Steven R. Weisman and Carl Hulse/NYT Friday, November 14, 2003
Lawmakers and policy experts question quicker handover
WASHINGTON The Bush administration's decision to speed the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq and replace U.S. troops with Iraqis is bringing fresh warnings from Congress and policy experts against pulling out of Iraq too early and letting election-year considerations dictate Iraq policy.
.
Much of the anxiety about Iraq is being expressed by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and those raising questions include both supporters and critics of the war. Even as General John Abizaid, the American military commander in the Middle East, was saying that the schedule would not "be driven by political concerns," a debate over the pace of a turnover expanded to foreign officials, military policy experts, political operatives and many others, with criticism being heard in places normally friendly to the administration.
.
"The Pentagon strategy of reducing troops doesn't make sense to me," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, adding that the security situation demanded a continuing U.S. presence.
.
The administration is not suggesting that a speedier transfer of power to an Iraqi governing authority would mean an end to America's military presence in the country. Indeed, the reduction in troop levels envisioned by the Pentagon would still leave 105,000 American soldiers in Iraq next year, compared to the 130,000 there now. And in an interview with British journalists in Washington on Thursday, President George W. Bush said it was inconceivable that the United States would leave either Iraq or Afghanistan before it had helped establish democratic societies in those countries.
.
Still, one critic, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who ran for president against Bush three years ago, said that, if anything, more U.S. troops - perhaps a division - might be needed to "stay the course," as he put it. "To announce withdrawals when the number of attacks and deaths of American military are going up is not reasonable or logical," McCain said in an interview.
.
"If the American military can't do it, then certainly half-trained Iraqis cannot." In general, American lawmakers support the administration's strategy of transferring power to Iraqis more quickly.
.
Indeed, the theme of many critics of the war has been that such a transfer would stabilize Iraq and allow Americans to go home. But in recent weeks, a chorus of voices, in many cases from supporters of the war, have warned of the dangers of premature departure driven by political reasons as the campaign season heats up.
.
Administration officials deny that politics have been a factor in any decision to reduce U.S. forces and accelerate Iraqi self-government, asserting that these steps are being taken to reduce Iraqi support for the attacks on American and other occupation forces.
.
"We intend to do our best, to turn over security in a prudent manner, in a time schedule that won't be driven by political concerns, but with Iraqi capacity to be able to handle the security situation," Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, said on Thursday.
.
In brief remarks to reporters, Bush said that a rushed exit from Iraq would carry a high cost. He also called attention to a survey in Baghdad, saying it had found that "the vast majority of people understand that if America were to leave and the terrorists were to prevail in their desire to drive us out, the country would fall into chaos."
.
Nevertheless, many specialists say they are concerned that the administration is carrying out a schedule that, coincidentally or not, fits into the desire of many Republican politicians to reduce the vulnerability of American troops by cutting them back by next year.
.
"My greatest fear is that this administration, having made all the wrong choices, is going to conclude they have to bring Johnny and Jane home by the next election in order to survive," said Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an interview. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said in a separate interview, "If you look at everything they're doing, it looks like they're laying the groundwork for a premature departure."
.
Martin Indyk, the White House's Middle East policy director under President Bill Clinton, said that the stepped-up U.S. attacks on rebel forces in Iraq this week were reminiscent of the naval strikes President Ronald Reagan unleashed on anti-American forces in Lebanon just before American troops were withdrawn in 1983.
.
"The problem is that, as the CIA has already concluded, the Iraqi public has already reached its conclusion that the United States is leaving," said Indyk, director of the Saban Center of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution.
.
"Other nations in the region will be quick to reach the same conclusion." For the most part, Republicans in Congress and among administration supporters in Washington have not parted company politically with the administration on Iraq, at least publicly. But that is beginning to change.
.
"We are in trouble in Iraq and I think there is no other way to say it," said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. He expressed hope that L. Paul Bremer 3rd, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who was summoned to Washington this week, had told Bush that some things would have to be done differently. Essays urging Bush to press on in Iraq, and to accelerate the transition to self-rule, are increasingly prominent in The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal with a wide readership in the administration.
.
This week, a lead editorial urged a "victory strategy" rather than an "exit strategy."
.
The New York Times
< < Back to Start of Article Lawmakers and policy experts question quicker handover
WASHINGTON The Bush administration's decision to speed the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq and replace U.S. troops with Iraqis is bringing fresh warnings from Congress and policy experts against pulling out of Iraq too early and letting election-year considerations dictate Iraq policy.
.
Much of the anxiety about Iraq is being expressed by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and those raising questions include both supporters and critics of the war. Even as General John Abizaid, the American military commander in the Middle East, was saying that the schedule would not "be driven by political concerns," a debate over the pace of a turnover expanded to foreign officials, military policy experts, political operatives and many others, with criticism being heard in places normally friendly to the administration.
.
"The Pentagon strategy of reducing troops doesn't make sense to me," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, adding that the security situation demanded a continuing U.S. presence.
.
The administration is not suggesting that a speedier transfer of power to an Iraqi governing authority would mean an end to America's military presence in the country. Indeed, the reduction in troop levels envisioned by the Pentagon would still leave 105,000 American soldiers in Iraq next year, compared to the 130,000 there now. And in an interview with British journalists in Washington on Thursday, President George W. Bush said it was inconceivable that the United States would leave either Iraq or Afghanistan before it had helped establish democratic societies in those countries.
.
Still, one critic, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who ran for president against Bush three years ago, said that, if anything, more U.S. troops - perhaps a division - might be needed to "stay the course," as he put it. "To announce withdrawals when the number of attacks and deaths of American military are going up is not reasonable or logical," McCain said in an interview.
.
"If the American military can't do it, then certainly half-trained Iraqis cannot." In general, American lawmakers support the administration's strategy of transferring power to Iraqis more quickly.
.
Indeed, the theme of many critics of the war has been that such a transfer would stabilize Iraq and allow Americans to go home. But in recent weeks, a chorus of voices, in many cases from supporters of the war, have warned of the dangers of premature departure driven by political reasons as the campaign season heats up.
.
Administration officials deny that politics have been a factor in any decision to reduce U.S. forces and accelerate Iraqi self-government, asserting that these steps are being taken to reduce Iraqi support for the attacks on American and other occupation forces.
.
"We intend to do our best, to turn over security in a prudent manner, in a time schedule that won't be driven by political concerns, but with Iraqi capacity to be able to handle the security situation," Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, said on Thursday.
.
In brief remarks to reporters, Bush said that a rushed exit from Iraq would carry a high cost. He also called attention to a survey in Baghdad, saying it had found that "the vast majority of people understand that if America were to leave and the terrorists were to prevail in their desire to drive us out, the country would fall into chaos."
.
Nevertheless, many specialists say they are concerned that the administration is carrying out a schedule that, coincidentally or not, fits into the desire of many Republican politicians to reduce the vulnerability of American troops by cutting them back by next year.
.
"My greatest fear is that this administration, having made all the wrong choices, is going to conclude they have to bring Johnny and Jane home by the next election in order to survive," said Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an interview. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said in a separate interview, "If you look at everything they're doing, it looks like they're laying the groundwork for a premature departure."
.
Martin Indyk, the White House's Middle East policy director under President Bill Clinton, said that the stepped-up U.S. attacks on rebel forces in Iraq this week were reminiscent of the naval strikes President Ronald Reagan unleashed on anti-American forces in Lebanon just before American troops were withdrawn in 1983.
.
"The problem is that, as the CIA has already concluded, the Iraqi public has already reached its conclusion that the United States is leaving," said Indyk, director of the Saban Center of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution.
.
"Other nations in the region will be quick to reach the same conclusion." For the most part, Republicans in Congress and among administration supporters in Washington have not parted company politically with the administration on Iraq, at least publicly. But that is beginning to change.
.
"We are in trouble in Iraq and I think there is no other way to say it," said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. He expressed hope that L. Paul Bremer 3rd, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who was summoned to Washington this week, had told Bush that some things would have to be done differently. Essays urging Bush to press on in Iraq, and to accelerate the transition to self-rule, are increasingly prominent in The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal with a wide readership in the administration.
.
This week, a lead editorial urged a "victory strategy" rather than an "exit strategy."
.
The New York Times Lawmakers and policy experts question quicker handover
WASHINGTON The Bush administration's decision to speed the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq and replace U.S. troops with Iraqis is bringing fresh warnings from Congress and policy experts against pulling out of Iraq too early and letting election-year considerations dictate Iraq policy.
.
Much of the anxiety about Iraq is being expressed by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and those raising questions include both supporters and critics of the war. Even as General John Abizaid, the American military commander in the Middle East, was saying that the schedule would not "be driven by political concerns," a debate over the pace of a turnover expanded to foreign officials, military policy experts, political operatives and many others, with criticism being heard in places normally friendly to the administration.
.
"The Pentagon strategy of reducing troops doesn't make sense to me," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, adding that the security situation demanded a continuing U.S. presence.
.
The administration is not suggesting that a speedier transfer of power to an Iraqi governing authority would mean an end to America's military presence in the country. Indeed, the reduction in troop levels envisioned by the Pentagon would still leave 105,000 American soldiers in Iraq next year, compared to the 130,000 there now. And in an interview with British journalists in Washington on Thursday, President George W. Bush said it was inconceivable that the United States would leave either Iraq or Afghanistan before it had helped establish democratic societies in those countries.
.
Still, one critic, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who ran for president against Bush three years ago, said that, if anything, more U.S. troops - perhaps a division - might be needed to "stay the course," as he put it. "To announce withdrawals when the number of attacks and deaths of American military are going up is not reasonable or logical," McCain said in an interview.
.
"If the American military can't do it, then certainly half-trained Iraqis cannot." In general, American lawmakers support the administration's strategy of transferring power to Iraqis more quickly.
.
Indeed, the theme of many critics of the war has been that such a transfer would stabilize Iraq and allow Americans to go home. But in recent weeks, a chorus of voices, in many cases from supporters of the war, have warned of the dangers of premature departure driven by political reasons as the campaign season heats up.
.
Administration officials deny that politics have been a factor in any decision to reduce U.S. forces and accelerate Iraqi self-government, asserting that these steps are being taken to reduce Iraqi support for the attacks on American and other occupation forces.
.
"We intend to do our best, to turn over security in a prudent manner, in a time schedule that won't be driven by political concerns, but with Iraqi capacity to be able to handle the security situation," Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, said on Thursday.
.
In brief remarks to reporters, Bush said that a rushed exit from Iraq would carry a high cost. He also called attention to a survey in Baghdad, saying it had found that "the vast majority of people understand that if America were to leave and the terrorists were to prevail in their desire to drive us out, the country would fall into chaos."
.
Nevertheless, many specialists say they are concerned that the administration is carrying out a schedule that, coincidentally or not, fits into the desire of many Republican politicians to reduce the vulnerability of American troops by cutting them back by next year.
.
"My greatest fear is that this administration, having made all the wrong choices, is going to conclude they have to bring Johnny and Jane home by the next election in order to survive," said Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an interview. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said in a separate interview, "If you look at everything they're doing, it looks like they're laying the groundwork for a premature departure."
.
Martin Indyk, the White House's Middle East policy director under President Bill Clinton, said that the stepped-up U.S. attacks on rebel forces in Iraq this week were reminiscent of the naval strikes President Ronald Reagan unleashed on anti-American forces in Lebanon just before American troops were withdrawn in 1983.
.
"The problem is that, as the CIA has already concluded, the Iraqi public has already reached its conclusion that the United States is leaving," said Indyk, director of the Saban Center of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution.
.
"Other nations in the region will be quick to reach the same conclusion." For the most part, Republicans in Congress and among administration supporters in Washington have not parted company politically with the administration on Iraq, at least publicly. But that is beginning to change.
.
"We are in trouble in Iraq and I think there is no other way to say it," said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. He expressed hope that L. Paul Bremer 3rd, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who was summoned to Washington this week, had told Bush that some things would have to be done differently. Essays urging Bush to press on in Iraq, and to accelerate the transition to self-rule, are increasingly prominent in The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal with a wide readership in the administration.
.
This week, a lead editorial urged a "victory strategy" rather than an "exit strategy."
.
The New York Times Lawmakers and policy experts question quicker handover
WASHINGTON The Bush administration's decision to speed the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq and replace U.S. troops with Iraqis is bringing fresh warnings from Congress and policy experts against pulling out of Iraq too early and letting election-year considerations dictate Iraq policy.
.
Much of the anxiety about Iraq is being expressed by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and those raising questions include both supporters and critics of the war. Even as General John Abizaid, the American military commander in the Middle East, was saying that the schedule would not "be driven by political concerns," a debate over the pace of a turnover expanded to foreign officials, military policy experts, political operatives and many others, with criticism being heard in places normally friendly to the administration.
.
"The Pentagon strategy of reducing troops doesn't make sense to me," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, adding that the security situation demanded a continuing U.S. presence.
.
The administration is not suggesting that a speedier transfer of power to an Iraqi governing authority would mean an end to America's military presence in the country. Indeed, the reduction in troop levels envisioned by the Pentagon would still leave 105,000 American soldiers in Iraq next year, compared to the 130,000 there now. And in an interview with British journalists in Washington on Thursday, President George W. Bush said it was inconceivable that the United States would leave either Iraq or Afghanistan before it had helped establish democratic societies in those countries.
.
Still, one critic, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who ran for president against Bush three years ago, said that, if anything, more U.S. troops - perhaps a division - might be needed to "stay the course," as he put it. "To announce withdrawals when the number of attacks and deaths of American military are going up is not reasonable or logical," McCain said in an interview.
.
"If the American military can't do it, then certainly half-trained Iraqis cannot." In general, American lawmakers support the administration's strategy of transferring power to Iraqis more quickly.
.
Indeed, the theme of many critics of the war has been that such a transfer would stabilize Iraq and allow Americans to go home. But in recent weeks, a chorus of voices, in many cases from supporters of the war, have warned of the dangers of premature departure driven by political reasons as the campaign season heats up.
.
Administration officials deny that politics have been a factor in any decision to reduce U.S. forces and accelerate Iraqi self-government, asserting that these steps are being taken to reduce Iraqi support for the attacks on American and other occupation forces.
.
"We intend to do our best, to turn over security in a prudent manner, in a time schedule that won't be driven by political concerns, but with Iraqi capacity to be able to handle the security situation," Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, said on Thursday.
.
In brief remarks to reporters, Bush said that a rushed exit from Iraq would carry a high cost. He also called attention to a survey in Baghdad, saying it had found that "the vast majority of people understand that if America were to leave and the terrorists were to prevail in their desire to drive us out, the country would fall into chaos."
.
Nevertheless, many specialists say they are concerned that the administration is carrying out a schedule that, coincidentally or not, fits into the desire of many Republican politicians to reduce the vulnerability of American troops by cutting them back by next year.
.
"My greatest fear is that this administration, having made all the wrong choices, is going to conclude they have to bring Johnny and Jane home by the next election in order to survive," said Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an interview. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said in a separate interview, "If you look at everything they're doing, it looks like they're laying the groundwork for a premature departure."
.
Martin Indyk, the White House's Middle East policy director under President Bill Clinton, said that the stepped-up U.S. attacks on rebel forces in Iraq this week were reminiscent of the naval strikes President Ronald Reagan unleashed on anti-American forces in Lebanon just before American troops were withdrawn in 1983.
.
"The problem is that, as the CIA has already concluded, the Iraqi public has already reached its conclusion that the United States is leaving," said Indyk, director of the Saban Center of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution.
.
"Other nations in the region will be quick to reach the same conclusion." For the most part, Republicans in Congress and among administration supporters in Washington have not parted company politically with the administration on Iraq, at least publicly. But that is beginning to change.
.
"We are in trouble in Iraq and I think there is no other way to say it," said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. He expressed hope that L. Paul Bremer 3rd, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who was summoned to Washington this week, had told Bush that some things would have to be done differently. Essays urging Bush to press on in Iraq, and to accelerate the transition to self-rule, are increasingly prominent in The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal with a wide readership in the administration.
.
This week, a lead editorial urged a "victory strategy" rather than an "exit strategy."
.
The New York Times
Subscriptions E-mail Alerts About the IHT : Privacy & Cookies : Contact the IHT
Copyright © 2003 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved
Site Feedback | Terms of Use | Contributor Policy
