Petraeus testimony shows that only President Bush can answer some questions

In retrospect, it was naive to think that the reports received by the House and Senate this week on the status of operations in Iraq would offer a definitive answer to the question of whether it is time for U.S. troops to be extracted from Iraq.

The testimony of Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker tended to reinforce the prewar views of lawmakers on the war.

Those who believe the war was a mistake, those who have come to see it as a mistake and those who believed in the rightness of the war and believe in it still all face the same problem. They have been fed buzz lines such as “mission accomplished” and “the insurgency is in its last throes” so many times that that words — even multicolored charts — have very little power to change men’s minds.

Planned reduction

Petraeus testified that his intention is to return troop strengths in Iraq from its present surge level of 168,000 to the pre-surge level of 130,000 to 140,000 by next July.

Between now and then, Petraeus and Crocker will return to Congress in March to give another status report. It is unlikely that Congress will get any better sense in the spring than they have gotten this week on how long American troops can be expected to be on the ground in Iraq, in what numbers and, at what cost and in lives and treasury.

More than 50 years after the cease-fire in Korea, the United States has more than 30,000 troops on the ground. And those troops are there only as a deterrent; they are not in the line of fire, they are not keeping warring factions of South Koreans apart or battling an insurgency.

President Bush made an imperfect analogy a few weeks ago between Iraq and Vietnam. For many reasons, an analogy between Iraq and Korea is equally flawed. Still, Korea raises the question: Is the United States prepared for a half-century commitment to Iraq? A 20-year commitment? A 10-year commitment?

It is President Bush’s responsibility to answer that question, and many more.

So far, the administration has given little more than lip service to its commitment to the war. It has not increased appreciably the manpower of the armed services. It has, instead, placed enormous demands on the National Guard and Reserves and has extended the tours of duty and shortened the at-home time of active military units.

It has financed the war through deficit spending, adding to a nation debt that has increased by more than $3 trillion during the Bush presidency and approaches $9 trillion.

Many reputable observers describe today’s armed forces as broken. Men, women and equipment have been used up. Enlistments and re-enlistments are being shored up only by larger and larger financial incentives. Tens of thousands of support jobs have been shifted from the armed forces to civilian contractors, often at two or three or four times the pay of a soldier.

The time is now

It is time for the president to present some charts of his own showing how a volunteer army can continue to meet the needs in Iraq and be combat ready for other military challenges that may arise.

The administration has consistently maintained that it cannot provide target dates for withdrawing troops because to do so would encourage the insurgency to wait out the withdrawal. But if Petraeus can talk about drawing down troops, so can the president — and so can Congress. If the insurgency is capable of waiting out troop withdrawals, isn’t it equally capable of waiting out geographic surges — which calls into question whether any surge can ever be labeled a success. Indeed, Crocker acknowledged as much during his testimony, saying that any turning point in Iraq is likely to be recognized only in retrospect.

Whoever wins the presidency in 2008 is going to inherit the Iraq war.

Petraeus has suggested a withdrawal of 30,000 troops over 10 months. Given the logistics of withdrawing troops, accounting for their equipment and weaponry as they leave, that is a reasonable rate. That means that even if withdrawals continue, the president who is sworn in the following January will have more than of 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq.

President Bush has no right to drop that kind of responsibility on his successor. It is the president’s obligation to begin talking now about how the nation can sustain and pay for the military obligation his administration created — and what is going to have to be done by Congress and the next president to rebuild the U.S. military.

The man who decided that this war was necessary and challenged terrorists to “bring it on” doesn’t get to walk away after eight years saying, “not my problem.”