CommunityEditor
04-16-2008, 12:17 AM
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Iraq forces, recently sat down for an exclusive interview with Military Times reporters and editors. During the course of the Pentagon meeting, he discussed everything from possible future troop reductions, consolidation of forces in theater, commanders’ war-zone needs and more. This transcript of the 90-minute minute interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Q: This week we’ve heard about changes in going back to 12-month deployments, and sort of a pause after the surge forces redeploy in July, and then we’re going to have a sort of 45-day assessment period. Could you explain what happens in that assessment and what the time line is after that?
A: It’s really a continuation of the process that we have been doing for some time and that has actually guided the determination, the battlefield geometry that we want to see when the surge forces have been redeployed.
It is the same process again of looking at an area, looking at the security challenges in it, looking at the state of local governance, looking at the ability of the Iraqi security forces to deal with those challenges, of the local governance to deal with the basic service needs, and other requirements in an area, and then the tasks as a result that we may shoulder and [then] determining how we can reduce our presence without jeopardizing gains in those areas just the same way that, writ large. We’ve talked about not jeopardizing the overall gains.
And that’s precisely the process that we have followed again as we have looked at where we could draw down during the process of redeploying the surge forces, and, in fact, our footprint will look different after the redeployment of five [of the] 20 Brigade Combat Teams, two Marine battalions and the Marine Expeditionary Unit that we’ve had on the ground during the surge.
And that assessment will continue during this period of consolidation and evaluation. Indeed, it is what will inform the consolidation ... the potential repositioning of forces as the dust settles from this very substantial reduction over a relatively short period of time.
And there’s constant dialogue already with Central Command, the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary and even with the President and the NSC (National Security Council). … then an assessment of conditions and whether they allow us to recommend further reductions or not at that time, and then [a] fairly continuous process to look for the presence of those conditions. And there is, again, every intention to draw down when and where we can.
This is really more about pace actually than it is about anything else. There is, as I mentioned a number of times on Capitol Hill, a very keen awareness of the strain on the force, of the stress on troopers and their families, costs, and on the strategic flexibility because of the requirements in Iraq.
there is very much [that] informs the desire to draw down further, butto do that without jeopardizing what we fought so hard to achieve over the course of the last year.
Q: You said our footprint will change. As in where forces are concentrated?
A: Not just where they’re concentrated. Where they are. Where they are located. Where they are deployed. It will look different because the situation has changed and continues to evolve. We already have candidate areas we are focusing onto as possible locations where we could reduce forces further, and we’re fairly riveted on some of these different locations. And that’s how that process will go forward — looking at an enemy situation, a friendly situation, an ability for us to thin down, and that’s the concept: It is to thin our forces out rather than to completely handoff, at least until you get to the Provincial Iraqi Control point, and even then we’ll probably still have a footprint in various places.
Q: So does that change the mix of forces that you would want to have as a result if they’re thinned out?
A: We are doing some of that internally. We are generating internal transition teams in very substantial numbers actually now, and we are also in some cases augmenting the externally provided transition teams with conventional forces so that they have a bit more capability than they would otherwise have.
But the overall mix, I think, will stay the same. The employment of that mix may change over time in its character to be more, over time, of an enabling force or an adviser force or a transition team force for Iraqi elements and less of a strictly conventional force in the lead.
Q: And based in the Forward Operating Bases.
A: I think still with a pretty dispersed footprint to ensure situational awareness, to ensure again the kind of linkage that is necessaryfor transition teams and Coalition forces to effectively perform tasks in working with the Iraqi forces and with local Iraqi governmental leaders and officials.
Q: So as it becomes more dispersed, there will be more [U.S. forces positioned in smaller outposts].
A:I don’t know that you can have more, but we’re going to retain a large number of combat outposts, patrol bases and joint security stations.
Q: And would the balance of number of troops in FOBs versus the combat outposts be more toward the latter then or about the same.
A: I would have to sit down and think through that because we very much want to retain a dispersed footprint that again provides the kind of situational awareness that you need. It ensures that you have quick response forces that can respond, even medevac forces that can respond in the “golden hour”, all of this. You’ve got to have that kind of support structure out there still.
We are still expanding the footprint of JSSs and COPs in some areas, and Baghdad is an example of that. It just takes time to build that infrastructure, but there are a variety of options for what are called “shrink and share” [of] some of our bases because we obviously will hand off some of these bases to Iraqi forces. So you could have a base within a base.
Q: Where [U.S. forces] end up living in just a corner.
A: That’s right. And that’s the shrink and share. You could have a complete handoff and then sort of variations on those themes.
Q: that’s a lot of assessment to make in 45 days.
A: But remember, it doesn’t just start on day one. this is something that will have been continuously going on. it is an existing process that has guided us already; we have been doing this for a long time and it is what has guided us to determine where to put forces in the first place and then where you can take forces out in the second place.
Q: You could have said 60 days or 90 days and it seems to me that the leadership would have granted you whatever reasonable number. If you had said a year, they wouldn’t have gone for that.
A: Well, no. I think we needed a long enough period of time literally just to sort of let the dust settle; let’s see how does it shake out. It’s a reasonable period of time and you then have to have determined that conditions permit. At the end of the day, this is about feel. It’s not about a mathematical equation into which you put numbers and have coefficients and hit the “calculate” key and it spits out the answer. It’s about commanders on the ground, Iraqi as well as Coalition, local officials, having a feel for the area in which they’re operating and having the confidence that they can, in fact, reduce that presence, thin it out in a way to allow redeployment of additional forces.
Q: What is the earliest [that the troops and their families] can expect to get some kind of word on further troop reductions in the war zone?
A: it would certainly be at some point after that period of consolidation and evaluation. I certainly don’t want to raise hopes or try to project out there when we are midway through still the reduction of the surge forces. But, that’s certainly the earliest I think.
Q: What’s certainly the earliest?
A: after that period of consolidation and evaluation.
Q: You mean in 46 days we could have— [Laughter.]
A: See, this is exactly what— [Laughter.]
Q: But when [Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] said [April 10 before Congress], maybe as early as a week or two after the 45 days.
A: If the Secretary of Defense said it, then I’m like that with my Secretary [gestures to indicate agreement]. I fully agree with the Secretary, I think he’s got a correct characterization of a possibility.
Q: So the earliest could be the fall?
A: Yes.
Q: September, October time frame?
A: Yes.
Q: For an announcement? Or?
A: For a recommendation.
Q: A recommendation for a reduction.
A: Yes. it then also takes some time to actually carry out reduction, redeployments, repositioning. it depends a lot on the kind of base structure that is there and again what you have to do with that base structure.
Q: But roughly what kind of window are we talking about? Are we talking a month or two months from the point if you decided you could do it?
A: It really does depend on where. short of actually showing you one of the candidate areas and talking to you about base structure and what’s there.
To read the rest of the interview, please go here ---> http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/army_petraeus_interview_041508w/
Q: This week we’ve heard about changes in going back to 12-month deployments, and sort of a pause after the surge forces redeploy in July, and then we’re going to have a sort of 45-day assessment period. Could you explain what happens in that assessment and what the time line is after that?
A: It’s really a continuation of the process that we have been doing for some time and that has actually guided the determination, the battlefield geometry that we want to see when the surge forces have been redeployed.
It is the same process again of looking at an area, looking at the security challenges in it, looking at the state of local governance, looking at the ability of the Iraqi security forces to deal with those challenges, of the local governance to deal with the basic service needs, and other requirements in an area, and then the tasks as a result that we may shoulder and [then] determining how we can reduce our presence without jeopardizing gains in those areas just the same way that, writ large. We’ve talked about not jeopardizing the overall gains.
And that’s precisely the process that we have followed again as we have looked at where we could draw down during the process of redeploying the surge forces, and, in fact, our footprint will look different after the redeployment of five [of the] 20 Brigade Combat Teams, two Marine battalions and the Marine Expeditionary Unit that we’ve had on the ground during the surge.
And that assessment will continue during this period of consolidation and evaluation. Indeed, it is what will inform the consolidation ... the potential repositioning of forces as the dust settles from this very substantial reduction over a relatively short period of time.
And there’s constant dialogue already with Central Command, the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary and even with the President and the NSC (National Security Council). … then an assessment of conditions and whether they allow us to recommend further reductions or not at that time, and then [a] fairly continuous process to look for the presence of those conditions. And there is, again, every intention to draw down when and where we can.
This is really more about pace actually than it is about anything else. There is, as I mentioned a number of times on Capitol Hill, a very keen awareness of the strain on the force, of the stress on troopers and their families, costs, and on the strategic flexibility because of the requirements in Iraq.
there is very much [that] informs the desire to draw down further, butto do that without jeopardizing what we fought so hard to achieve over the course of the last year.
Q: You said our footprint will change. As in where forces are concentrated?
A: Not just where they’re concentrated. Where they are. Where they are located. Where they are deployed. It will look different because the situation has changed and continues to evolve. We already have candidate areas we are focusing onto as possible locations where we could reduce forces further, and we’re fairly riveted on some of these different locations. And that’s how that process will go forward — looking at an enemy situation, a friendly situation, an ability for us to thin down, and that’s the concept: It is to thin our forces out rather than to completely handoff, at least until you get to the Provincial Iraqi Control point, and even then we’ll probably still have a footprint in various places.
Q: So does that change the mix of forces that you would want to have as a result if they’re thinned out?
A: We are doing some of that internally. We are generating internal transition teams in very substantial numbers actually now, and we are also in some cases augmenting the externally provided transition teams with conventional forces so that they have a bit more capability than they would otherwise have.
But the overall mix, I think, will stay the same. The employment of that mix may change over time in its character to be more, over time, of an enabling force or an adviser force or a transition team force for Iraqi elements and less of a strictly conventional force in the lead.
Q: And based in the Forward Operating Bases.
A: I think still with a pretty dispersed footprint to ensure situational awareness, to ensure again the kind of linkage that is necessaryfor transition teams and Coalition forces to effectively perform tasks in working with the Iraqi forces and with local Iraqi governmental leaders and officials.
Q: So as it becomes more dispersed, there will be more [U.S. forces positioned in smaller outposts].
A:I don’t know that you can have more, but we’re going to retain a large number of combat outposts, patrol bases and joint security stations.
Q: And would the balance of number of troops in FOBs versus the combat outposts be more toward the latter then or about the same.
A: I would have to sit down and think through that because we very much want to retain a dispersed footprint that again provides the kind of situational awareness that you need. It ensures that you have quick response forces that can respond, even medevac forces that can respond in the “golden hour”, all of this. You’ve got to have that kind of support structure out there still.
We are still expanding the footprint of JSSs and COPs in some areas, and Baghdad is an example of that. It just takes time to build that infrastructure, but there are a variety of options for what are called “shrink and share” [of] some of our bases because we obviously will hand off some of these bases to Iraqi forces. So you could have a base within a base.
Q: Where [U.S. forces] end up living in just a corner.
A: That’s right. And that’s the shrink and share. You could have a complete handoff and then sort of variations on those themes.
Q: that’s a lot of assessment to make in 45 days.
A: But remember, it doesn’t just start on day one. this is something that will have been continuously going on. it is an existing process that has guided us already; we have been doing this for a long time and it is what has guided us to determine where to put forces in the first place and then where you can take forces out in the second place.
Q: You could have said 60 days or 90 days and it seems to me that the leadership would have granted you whatever reasonable number. If you had said a year, they wouldn’t have gone for that.
A: Well, no. I think we needed a long enough period of time literally just to sort of let the dust settle; let’s see how does it shake out. It’s a reasonable period of time and you then have to have determined that conditions permit. At the end of the day, this is about feel. It’s not about a mathematical equation into which you put numbers and have coefficients and hit the “calculate” key and it spits out the answer. It’s about commanders on the ground, Iraqi as well as Coalition, local officials, having a feel for the area in which they’re operating and having the confidence that they can, in fact, reduce that presence, thin it out in a way to allow redeployment of additional forces.
Q: What is the earliest [that the troops and their families] can expect to get some kind of word on further troop reductions in the war zone?
A: it would certainly be at some point after that period of consolidation and evaluation. I certainly don’t want to raise hopes or try to project out there when we are midway through still the reduction of the surge forces. But, that’s certainly the earliest I think.
Q: What’s certainly the earliest?
A: after that period of consolidation and evaluation.
Q: You mean in 46 days we could have— [Laughter.]
A: See, this is exactly what— [Laughter.]
Q: But when [Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] said [April 10 before Congress], maybe as early as a week or two after the 45 days.
A: If the Secretary of Defense said it, then I’m like that with my Secretary [gestures to indicate agreement]. I fully agree with the Secretary, I think he’s got a correct characterization of a possibility.
Q: So the earliest could be the fall?
A: Yes.
Q: September, October time frame?
A: Yes.
Q: For an announcement? Or?
A: For a recommendation.
Q: A recommendation for a reduction.
A: Yes. it then also takes some time to actually carry out reduction, redeployments, repositioning. it depends a lot on the kind of base structure that is there and again what you have to do with that base structure.
Q: But roughly what kind of window are we talking about? Are we talking a month or two months from the point if you decided you could do it?
A: It really does depend on where. short of actually showing you one of the candidate areas and talking to you about base structure and what’s there.
To read the rest of the interview, please go here ---> http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/army_petraeus_interview_041508w/