Advertisement

SENATORS TAKE AIM AT IRAQ WAR COMMANDER

Share
Times Staff Writer

The U.S. general responsible for the Army’s Iraq war strategy for the last two years was berated by leading Senate critics Thursday for American military failures, and was accused of providing unduly optimistic assessments of progress as U.S. fortunes sagged.

Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. appeared before the Senate panel that is weighing his nomination to be the next Army chief of staff. The hearing was unusually tense at times, as senators who support the troop increase that has been ordered by President Bush took Casey to task for his leadership of the war.

“I question seriously the judgment that was employed in your execution of your responsibilities in Iraq,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Casey. “And we have paid a very, very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy.”

Advertisement

Casey has long been a skeptic of increasing the size of the American force in Iraq, and his testimony amounted to a tepid endorsement at best of Bush’s controversial new strategy.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was an unusual scene for Washington: a highly decorated four-star general being grilled by prominent Republicans while he offered only lackluster support for the president’s policies.

But Casey’s appearance reflected the split within the military over Bush’s war plan. Many younger commanders and rising officers support the new strategy, with its emphasis on counterinsurgency methods. But some senior military leaders remain skeptical about the ability of U.S. forces to end the brutal sectarian violence.

Although Casey is an unenthusiastic supporter of the new strategy, the White House nominated him to become the chief of staff of the Army in part to recognize his long service in Baghdad. Though his new post would represent a nominal promotion, it also would remove him from the chain of command and limit his direct influence over Iraq policy.

Casey faced senators as Congress was wrestling with resolutions to express disapproval of Bush’s new war plan and just before today’s release of a long-awaited intelligence report that is expected to portray a bleak picture of fruitless U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Thursday’s hearing provided senators with a forum to debate the new Bush policy. But because Casey was until recently opposed to troop increases, the toughest questions came from the plan’s supporters.

Advertisement

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the troop increase, asked Casey whether Iraq was secure enough for him to visit downtown Fallouja.

“You could,” Casey said.

“Well,” Graham shot back, “I asked to go, and they wouldn’t let me.”

A majority of committee members appeared to support Casey’s nomination.

Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he expected a vote on Casey next week. “I will vote for him,” Levin said after the hearing. “I think he is qualified to be chief of staff of the Army, and he should not be held responsible for the key mistakes that were made in Iraq and the way policy was set by civilians.”

Casey said he supported the president’s new approach, and acknowledged some past mistakes. But he continued to emphasize the importance of training the Iraqis -- the cornerstone of his own strategy -- and said that the military might not need all of the additional 21,500 troops Bush is sending to Iraq.

Throughout his 2 1/2 years as the top U.S. commander, Casey has worried that adding troops would slow the development of Iraqi units, a position he restated Thursday.

“Senator, my general belief is that I did not want to bring one more American soldier into Iraq than was necessary to accomplish the mission,” Casey said.

Casey said that in December, he asked for two additional brigades -- about 7,000 soldiers -- to improve security in Baghdad. When Bush offered five brigades, Casey said the remaining three could serve elsewhere as a flexible reserve force.

Advertisement

That contrasts sharply with the plan laid out by his successor, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is expected to move all five brigades into Baghdad once he assumes his new command in Iraq.

On several occasions, Casey described the new strategy as an “Iraqi plan.” “They came up with the plan,” he said. “They will lead the plan.”

But it was clear in questioning that the Americans had drafted the “Iraqi plan,” or at least heavily influenced its development.

When pressed by Levin, Casey acknowledged that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was not enthusiastic about the American troop increase.

“He leans toward not wanting to have to bring in more coalition forces,” Casey said.

Attempting to head off perceptions that top commanders disagree with the president, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday that Casey supported the Bush plan.

“What Gen. Casey was talking about is some suggestions he’d made earlier,” Snow said. “The president has made his decision, and it does reflect the wisdom of a number of combatant commanders. And again, it does have the assent of Gen. Casey.”

Advertisement

A yearlong buildup of 20,000 additional troops in Iraq would cost $11 billion for the combat forces alone, and could reach $27 billion if additional support personnel are included, the Congressional Budget Office said in an estimate issued Thursday.

The estimates, which came at the request of leading Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, raised concerns among war critics, who said the figures were much higher than the administration had been claiming since the buildup was announced last month.

Democrats said they were surprised by the office’s estimate that it could take 15,000 to 28,000 additional troops to support the deployment of 21,500 combat troops, which could take the total number of forces deployed to 49,000. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army’s current chief of staff, told Congress last week that he did not believe additional support troops would be needed.

Casey faced the toughest questioning of the day from McCain, who took issue with what he called Casey’s overly optimistic assessments of the situation in Iraq.

“You’ll need to explain why your assessment of the situation in Iraq has differed so radically from that of most observers,” McCain said, “and why your predictions of future success have been so unrealistically rosy.”

In recent weeks, Bush’s top military advisors and new nominees all have offered dire assessments of Iraq and have cataloged what they see as mistakes.

Advertisement

“So you disagree with the secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and [U.S. Central Command head nominee] Adm. [William J.] Fallon that we had a failed policy?” McCain asked Casey.

“I do, Senator,” Casey responded. “I do not believe that the current policy has failed.”

Later in the hearing, Levin took up the same line of questioning, asking Casey whether he would dispute Bush’s statement that the strategy followed last year was leading to “a slow failure.”

Casey insisted that the situation was improving under his watch. “I actually don’t see it as slow failure,” Casey said. “I actually see it as slow progress.”

julian.barnes@latimes.com

Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report.

Advertisement