Security gains ‘fragile’ in Iraq, Petraeus warns

Arguing for a continuing U.S. troop presence, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus told Congress today that the recent flare-up of violence across Iraq demonstrates that recent security improvements are “fragile and reversible.”

The top U.S. commander said that troop reductions begun in December should continue through July, but that withdrawals should halt after that for at least 45 days. Petraeus said that further cuts would depend on progress in security, leading Democrats to charge that that Petraeus was calling for an open-ended U.S. presence.

Petraeus said after completion of planned troop reductions in July, the 45-day delay would allow a period of “consolidation and evaluation.” After that, he said, officials would begin a process to determine when to issue new recommendations on further troop withdrawals.

Petraeus said there would be no timetable for further troop cuts.

“Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the last year,” Petraeus said.

Progress since September has been significant but uneven, Petraeus said. Despite recent fighting and violence in Basra and elsewhere, including deadly attacks on Baghdad’s heavily fortified “green zone,” Petraeus argued that violence has continued to decline since his last report in September and was “significantly better” than when the U.S. troop buildup began in January 2007.

Petraeus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee with Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, the top American diplomat in Baghdad, to give his second major public update on the course of the Iraq war.

His recommendation for a “pause” in troop reductions this summer was expected, and pointed to the likelihood of large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq through the end of the Bush administration next year.

“This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit,” Petraeus said. “This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought and sacrificed so much to achieve.”

In the morning hearing before the armed services committee, Petraeus and Crocker faced two presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). In a hearing this afternoon before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they will face a third presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

Although an enthusiastic supporter of Petraeus, McCain used the hearing to show he would challenge top commanders, peppering the general with questions about recent green zone attacks and problems with the Iraq military.

In his opening statement, McCain argued for maintaining the American troop presence. McCain drew wide contrasts between the consequences of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq and withdrawing them, portraying it as a choice between stability and chaos.

“We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can look ahead to the prospect of success,” McCain argued.

A stable democracy in Iraq is within reach, McCain argued. But a U.S. withdrawal would lead to a failed state, increase Iran’s power and draw America into a “wider, costlier” war.

“Should the United States choose to withdraw from Iraq before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long-lasting,” McCain said.

Clinton, calling for stepped-up withdrawals, said the large U.S. troop presence in Iraq precluded additional forces for Afghanistan. Answering Republican criticism of her position on troop reductions as misguided, Clinton said it would be irresponsible to continue with present policies.

“Our current strategy in Iraq has very real costs,” Clinton said. “The longer we stay in Iraq the more we divert resources not only from Afghanistan but other international challenges as well.”

She said Petraeus failed to spell out what conditions would permit additional withdrawals. Petraeus said factors being considered included the status of hostile forces, economics and progress in local governance.

“Having said that, I have to say, it is not a mathematical exercise,” he added.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that Petraeus was advocating an open-ended U.S. presence that eases the pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own security.

Petraeus acknowledged that the assessment period and the halt in troop cuts could last longer than 45 days.

“I am asking a direct question,” Levin said. “Could it be as long as three months? Could it be as long as four months?”

“Sir,” Petraeus said, “it is when the conditions are met.”

Petraeus refused under questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of McCain, to criticize proposals by Clinton and Obama to withdraw a military brigade every month. While force reductions depend on conditions, he left he left open the possibility for the cuts suggested by the two Democrats.

“If the conditions were good – quite good – that might be doable,” Petraeus said.

Before the hearing began, McCain glided into the room with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn). McCain was met at the front of the committee room by Crocker.

Clinton entered the committee room a step behind McCain and quickly moved to her seat, where she was immediately greeted by Petraeus.

In his opening statement, Levin argued the recent flare-up violence in Basra showed the weakness of the Iraqi central government and the failure of the surge to lead to meaningful political progress in Iraq. Levin said Bush has not held the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to promises to take steps to reconcile various Iraqi factions.

“That reality led many of us to once again challenge President Bush’s policy,” Levin said.

Petraeus addressed the recent violence in Basra several times in his opening statement. The violence in Basra, Petraeus said, had increased concern among Iraqis about the growing influence of Iran.

“The hand of Iran was very clear in recent weeks,” Petraeus said.

Crocker argued that Iran was pursuing a strategy in Iraq similar to what it does in Lebanon, where it backs Hezbollah and other militant Shiite groups. Iran is trying to co-opt Shiite groups in Iraq and would push harder in the absence of a U.S. presence.

Periods of reduced violence have made it easier for U.S. officials to discern Iran’s role in arming extremist groups, Crocker said.

Crocker noted that Iran had condemned recent attacks on the green zone and said that he believes Iran is re-thinking its role in Iraq.

Petraeus said that Iranian-backed Shiite militants, called “special groups” by the Americans, were destabilizing the country.

“Unchecked,” Petraeus said, “the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”

He also argued that the flare-up showed the importance of the cease-fire declared by Muqtada Sadr, the radical cleric who leads the Mahdi Army and enjoys wide popularity in impoverished Shiite neighborhoods. That cease-fire had helped drive down violence throughout Iraq.

Crocker said he believed that the surge was working. He argued how the U.S. leaves Iraq will be more important “than how we came.” However fragile the current progress, the current course is working, Crocker said.

“Hard does not mean hopeless and the political and economic progress of the past few months is significant,” Crocker said.

Civilian deaths, Petraeus argued, are down to 2005 levels. But the prospect that sectarian violence could flare up again was real if not contained.

“Ethno-sectarian violence is a particular concern in Iraq as it is a cancer that continues to spread if left unchecked,” Petraeus said.

Julian.Barnes@latimes.com

Peter.Spiegel@latimes.com