McCain supports Petraeus plan while Democratic rivals push back

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. commander in Iraq called Tuesday for an end to American troop drawdowns in July and rejected a "set withdrawal timetable," saying it could put recent gains at risk.

"The progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible," Army Gen. David Petraeus said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The comments set the stage for a dramatic day-long political debate, with Republican presidential hopeful John McCain rallying around the general's approach, while his Democratic rivals - Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton - called for assertive troop reductions in what they cast as a lost cause.

"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 America," said Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y.

"Success is within reach" in Iraq, countered Sen. McCain, R-Ariz. "We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat."

McCain endorsed the Petraeus plan of cutting U.S. troop levels in Iraq to about 140,000 by July - down from nearly 160,000 now - then waiting at least six weeks before assessing whether to make more cuts.

Obama said the administration's definition for success in Iraq is too high to give U.S. troops the opportunity to come home.

"I'm trying to get to an end point," Obama said. "When you have finite resources, you've got to define the goal tightly and modestly."

He suggested as a plausible outcome "a messy, sloppy status quo," without huge outbreaks of violence, the country's emergence as a terrorist base or undo influence from neighboring Iran. "That seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable time frame."

The three presidential candidates showcased their approach to the Iraq war during a day in which Petraeus, joined by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, spent more than six hours testifying before the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Both men praised dramatic security gains since President Bush beefed up U.S. forces in Iraq a year ago. Both also conceded, however, that political reconciliation - the strategic goal of the so-called troop surge - has been disappointing.

"Our current course is hard, but it is working," said Crocker. "Progress is real although still fragile. We need to stay with it."

Downsizing the U.S. force prematurely, said Petraeus, could give terrorist groups and insurgents the upper hand in Iraq.

"We're fighting al-Qaida every day," Petraeus told the Foreign Relations Committee. "We have our teeth into their jugular and we have to keep it there."

Skeptics found their arguments buttressed, however, when Petraeus admitted that Iraqi security forces botched recent combat operations against insurgent militia groups in the southern city of Basra.

Under questioning by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., Petraeus conceded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had ignored the U.S. commander's advice and rushed troops unprepared into a battle from which at least 1,000 Iraqis deserted.

"It was not adequately planned or prepared," said Petraeus. "The forces were deployed very rapidly and, before all conditions were set as they might have been, they were in combat."

Levin pounced on the response, and the fact that U.S. forces had to back up the troubled Iraqi mission in Basra, saying it demonstrates the need for Iraqi troops to ready themselves to defend their homeland.

"That is totally unacceptable to me," said Levin. "And I think that this open-ended pause that you have recommended takes the pressure off Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their own country."

If the three remaining presidential candidates used Tuesday's hearing to debate their views of the war, fairness gave way to committee procedures.

As the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, McCain was permitted an eight-minute opening statement, soon followed by six minutes of questioning, during the first 90 minutes of that hearing.

As one of the more junior members of the committee, however, Clinton wasn't allowed to say a word until three hours into testimony that at times seemed interminable. She sipped from a large coffee cup, chewed gum, alternately took her black-rimmed glasses off and on and at one point propped her face on her hand in what must have been the longest she's sat still since she announced her candidacy nearly a year ago.

Obama fared little better. As one of the newest members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he, too, bided his time for more than two hours before getting the chance to question Petraeus.

He stressed the need for "a diplomatic surge that includes Iran," adding: "I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the situation without them."

Clinton took issue with administration plans to negotiate - by summer's end - a strategic framework agreement that would outline shared U.S.-Iraqi defense obligations and establish guidelines for a long-term American troop presence in Iraq.

Crocker said the administration regards the agreement as an executive accord that would not require Senate approval. Clinton has legislation pending that would require any such agreement to pass muster with the Senate.

Crocker said, though, the agreement was not the kind of far-reaching pact that historically requires Senate approval.

"The agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq and we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them," said Crocker. "The agreement will not specify troop levels, and it will not tie the hands of the next administration."

Bob Dean's e-mail address is bdeans(at)coxnews.com