By keeping force levels at 140,000 into the autumn -- a few thousand more than before Bush announced the troop buildup in January 2007 -- U.S. officials can build on recent gains and the Iraqi government can gradually take over responsibility, he argued.
"This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable," he acknowledged. "However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve."
Petraeus refused to specify what might take place following a recommended 45-day suspension in troop reductions. Under questioning by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the general said withdrawals could resume almost immediately if security gains proved enduring -- or could be delayed by three or four months, depending on conditions.
That answer led Democrats to accuse Petraeus of advocating an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces. Clinton and Obama both took up the argument, though in significantly different ways.
Clinton re-emphasized points she and Democrats had made before: that even with security gains, the Iraqi government has proved incapable of political reconciliation, and that U.S. troops tied down in Iraq are needed elsewhere.
"I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, the global terrorist groups and other problems that confront Americans," the New York senator said during the morning hearing before the Armed Services Committee.
Obama, on the other hand, argued that both Petraeus and Crocker were setting the bar for success too high, making it nearly impossible to ever achieve goals or withdraw troops.
During the afternoon hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, the Illinois senator argued for consideration of more limited goals: an Iraqi government that could contain if not eradicate Sunni Arab radicals and could hold its own against Iranian influences, if not expel them.
"When you have finite resources, you've got to define your goal tightly and modestly," Obama said.
Several Republicans questioned Petraeus' strategy with equal vigor. They included GOP critics who had made their objections known in the past, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
