Senate grills general to replace Casey on Iraq plans

~ The nominee acknowledged the situation in Iraq will not be resolved quickly or easily.

WASHINGTON -- The Army general who would carry out President Bush's new war plan urged a skeptical Congress and American public Tuesday to be patient, but acknowledged "the situation in Iraq is dire."

"None of this will be rapid," Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy."

Many in Congress, including some Republicans, oppose Bush's plan, which would send an extra 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a revised strategy for quelling sectarian violence in Baghdad and stabilizing the country. Before Bush's buildup began in recent days, there were 132,000 U.S. troops there.

Bush nominated Petraeus to replace Army Gen. George Casey as the senior American commander in Iraq. Petraeus is considered a shoo-in to win Senate confirmation as commander of Multi-National Force -- Iraq, but senators used his appearance Tuesday before the Senate panel to question him on how Bush's new strategy would work.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the committee and a leading critic of Bush's policy, pressed Petraeus on whether the flow of additional U.S. troops could be halted in midstream if the Iraqi government failed to meet its commitment to provide thousands more Iraqi troops.

"It could," Petraeus replied. Earlier he said there were no "specific conditions" the Iraqis must meet in order to keep the flow of U.S. forces moving. The last of five additional U.S. brigades are scheduled to arrive in the Iraqi capital in May; the first got there just days ago.

Petraeus said that in the event the Iraqis did not meet their commitments, he would consult with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on how to respond.

He said he would not have accepted the nomination to take command in Baghdad if he did not believe Bush's plan could achieve its goals.

A 'dire' situation

In his opening statement, Petraeus, 54, painted a grim picture of conditions in Iraq.

"The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. ... But hard is not hopeless," he said.

Petraeus is a former division commander and once the head of the Iraqi training mission. Devoted early in the war to trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, Petraeus later wrote the Pentagon manual on how to tackle insurgencies. He also previously supported expanding U.S. forces in the region.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading proponent of Bush's troop buildup plan, asked Petraeus how long he thought the U.S. buildup could be sustained.

"I am keenly aware of the strain" on the Army and Marine Corps, Petraeus said, adding that he welcomes Bush's proposal to increase the size of the land forces over the coming five years.

Asked by McCain how soon he thought he would know whether the new strategy was working, Petraeus said, "We would have indicators at the least during the late summer." As currently planned, he said, the last of the five additional U.S. Army brigades would be ready to fight in Baghdad by the end of May.

Several committee members noted that Petraeus recently oversaw the writing of a new Army manual on how to counter an insurgency. Sen. Edward Kennedy asked him why an extra 21,500 would make a significant difference.

Petraeus replied that the important factor was how extra troops are used, not their numbers. Their main focus, he said, will be on securing the civilian population of the capital rather than killing insurgents.

Kennedy, D-Mass., asked how long the extra troops would remain in Iraq.

"I don't know what the time limitation is," Petraeus replied, adding that it would be reasonable to give the Iraqi government more time to gain its political footing and to make the tough decisions needed to quell sectarian violence.

Casey said last week that the new U.S. troops might be able to begin leaving as early as late summer.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia and two other Republicans on Monday announced legislation denouncing the U.S. troop increase, as House leaders drafted what they called "strategic benchmarks" for the war.

"I feel ever so strongly that the American GI was not trained, not sent over -- certainly not by resolution of this institution -- to be placed in the middle of a fight between the Sunni and the Shiite and the wanton, incomprehensible killing that's going on at this time," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., told reporters Monday.

Petraeus has held a wide range of responsibilities during his 32 years in the Army, including in Bosnia, Germany, Italy and more recently in Iraq.

He told the Senate committee that he believes ethnic divisions in Iraq are not as severe as in Bosnia, where U.S. and NATO forces intervened in the 1990s to stop a civil war. He noted, however, that Iraq's divisions got worse in 2006.

Separately, two groups of senators who have offered separate, nonbinding resolutions criticizing Bush's troop build up were trying Tuesday to craft a compromise proposal that another Senate panel could approve as early as Wednesday.

If successful, that means the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could approve a symbolic measure expressing opposition to Bush's plan that could win overwhelming bipartisan support, which would be a significant blow to the administration.

One plan, which declares it is not in the national interest for the U.S. to increase its military involvement in Iraq, has been expected to win the backing of almost all Democrats and some Republicans. It was sponsored by Levin, D-Mich., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

The other, backed by Warner and others, is somewhat less harsh, saying the Senate disagrees with Bush's plan. The talks were described by two Senate aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.