Couric highlighted Petraeus "plan to bring troops home," but not his acknowledgment that drawdown is necessary
SUMMARY: In an interview with Gen. David Petraeus, Katie
Couric noted that Petraeus has recommended reducing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq, but not his concession that a drawdown
of troops would be necessary to avoid further strain on the U.S. Armed Forces.
While interviewing Gen. David Petraeus during the September 12 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric noted Petraeus' "plan to bring troops home to the pre-surge level of 130,000 by the end of this summer," but did not mention his assessment that a drawdown would be necessary to avoid further strain on U.S. forces. As Media Matters for America noted, during his September 11 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Petraeus testified that "active brigade combat teams were going to come out of" Iraq anyway.*
From the CBS News interview:
COURIC: President Bush will embrace your plan to bring troops home to the pre-surge level of 130,000 by the end of this summer. When can more troops be withdrawn?
PETRAEUS: I can project out that far, to mid-July of next year. And then around mid-March or so, I would have a degree of confidence to project beyond that. So, there will be continued reductions, but I just can't at this point predict the pace of those reductions.
Couric then referred to her recent trip to Iraq, noting, "When we walked around Fallujah, you were pleased with the strides that had been made in Anbar Province, in western Iraq, but you also discussed the challenges throughout the country when it comes to quelling the violence there. How can you have more security with fewer troops?"
However, at no point did Couric note that Petraeus suggested during his testimony that the drawdown in troops was likely to occur regardless of the conditions on the ground. As Media Matters further noted, Petraeus testified that "active brigade combat teams were going to come out of" Iraq anyway. Additionally, during his later testimony the same day before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus also said that "the strain on the force ... was very much one that informed the recommendations" to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq.
From the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:
REED: General Petraeus, have you ever recommended or requested the extension of tours to 18 months or the accelerated deployment of Guard or Reserve forces?
PETRAEUS: I've certainly never recommended extension beyond 15 months. In fact, [Lt.] General [Raymond] Odierno [commanding general of Multi-National Forces-Iraq] and I put out a letter that said, I mean, unless things got completely out of control, that we would not even think of extending beyond 15 months.
REED: Having done that, doesn't that virtually lock you into a recommendation of reducing troops by 30,000 beginning in April and extending through the summer -- regardless of what's happening on the ground?
PETRAEUS: Depending -- except -- depending on what can be taken out of the Reserves. Again, I don't know what is available in the National Guard and the Reserves. I do know that the active Army in particular, that the string does run out for the Army to meet the year-back criteria. Now what we have done, of course, as I mentioned, Senator, is actually, in fact, to take some elements out short of their 15-month mark because of our assessment of the situation.
REED: I understand that, and I think basically my sense is that the overriding constraint you face is not what is happening on the ground in Iraq, but the reality that unless you did recommend, request, and succeed, that unless tours were extended, 30,000 troops were coming out of there beginning in April next year, regardless of the situation on the ground.
PETRAEUS: Again, certainly the active brigade combat teams were going to come out of there. Again, I am not aware of what is available in terms of battalions, brigades, or what have you.
As Media Matters also noted, Petraeus' testimony echoed statements he and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made in the past about the need to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground. For instance, the Associated Press reported in an August 15 article that, during an interview, Petraeus stated: "We know that the surge has to come to an end. There's no question about that." He continued: "I think everyone understands that by about a year or so from now we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that ... so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going."
Moreover, USA Today reported on September 4 that "Pentagon officials have said they cannot sustain this year's buildup of about 28,000 additional troops past next spring because of the stretched personnel demands on the U.S. military." The Los Angeles Times had also reported in an August 24 article that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half." The article continued: "Administration and military officials say ... Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."
Other news outlets have also reported that the military is stretched too thin to continue Bush's troop increase strategy. For instance, the AP reported on August 19 that "the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring," which "presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008: Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule. Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months," or "[b]reaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war." The article quoted U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey as saying that "[t]he demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply."
From the September 12 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: President Bush will embrace your plan to bring troops home to the pre-surge level of 130,000 by the end of this summer. When can more troops be withdrawn?
PETRAEUS: I can project out that far, to mid-July of next year. And then around mid-March or so, I would have a degree of confidence to project beyond that. So, there will be continued reductions, but I just can't at this point predict the pace of those reductions.
COURIC: When we walked around Fallujah, you were pleased with the strides that had been made in Anbar Province, in western Iraq, but you also discussed the challenges throughout the country when it comes to quelling the violence there. How can you have more security with fewer troops?
PETRAEUS: Well, by getting locals to do what happened in Anbar Province, by getting local security forces, Iraqi security forces, to help thicken what we do, to augment, and then to take over.
COURIC: But your critics have said that this strategy is too open-ended, General, with no long-term plan, and this sort of "time will tell, we'll see how it goes" philosophy just doesn't cut it.
PETRAEUS: I think to try to look way out and say, "This is exactly what we're going to do," in a country that has surprised us repeatedly just would not be responsible.
COURIC: You cannot envision 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for the next 20 years?
PETRAEUS: No way.
COURIC: What about in five years?
PETRAEUS: I'm not going to hazard that kind of projection or prediction. I think it's actually irresponsible.















I'm expecting the number of responses to Couric's statements to be as low as her ratings.
Ho-Hum.
Does my response blow Snoopy's expectations out of the water?
But snoop-ster, according to MM(vl) focusing on ANYTHING is better than Hsu, pattern of illegal political contributions to the Clintons, the reprehensible add placed in the NYT by Bowelmove.org, the theatrics permitted to occur during General Petraeus' testimony and his treatment by the democrats. So why not drop any of the stories related to these things on this site and find some other lame topics to distract?
Oh, like Romney's chief bundler, the equal of Hsu, who used his position as controller of a school to abuse and have sex with underage students? I know you are all over that story...
Good one, Snoop.
I'd also like to see the media fully investigate how "America's Mayor" screwed up during his handling of 9/11 yet came out as a hero, with a full accounting of how Giuliani has profited financially since 9/11 - making money on the bodies of those who died at the WTC.
Hey Proud to be Insulted: Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, that is the subject Couric failed at (like her own ratings) and the one that Patraeus lied about in his testimony..
"the theatrics permitted to occur during General Petraeus' testimony"
Are you referring to the protests?
If that's the case, you and I saw different footage. The footage I saw showed protesters being forcibly removed from the room and Ike Skelton(D) sternly responding to the disruption and requesting that they be removed.
"[Patraeus'] treatment by the democrats."
OMG, you've got to be ****ing kidding me. Patraeus is no victim.
WAAHHH! Leave Petraeus Alone WAHHH!
(Apologies to the General for misspelling his name previously.)
It's been my experience that there's no pride in being a conservative.
wzwriter says:"It's been my experience that there's no pride in being a conservative."
Obviosly then, you have no experience. Spend some time with the troops.
Read the post below, written by 7 of those "troops."
7 out of 130,000? your kidding right
You're kidding yourself if you think just 7 out of 130,000 see problems with Iraq.http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
42% find the mission hazy. Only one if five want to stay as long as necessary. ALmost 90% think the war is retailiation for 9/11. 72% of troops wanted to be out WITHIN A YEAR on February 28, 2006 and more than one in four think that the troops should have left immediately.
Its more than 7 out of 130,000.
OMG your quoting a poll that was the poll was “commissioned” by Press TV, which is owned and operated by the Iranian government.
Press TV
Thanks for exposing whose side your on and who you really support.
We're supporting the side of freedom. If you support Bush, you're suporting fascism.
So Le Moyne College and Zogby Poll are "enemies?" They did the survey.
Wizbor,
The link you provided was to a poll dated September 11, 2007.
The poll I provided was a Zogby poll done on February 26, 2006. If your link is accurate, why not link information about the poll I posted?
Here is your link:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/latest-zogby-poll-was-commissioned-by-iran
Here is mine:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Note the different dates and poll questions. The two polls are completely different. If you have information about my poll, please post it. If you made a mistake, that's fine, but I would appreciate you not distorting what I posted.
Thanks!
Went to law school with a guy who fought in Afghanistan and was a Republican when he joined the army and a Dem when he left.
How does spending time with troops make you a "proud conservative?" My father and grandfather are both vets, love this country and vote for Democratic candidates.
I love this country and I am proud to be an American, but I am not a conservative nor will I ever be.
My late father and uncle both fought in WWII, and were both Democrats until the day they died. I continue to vote Democratic in their honor.
What the hell does that mean?
Many of us here are liberals and Veterans of just about every branch of the military.
At age 54, I've got PLENTY of experience. Being a progressive i(like me) s moving forward - being a conservative is going nowhere or going backwards.
So your idea of going forward is having the govt take care of all my needs while you sit back and decide who gets what and how much. Great plan.
Oversimplification from a simple mind.....
Just remember - the Founding Fathers were the liberals/progressives of THEIR day; the Torries (those who supported the Crown) were the conservatives. We owe our whole damn COUNTRY and ALL OUR FREEDOMS to LIBERALS and PROGRESSIVES.
And don't ever forget that.
WZ-Wronger,
You need to take a basic Poly Sci course to figure out the correct terminology for political discourse. Your labeling of what is liberal is way off, for then and now.
By the way, historically speaking, Quinn's first law is "what stands for liberalism/progressivism of today, generates the exact OPPOSITE of its stated intent."
ProudMoron. You are WRONG as usual. There is absolutly NO question the tories were the Conservatives of their day and YOU as a Proud Moron do not get to frame what a liberal is. Your delusions pretty much preclude you from telling us anything about liberals other than what is in your substandard brain. Which has ZERO connection with reality
Do you actually believe you have made a point?
Yes, I have.
Read your history, Historygeek. Liberals are always on the side of freedom - conservatives are always on the side of suppressing that freedom. A perfect example of that is the PATRIOT Act, and Bush's Executive Orders that started taking away our freedoms in support of his illegal war on terrorism.
WZ,
I think HistoryGeek was calling out Wizbor and just placed his post in the wrong place ;).
Hey Gump, that poll was published in STARS AND STRIPES.
I suggest that you start reading first sources for information (like the GAO and actual testimony before Congress) rather than Fox News. You might be surprised at what you learn -- reality is not reflected in talking points memos.
It's too bad that couric can't interview the five surviving soldiers who wrote an op-ed piece for the NYT which explains their view of the situation there. by the way, one of the seven who wrote the essay was shot in the head before the Times published it; and two of the soldiers were recently killed in a roadside accident. They were extremely brave to speak out while in uniform and think their comments more true than those of Petraeus:
"VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ei=5090&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ex=1345176000