Advertisement

Bush Is Now in Step With His Generals

BUSH'S IRAQ STRATEGY | NEWS ANALYSIS

December 01, 2005|Tyler Marshall and Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Much of the rhetoric was familiar. But in his U.S. Naval Academy speech Wednesday, President Bush seemed to accept the hard realities both on the ground in Iraq and politically in the United States by pledging a smaller American force.

After months of a lingering disconnect between the White House and senior military commanders, Bush's comments at the academy in Annapolis, Md., seemed to bring him into line not just with America's military but with much of his administration.


Advertisement

Repeatedly, military commanders have made the case that only a drawdown of U.S. troops would make Iraqi forces take control of their nation's security.

On Wednesday, Bush finally seemed to buy into the argument. The revised mission would reduce the exposure of U.S. troops to enemy attack and the potential for U.S. casualties.

In many ways, his speech was an artful domestic tightrope walk, one in which he forcefully rejected his critics' calls for an immediate troop pullout -- or even a timetable for one -- and repeated the applause lines cherished by his core supporters.

"I will settle for nothing less than complete victory," he said at one point. "We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission."

Yet behind these words, Bush's glowing assessment of the progress of Iraqi forces provided a response to two of his most crucial political constituencies: his core supporters desperate for reassurances that a plan exists for the victory he has so often promised, and the growing number of supporters-turned-skeptics who now demand a viable exit strategy.

The thrust of Bush's remarks easily dovetailed with earlier statements made by his two top commanders in the region, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and Army Gen. George W. Casey, the military's senior officer in Iraq.

In Senate testimony two months ago, the two generals had argued that a smaller U.S. force was necessary because the very presence of Americans was fueling the insurgency and fostering a dependency on a continued U.S. presence by the nascent Iraqi security force.

"We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the ... coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward," Abizaid and Maj. Gen. Douglas Lute, operations director for the Middle East, told reporters in August.

Los Angeles Times Articles
|