what General Petraeus said

From the AP...

The top U.S. general in Iraq outlined plans Monday for the withdrawal of as many as 30,000 troops by next summer, drawing praise from the White House but a chilly reception from anti-war Democrats...

Further "force reductions will continue,'' he told a nationally televised congressional hearing that was frequently interrupted by anti-war protesters. Petraeus said it would be ``premature to make recommendations on the pace,'' and he recommended that President Bush wait until March 2008 to make any decisions. The cuts he outlined would return the U.S. force appoximately to levels in place when Bush ordered a buildup last winter to allow the Iraqi government time to forge a reconciliation among feuding factions.

Petraeus said the withdrawal of the Marine unit would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000-135,000 troops in Iraq, although Petraeus was not precise about whether some of the several thousand support troops sent along with the extra combat forces would remain after July.

The good news is that there is a plan for some troop reductions. The bad news is that significant reductions will not start for months; modest reductions will still take a long time; the plans are imprecise and uncertain; and the plans only get us to pre-surge levels.

Is this just stalling for time? Is this a legitimate plan but still a long-shot? Does this have a significant probability of "success"? And then we're back to old questions-- e.g., what is success? and water-under-the-bridge questions like "should we have gone to Iraq to begin with?"

The funny/sad thing is that no one has much credibility on this stuff. The Democrats say all kinds of crazy things (see: next post). But you get the distinct impression that they'd be gleeful to see our military limping home from Iraq-- anything to help them win more elections. But from the pro-war Republicans, no matter how things end up in Iraq, you know they'll still complain that the Democrats kept our military from being (more) successful. Is this about President Bush's legacy, taking a low-probability chance to finish successfully-- or is he still a true believer that this is the best way to go? What would he do if the next Congressional and Presidential elections were this November or November 2009? Even the timing of Gen. Petraeus' September 10-11 testimony has to give pause to a modestly cynical politico.

At the end of the day, independent of what's best for us and Iraq, for our soldiers, our taxpayers, and the Iraqi people-- you're still left to wonder the extent to which the levers are being pulled by those for whom the politics of the next election are the most important game in town-- or in their world.