US troop levels in Iraq may rise, then decline

And speaking Friday in Washington, Mr. Cheney suggested the midterm election results would not sway administration policy. "To get out [of Iraq] before the job is done would convince the terrorists once again that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society.

At the same time, the Pentagon on Friday issued deployment orders to maintain the current level of troops in Iraq through 2007 – with the door left open to "surging" more troops into the country as conditions and strategy dictate.

An increase is logistically possible, though at a growing cost to the troops, military experts say. Some of the soldiers slated for deployment in 2007 will be undertaking a third tour to Iraq when the expectation had been for only one.

"Just to keep the level of 144,000, we're having to extend two brigades beyond a year. So we're already talking about major hardship for these soldiers," says Lawrence Korb, an Iraq policy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington. "Any increase, even a relatively small one like what they're talking about, would compound that strain."

Supporters of a troop increase say it would allow for a serious push for security in Baghdad, giving the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki breathing room to make the political decisions necessary to relaunch a "national reconciliation" drive. More US troops and money would also be put into stepped-up training of Iraqi security forces.

But critics say an increase in US troops could reduce the pressure on the Maliki government for crucial political decisions, even while inflaming Iraqi public opinion that is increasingly hostile to the US presence.

"We've already increased troop levels, and things haven't gotten any better," says Mr. Korb, who served in the Pentagon under the Reagan administration. He notes that US troop levels dipped to nearly 100,000 earlier this year before sectarian violence began ratcheting up.

Others who have supported sending in more troops in the past say the time when it could make a difference has probably passed. "I have made the argument for more troops for some time, but I no longer do because I think it's too late," says Mr. Ullman of CSIS.

The additional US troops with the right skills to potentially make a difference in Baghdad and with training Iraqi forces aren't simply sitting around somewhere at the ready, he says. Preparing them would take six months to a year, he adds.

But beyond that, Ullman says the Maliki government is beholden to political powers sustained by dozens of militias. "That's not something the US military is in a position to do anything about," he says.

Korb says sending in more troops risks signaling to the Iraqi army that it is under no increasing pressure to take on more of the burden – a point made in congressional testimony last week by Gen. John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East.

Some observers say any increase in troops would fly in the face of public opinion as expressed in the midterm elections. Polls released last week show support for Bush's handling of Iraq falling to new lows.

Page: 1 | 2