While interviewing Defense Secretary Robert Gates during the September 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not challenge Gates' assertion that troop drawdowns “between December [2007] and July [2008]” will be due to “successes” in Iraq. While discussing the possibility of further drawdowns -- in addition to Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation to decrease the number of troops to levels that were in Iraq before this year's escalation of troops -- Gates told Wallace that for future drawdowns to occur “you'd have to see, first of all, the same things that you're going to have to see for the drawdowns between December and July, and that is not only continuation of the successes that we've had now but additional success, additional security in Iraq.” In fact, Petraeus acknowledged during his September 11 Senate testimony that due to a “strain” on the military, the troop reduction would have been necessary regardless of conditions on the ground.

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), during Petraeus' appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asked whether constraints on the military “virtually lock[ed]” him “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 replied, "[D]epending on what can be taken out of 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" -- the rules requiring troops to be home for one year between their deployments. Reed then stated that it was "[his] sense" 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 agreed that “certainly the active brigade combat teams were going to come out of” Iraq.

Petraeus also stated that “I think that's the case, but I don't know because I have not asked” in response to Reed's assertion that “the [Army] Reserve and National Guard forces are not available to replace” the troops being withdrawn. Additionally, during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee later the same day, Petraeus said that “the strain on the force ... was very much one that informed the recommendations” to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq.

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 draw down 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 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.”

From the September 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, welcome to Fox News Sunday. You made news Friday when you said that you hoped we can get down to 100,000 troops by the end of 2008. What would it take? What would the situation on the ground have to be for that to happen?

GATES: Well, first of all, what didn't get covered was the fact that I indicated very strongly that that depended very much on what happened on the ground, and that if we were to continue drawdowns, it would be because the situation in Iraq had continued to improve dramatically. The key here, it seems to me, is what kind of conditions we will have in Iraq in March when General Petraeus makes his re-evaluation.

WALLACE: What is it we'd have to see, in terms of improvements on the ground there?

GATES: Well, I think you'd have to see, first of all, the same thing that you're going to have to see for the drawdowns between December and July, and that is not only continuation of the successes that we've had now but additional success, additional security in Iraq.

WALLACE: Also additional political or as some would say the beginnings of national political progress?

GATES: Well, there's so much going on below the national level that we didn't expect that has had a big impact. For example, the turn in Anbar, obviously, that everyone's been talking about. But there also, it seems to me, is growing unhappiness in the Shi'a areas with the excesses of Jaysh al Mahdi and -- the Shi'a extremist group. And so you may see some political developments on that side. But the other part is what the president has talked about, what we've all talked about, that although some of these laws haven't been passed that we've put as part of the benchmarks and so on, things are actually happening in terms of oil revenues being shared, provincial empowerment, Baathists from Saddam's army being brought back into the army, and so on. So there -- some of these things that we've referred to as reconciliation are taking place on the ground.

WALLACE: Now, you made it very clear that this was your personal view about the 100,000 troops. But you're also a pretty careful guy. Fair to say that the president also shares this hope that, if things continue, you could get down to 100,000 by the end of the year?