Bush, Offering Troop Cuts, Says U.S. Can’t Abandon Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/13cnd-prexy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — President Bush will tell the nation tonight that 5,700 combat troops can be pulled out of Iraq by Christmas because of progress in the war, but that the United States must not abandon Iraq while it is “fighting for its survival,” the White House said this afternoon.This ally has placed its trust in the United States,” Mr. Bush plans to say in his speech from the Oval Office. “And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future — and also threaten ours.”
But the increase in American troops in Iraq over the past half-year has improved security for the Iraqi population, the president will say. “Our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home,” Mr. Bush will say, according to excerpts of his speech released by the White House.
Mr. Bush, as had been widely expected, is accepting the recommendations of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. A key part of their recommendations is bringing the 5,700 marines and soldiers home and not replacing them.
A senior White House official told reporters at a news briefing on Mr. Bush’s speech, scheduled for 9 p.m. Eastern time, that the administration will “make sure that General Petraeus has the troops that he needs to be successful and to continue the success that we’re seeing.”
The official said Mr. Bush would say that success, however hard-won, is driving his decisions on troop strength, and that he continues to disdain polls and temporary setbacks.
Democrats prepared their responses in advance, asserting that Mr. Bush is essentially calling for more of the same approach. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army ranger and his party’s point man on the presidential speech, plans to say in his rebuttal after the president’s speech that it is clear that Mr. Bush is failing to provide “either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.”
Mr. Bush says in his speech that he hopes he and Democrats can find common ground. “Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East,” the president plans to say.
But Mr. Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, will say politicians have “a solemn responsibility” to send Americans into battle only with “clear and achievable missions,” and that the president is providing neither, according to excerpts of his rebuttal provided by the Democrats. The senator says Republicans and Democrats alike should work to “profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq.”
As for troop levels, Mr. Bush will be cautious in spelling out just how many American troops will be in Iraq next summer, after months of withdrawals to bring the overall number of troops in Iraq to what it was before this year’s buildup, the White House official indicated.
The president’s reluctance to cite specific numbers appeared to reflect wariness by the Bush administration and Pentagon about being embarrassed again by trying to be too exact on how many troops are going to and coming from Iraq at any one time, often a dicey exercise in any event.
The troop increase announced early this year was originally pegged at 21,500 combat troops, but when support troops were added, the number of additional forces grew to well over 30,000, creating confusion that the White House and Pentagon would prefer not to deal with anew. At the moment, there are about 168,000 United States troops in Iraq.
“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success,’ ” Mr. Bush says in his speech. “The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.”
Mr. Bush will cite Iran’s unwanted involvement in Iraqi affairs and the continued violence fomented by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence says is foreign-led, as key reasons the United States should persevere in Iraq, the White House official said. Some political analysts have also suggested that from the standpoint of practical politics, curbing Iran and declawing terrorists might be more palatable objectives with the American public than trying to quell sectarian strife in Iraq.
The president was expected to mention the killing today of Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, a Sunni Arab leader who had been cooperating with Americans in pacifying Anbar Province. Given Mr. Bush’s previous remarks on valor and sacrifice, he was likely to describe the sheik as a martyr fighting for the cause of freedom.
Mr. Bush will concede that the Iraqi political leaders have not moved as quickly as he wanted in reconciling the factions that sometimes threaten to tear Iraq apart. “The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must,” Mr. Bush says in his speech.
The senior administration official who briefed reporters in advance of the speech said that the president would be speaking to the Iraqi people as well as the American people, and that he hoped Iraqis would encourage their government to push for reconciliation.
Democrats, despite winning control of Congress last November, have been unable to force Mr. Bush to change course in Iraq. They do not have enough strength in either house to override a presidential veto, and they do not have enough in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. But the Democrats served notice that they do not intend to give up.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. said Mr. Bush was asking the American people for “an open-ended commitment of troops in Iraq and an open wallet from the American people to pay for it.”
“The country continues to wait for this president to truly support a new direction in Iraq and refocus our efforts on protecting the American people from terrorism,” Mr. Emanuel said.
As part of a pre-emptive strike, House Democrats sent out reminders of Mr. Bush’s earlier assertions on Iraq, including his May 1, 2003, declaration that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a Vietnam War combat veteran and head of the House Intelligence Committee, is to give the Democrats’ response in Spanish.
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting for this article