During the September 16 edition of ABC's This Week, responding to an assertion by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the Bush administration strategy in Iraq will lead to a mission that “would be a fraction of the size of the force that we have there now and one that would carry out limited missions: border security, going after the terrorists, training and equipping the Iraqi forces,” host George Stephanopoulos said that “even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time.” In fact, many Democratic proposals have called for a gradual redeployment of troops and keeping a residual force in Iraq to deal with ongoing counterterrorism and training operations, including bills offered by the party's leading presidential candidates -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) -- and a bill that garnered the support of a majority of congressional Democrats earlier this year.

Stephanopoulos' comments came during his discussion with Gates about President Bush's endorsement of Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation to begin a gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq in early 2008. Gates stated, "[T]he idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time as a stabilizing force ... that would carry out limited missions: border security, going after the terrorists, training and equipping the Iraqi forces, but it would be a relatively small force." Stephanopoulos replied: “That's the mission envisioned by the Iraq Study Group, as well. And even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time.”

But in stating that “even some Democrats” have called for a mission similar to that recommended by the Iraq Study Group, Stephanopoulos understated the extent to which the Democrats have advocated a U.S. role in Iraq that is predicated upon a smaller force working to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations, and provide diplomatic security. In fact, in April and July, a majority of congressional Democrats voted in favor of two key pieces of legislation that proposed just that. On April 26, the Senate passed the emergency supplemental funding conference report, which required that the “Secretary [of Defense] shall commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days.” The bill also would:

Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Every Democrat in the Senate, with the exception of Sen. Tim Johnson (R-SD), who was recovering from brain surgery at the time, and a large majority of Democrats in the House voted in favor of the legislation, which President Bush vetoed on May 1. Similarly, on July 18, every Senate Democrat, with the exception of Johnson and Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) (who supported the amendment but voted against it for procedural reasons), voted in support of an amendment proposed by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI) that called for a “reduction” of U.S. forces in Iraq to begin within 120 days and also stipulated that the United States maintain a “limited presence” of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations.

Moreover, Clinton and Obama have introduced similar legislation in the Senate. Indeed, Obama introduced legislation in January that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin “not later than May 1, 2007.” According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces would be “subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes.” Clinton introduced legislation in February that would call for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, cap the number of troops in Iraq at January 2007 levels and provide for de-authorizing the war unless the president certifies that:

a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun ... including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of -- (A) training Iraqi security forces; (B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces; (C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and (D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

From the September 16 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president's opponents are starting to fill in the definition of what that enduring presence in Iraq will be. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said it means more than 100,000 troops for at least 10 years at a cost of $700 billion. Is that fair?

GATES: No, I actually think that's a mischaracterization. I think what the president has in mind, what we have in mind is that assuming the conditions prevail in Iraq that allows us to continue the drawdowns that the president has talked about -- the idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time as a stabilizing force. A force that would be a fraction of the size of the force that we have there now and one that would carry out limited missions: border security, going after the terrorists, training and equipping the Iraqi forces, but it would be a relatively small force.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's the mission envisioned by the Iraq Study Group, as well. And even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time. You say a fraction of the forces; what are we talking about -- 50-60,000 forces for many years?

GATES: I don't know what the numbers would be. First of all, it would have to be negotiated with the Iraqis to see what they're prepared to -- what they're prepared to accept.