General: Half of latest U.S. troop commitment by Bush not needed

WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq told a Senate panel Thursday that improving security in Baghdad would take fewer than half as many extra troops as President Bush has chosen to commit.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to be Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey said he had asked for two additional Army brigades, based on recommendations of his subordinate commanders. Bush announced Jan. 10 that he would send five extra brigades as part of a buildup that would total 21,500 soldiers and Marines.

Asked by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., why he had not requested the full five extra brigades that Bush is sending, Casey said, "I did not want to bring one more American soldier into Iraq than was necessary to accomplish the mission."

With many in Congress opposing or skeptical of Bush's troop buildup, Casey did not say he opposed the president's decision. He said the full complement of five brigades would give U.S. commanders in Iraq additional, useful flexibility.

"In my mind, the other three brigades should be called forward after an assessment has been made on the ground" about whether they are needed to ensure success in Baghdad, Casey said later.

Even so, Casey's comments seemed to put distance between his views and those of Bush and some lawmakers like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who have questioned whether Bush's troop increase will be enough.

Casey made his comments as bipartisan efforts to round up enough votes for a nonbinding resolution critical of the administration's new policy faltered when two Democratic liberals signaled they would oppose the measure.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., issued a statement criticizing the nonbinding measure as weak, and said it "misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests. The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another," he said.

Separately, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a 2008 presidential contender, called a news conference to announce his opposition.

Dodd's decision underscored a dilemma confronting other presidential hopefuls in the Senate - whether to support the measure backed by the party leadership, or oppose it and seek support among anti-war activists likely to have influence in next year's presidential primaries and caucuses.

The White House said Casey, in citing his December request for two rather than five additional brigades, was recounting old information.

"There were a number of conversations and the president -- after talking with General Casey and other commanders -- came to the conclusion that he preferred to have five brigades into Baghdad and 4,000 Marines into Anbar," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. "What General Casey was talking about is some suggestions he'd made earlier. The president has made his decision, and it does reflect the wisdom of a number of combatant commanders and it does have the assent of General Casey."

McCain, R-Ariz., criticized Casey for what he called misjudgments about the prospects for progress toward stabilizing Iraq during his tenure. McCain said he has "strong reservations" about Casey's nomination to become Army chief of staff and said that "things have gotten markedly and progressively worse" during his watch.

Despite getting tough questions from lawmakers frustrated by the war, Casey's nomination was not expected to be blocked. The committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said during a break at the hearing that he would vote in favor of Casey. McCain had said a day earlier that he was inclined to support Casey but had "grave concerns."

McCain asked Casey whether he thought the mission in Baghdad could be accomplished with fewer than five extra brigades.

`I believe that the job in Baghdad, as it's designed now, can be done with less than that," Casey said. "But having the flexibility to have the other three brigades on a deployment cycle gives us and gives General Petraeus great flexibility," he added, referring to his designated successor, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus.

"It allows him to make assessments on whether the plan is working or not and to either reinforce success, maintain momentum, or put more forces in a place where the plans are not working," Casey said.

Casey described the situation in Baghdad as "bad," and said the U.S. strategy was not succeeding in three areas of the country: the provinces of Anbar and Diyala, as well as in Baghdad.

The proposed Senate resolution opposing Bush's troop buildup is likely to pose a threat to the White House because of its potential appeal to Republicans who have grown tired of the nearly four-year war and want a chance to express their concerns. The White House has been hoping to avoid an overwhelming congressional vote criticizing Bush's handling of the war.

Warner pressed Casey on why so many additional U.S. forces should be added to the fight in Baghdad.

"Why are we not putting greater emphasis on utilization of Iraqi forces and less on the U.S. GI being put into that cauldron of terror...?" Warner asked, adding that he hoped that at least some of the 21,500 extra troops will not be sent. The last of the five extra brigades is scheduled to go in May.

Casey said that Iraqis are taking more of a lead role, but are not yet ready to fight without U.S. support.

The general defended his record as the top commander in Iraq, saying he remained true to his original commitment to request the number of troops he thought he needed to accomplish his mission. Asked his view of Bush's new strategy, Casey said, "I believe it can work."

He said success in Baghdad could be achieved with fewer than five extra brigades, but he added that this plan will give "great flexibility" to his successor.

"The struggle in Iraq is winnable," Casey said, but will take patience and will.

After asserting last week that "I'm the decision-maker" about troop levels in Iraq, Bush acknowledged that Congress has the power to cap force levels and put conditions on where soldiers are deployed.

"They can say, `We won't fund,' " he told The Wall Street Journal. "That is a constitutional authority of Congress. ... They have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy." As for Congress having a voice on where troops go, Bush said, "They put conditions on funds all the time."