***** New York Times November 20, 2003
Bush Hints That U.S. Might Not Reduce Troops in Iraq
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON with THOM SHANKER
LONDON, Nov. 20 - President Bush said today that he was open to rethinking the Pentagon's plan to reduce the size of the United States military force in Iraq next year.
Asked at a news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair how it was possible for the United States and Britain to start bringing troops home next year when the security situation in Iraq is so unsettled, Mr. Bush challenged the premise of the question and said he would rely on his military commanders to judge how many troops were needed to deal with conditions on the ground.
"I said that we're going to bring our troops home starting next year?" Mr. Bush replied, in a tone that conveyed that he was committing himself to no such thing.
"We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq," Mr. Bush said, adding that the number would be whatever is "necessary to secure Iraq."
Mr. Bush's statement was in line with his previous statements that he would be guided by the military's judgment in deciding on troop levels in Iraq. But it appeared to suggest that he could still revisit the Pentagon's plan to reduce American troop levels to 105,000 by May from about 130,000 now. And it seemed to leave open the possibility he could decide that troop levels would need to increase.
White House officials quickly sought to clarify Mr. Bush's statement, saying that nothing the president has heard from his military commanders would suggest the need to raise troop levels.
"The president simply emphasized that what we do is going to be very dependent on what's going on on the ground, and he listens to his commanders to tell him what's going on on the ground," said a senior administration official who was in London with Mr. Bush. "But, if anything, the discussions are in the other direction."
Pressed on the meaning of the president's words, the official said Mr. Bush, here on a state visit to a country that has more than 10,000 troops in Iraq, had given a "logical answer" to the question he was asked.
"But there is simply nothing to suggest that the number of American forces would need to increase," the official said.
Mr. Bush's words, and the White House's effort to explain them, underscored the array of military and political pressures facing the president over Iraq. He has pledged to finish the job of stabilizing Iraq. But he is heading into an election year with American casualties there mounting and polls showing diminished confidence in his handling of Iraq.
And despite taking steps to begin granting sovereignty to a transitional Iraqi government, he has yet to convince any countries that do not already have troops in Iraq to make a substantial military commitment that could help speed a reduction in American forces. Here in Britain, which Mr. Bush called "our closest friend" in a speech on Wednesday, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets today protesting the war.
Some Republicans on Capitol Hill, like Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have urged Mr. Bush to consider increasing rather than decreasing the number of American troops in Iraq to ensure that a hasty withdrawal does not lead to chaos or the establishment of an unfriendly government in Baghdad. . . .
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/international/europe/20CND-TROO.html> *****
The scenario of turning Iraq into three "Afghanistans" is probably the only one that would allow Bush to scale back the Iraqi operation and diminish reports of US casualties quickly, as Max Sawicky and Martin van Creveld suggest. The scenario is not a very attractive one for Bush, however, as the Arab masses would definitely interpret any scaling back of the US occupation as a US defeat.
Yoshie