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 When can more troops be withdrawn?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.

This item originally stated: "[D]uring his September 11 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when Petraeus was asked whether constraints on the U.S. Armed Forces '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,' he replied, 'I think that's the case.' " In fact, Petraeus said “I think that's the case” in response to Sen. Jack Reed's (D-RI) comment that "[m]y sense is the Reserve and National Guard forces are not available to replace" troops leaving Iraq. Petraeus added, "[B]ut I don't know because I have not asked." In response to Reed's question, "[D]oesn'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 answered, “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.”