, Mr. Warner shied away from saying he would vote with Democrats to change the course of the war, or press for change through legislation. He left that up to President Bush.

But you merely have to read Senator Warner’s words to get a hint of where he’s headed:

Take into consideration the need to send a sharp and clear message throughout the region, to the United States and one that people can understand it. I think no clearer form of that than if the president were to announce on the 15th that in consultation with our senior military commanders, he’s decided to initiate the first step in a withdrawal of armed forces.

I say to the president respectfully, pick whatever number you wish. You do not want to lose the momentum but certainly in 160,000- plus, say, 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later than Christmas of this year. That’s the first step.

Let the president establish the timetable of withdrawal, not the Congress. Under the constitution as commander-in-chief, he has that authority. He need not lay out a totality of a timetable. I would advise against it.

In questions from the media, Mr. Warner was asked whether – as Mr. Bush warned yesterday — that withdrawal timetables would pull the rug out from underneath Iraqi troops (and perhaps the American forces) fighting there.

Q: You mentioned that this suggestion is an attempt to put more of the responsibility on the Iraqi armed forces, but the N.I.E. stated that — (off mike) — six to 12 months that the Iraqi security forces won’t be able to conduct major operations independent of the coalition. And now if this suggestion is taken on, are you, in a sense, pulling the rug out from under the Iraqi troops there when they’re not quite ready?

Mr. Warner: It’s not that intention. As I said, take 5,000. Now, 5,000 is not going to be a destabilizing number of armed forces. That’s not going to be destabilizing. It’s not going to in any way denigrate the ability for us to continue to train and work with the Iraqi forces. But it will send a very clear signal to support what the president said on January 10th — we’re not there to stay forever — and what Ambassador Crocker said yesterday — we’re not giving you a blank check. I just feel those statements, it’s time to come and put a good, strong, clear bite on them.

Mr. Warner would not offer a specific timetable, but he clearly was suggesting that a small removal would send a powerful signal to the Iraqis that they would have to step up. But he also said it was up to Mr. Bush to do so.

The veteran senator, who has not yet said whether he will seek re-election, was also asked to comment on the president’s controversial allusions yesterday to Vietnam. After reading the president’s speech, he said he could not draw any parallels to Vietnam, though he was more charitable about the comparisons that might be made of withdrawal plans from lessons learned in Vietnam:

I looked at it; I read it very carefully. I was there for five years, four months and three days. Privileged to be undersecretary, secretary of the Navy, and made a number of trips to Vietnam and the region.

I feel that there are no parallels really. It’s a different type of situation we were in, a country many, many miles away, a country that really did not pose a threat to the internal security of the United States as these conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq do. But the president was correct to observe the really sad way in which we finally departed that country.

I was privileged to work with Secretary Laird, and as a matter of fact, Secretary of Defense Laird talked to me today. And he said — kind of somewhat concerned about the chapter of history and to make sure it’s accurate because he gave months of his career to it.

In terms of the way we terminated, we do not want, and I think that was the president’s point, a repeat of that disorderly withdrawal in this conflict. And I guarantee you, as I’ve come to know the president, he would not permit any withdrawal program to become disorderly. It’ll always be carefully thought-out and planned together with superb military adviser team and the secretary of Defense he has in place now.

At a White House press corps briefing in Crawford, Texas, where the president is vacationing, Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for Mr. Bush, was asked about Senator Warner’s statements.

Q: Senator Warner just came back from Iraq, as you know, with Senator Levin, met with a lot of these military and civilian officials and he came up with this assessment. He’s been in the Senate about 30 years, Republican, as well. Will the President consider at least a timetable for withdrawal as he moves forward to Sept. 15?

Mr. Johndroe: You know, I think it’s inappropriate for me to say from here right now what the president will or will not consider. I know the president has stated many times that he wants to hear from General Petraeus and he wants to hear from Ambassador Crocker, hear what they have to say about the conditions on the ground, and make decisions based on their recommendations, input from the intelligence community like the N.I.E. We’ll hear from Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice, Admiral Fallon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So the best thing to do now is wait for all of these people to report in, listen to what members of Congress like Senator Warner say, and then — that will be the time, in September, to hear these reports and then make decisions about the way ahead.

Q: Are you leaving the door open to a timetable? The president has recently said a timetable would be a disastrous course of action.

Mr. Johndroe: Yes, and I don’t think that the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. I just think it’s important that we wait right now to hear from the commanders on the ground about the way ahead.

All of this discussion has been rocking the 2008 campaign trail. Today Republican presidential candidate John McCain accused Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of flip-flopping on the issue of whether the troop surge in Iraq was working. In a speech earlier this week to the veterans’ group, she indicated that some aspects of the Iraq strategy appeared to be achieving success, but did not single out the surge specifically. On Wednesday she issued statements through her Senate office saying emphatically that it had failed.

But Mr. McCain said today that Mrs. Clinton seemed to have a quick change of heart on the surge, and had bowed to criticism from anti-war activists and her rival Democratic presidential candidates:

“The fact that the New York senator can reverse her position on an issue of grave importance to our national security in a few days sends the wrong signal to our enemies in Iraq and our own troops on the ground,” Mr. McCain said in a statement from his presidential campaign. “We must continue to support General Petraeus and the new counterinsurgency campaign to give us the best chance to succeed. Following the path to begin an ‘immediate withdrawal’ would be a grave mistake.”

As The Times’s Jeff Zeleny reported, during her remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference earlier this week, Mrs. Clinton referred to some military progress in certain areas of Iraq, but repeated her call to bring American troops home:

“We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working” she said. “We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again. We can’t be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.”

Some political pundits and media outlets, including the Drudge Report, seized on her words, saying that Mrs. Clinton seemed to be implying that the surge was working.

Not so, Mrs. Clinton said in two separate statements issued by her Senate office on Wednesday:

“The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The White House’s report in September won’t change that. It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.” In a second statement, she also added that “the President’s escalation strategy is not succeeding.” Michael Falcone contributed to this post.

source: 23aug2007

Prominent Republican Senator Warner:
Bush Should Bring Troops Home

ANNE FLAHERTY / AP 23aug2007

President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended, a prominent Republican senator said Thursday.

The move puts John Warner, a former Navy secretary and one-time chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, at odds with the president, who says conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush this year.

The departure of even a small number of U.S. service members — perhaps 5,000 of the 160,000 troops in Iraq — would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out, Warner said.

"We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action," he told reporters after a White House meeting with Bush's top aides.

Warner's new position is a sharp challenge to a wartime president that will undoubtedly color the upcoming Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to brief members on the war's progress.

A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, declined to say whether Bush might consider Warner's suggestion.

Asked whether Bush would leave the door open to setting a timetable, Johndroe said: "I don't think the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. I just think it's important that we wait right now to hear from our commanders on the ground about the way ahead."

Republicans, including Warner, have so far stuck with Bush and rejected Democratic proposals demanding troops leave Iraq by a certain date. But an increasing number of GOP members have said they are uneasy about the war and want to see Bush embrace a new strategy if substantial progress is not made by September.

Warner, known for his party loyalty, said he still opposes setting a fixed timetable on the war or forcing the president's hand.

"Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress," he said.

Nevertheless, his suggestion of troop withdrawals is likely to embolden Democrats and rile some of his GOP colleagues, who insist lawmakers must wait until Petraeus testifies.

His stature on military issues also could sway some Republicans who have been reluctant to challenge Bush.

Warner said he came to his conclusion after visiting Iraq this month with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee chairman; Warner is the committee's second-ranking Republican. Levin said this week that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should be replaced. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., followed suit and told reporters Thursday that Maliki has been "a failure."

Warner said he "could not go that far" to call for Maliki's resignation. But he said he did have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current leadership in Baghdad, which a U.S. intelligence report released Thursday also cited. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq does not anticipate a political reconciliation in the next year and predicts the Iraqi government will become "more precarious" because of criticism from various sectarian groups.

"When I see an NIE which corroborates my own judgment — that political reconciliation has not taken place — the Maliki government has let down the U.S. forces and, to an extent, his own Iraqi forces," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the report confirms what most Americans already know: "Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and the president's escalation strategy has failed to produce the political results he promised to our troops and the American people."

"Every day that we continue to stick to the president's flawed strategy is a day that America is not as secure as it could be," said Reid, D-Nev.

source: 23aug2007