Candidates Will Vie to Prove Their Military Mettle in Questioning Petraeus

The three remaining senators in the race for the White House will attempt to convince Americans they would make a better commander in chief today when the most senior general in Iraq, David Petraeus, reports to Congress on the status of the war.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all serve on the Senate committees that will hear testimony from Petraeus and the US ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, and are expected to use the hearings to demonstrate their credentials on national security and the future of the war.

Petraeus has indicated he will tell Congress he wants to freeze further withdrawals from Iraq, keeping in place two of the five brigades of additional troops deployed during last year's troops surge.

The recommendation, which George Bush is expected to endorse on Thursday in a speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, will effectively put the war on hold for the next 10 months. That makes it virtually certain some 140,000 US troops will remain in Iraq when the next president takes office in January.

Petraeus' testimony to Congress has been forecast well in advance, and it is the participation of the three presidential hopefuls that has injected an element of drama into the event, and will put the Iraq war back at the forefront of the election campaign.

McCain will use the moment to argue that the war is working, while Clinton and Obama will demand to know why the US is still in Iraq five years after the invasion. "This is sort of a dress rehearsal for who is best prepared to be commander in chief, who has the best understanding of what has happened, what was wrong in Iraq and how to fix it," said Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, who sits on the armed services committee with McCain and Clinton. Obama sits on the foreign relations committee which will hear from Petraeus and Crocker this afternoon.

McCain, who said in January he could see US troops remaining in Iraq for the next 100 years, got off to an early start. In a speech to war veterans in Missouri yesterday he gave a stark warning of the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq. "Al-Qaida in Iraq will proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions in Iraq into a full scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East," he said. "America's failure in Iraq would, almost certainly, require us to return to Iraq or draw us into a wider and far costlier war."

By virtue of being the senior Republican on the armed services committee, McCain will be among the first to question Petraeus and Crocker. His supporters say he will also try to score points against Clinton for her criticism of Petraeus last September. Clinton told him his insistence the surge was working required the "willing suspension of disbelief" of the committee members.

The run-up to the general's appearance has revealed an emerging consensus in Congress, an overextended military and a war-weary public that it is time to begin drawing down troops in Iraq.

In a preparatory hearing of the Senate's foreign relations committee last week not a single Republican senator repeated the White House mantra of "staying the course" in Iraq. "There is no political will to sustain this current national security strategy for Iraq. It is over," Barry McCaffrey, a retired general , said yesterday. A day earlier General Richard Cody, the army's vice chief of staff, told Congress: "The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies."

FAQ Iraq policy

Where do the presidential candidates stand on Iraq?

Barack Obama promises to withdraw one or two combat brigades a month until all are out in about 16 months.

But he would leave behind forces to guard the US embassy and station a strike force in the region to fight al-Qaida. He would launch an aggressive diplomatic effort with Iran and other neighboring states.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to draw up a withdrawal plan for US forces within the first 60 days of her administration. She opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She has said she would organise an international aid conference for Iraq as well as heightened diplomacy in the region.

John McCain, in contrast, argues that a withdrawal would mean a defeat that would embolden al-Qaida. A strong and early advocate of the surge, he has said he is willing to keep troops present in Iraq for 100 years, if casualties remain low.

In reality, how quickly can the forces leave?

Military experts say a significant draw-down of US forces could take anywhere between one and three years.

About 158,000 US forces are currently in Iraq, with three brigades scheduled for withdrawal by July.

That will bring US forces down to a level of about 140,000 by the time Bush leaves the White House in 2009.

The Pentagon is likely to follow the pattern set this year in drawing down Petraeus' surge, gradually reducing combat forces deployed in more secure areas.

However, there will be pressure to maintain or devote more troops to the training of Iraqi support units: specifically military intelligence, medical and communications experts.

Preparations for a final withdrawal must also factor in the difficulties of moving tanks and other heavy equipment that the US will not want to leave behind. At present, heavy equipment remains when troops are rotated in and out of Iraq.

"Unless we reach some catastrophic point, you are not going to see five or seven brigades redeploying all at once making a run for the southern border," said Michèle Flournoy, president of the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington think tank.

What is America's moral responsibility to prevent civil war?

In an ideal scenario, the American withdrawal would be coordinated

with the government in Baghdad so that Iraqi forces would be prepared and able to take over from the departing troops and maintain order.

But US officials describe the government of Nouri al-Maliki as being dysfunctional and corrupt and doing little to reach out to Sunnis or competing Shia groups. "Improvement in stability did not result from a top-down process of compromise driven by the government," Dick Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate foreign relations committee, told Congress.

There is an argument that announcing a definitive exit would force Maliki to recognise the urgency of reconciliation. Others say that is unlikely and a civil war is virtually inevitable, even if US forces remain in strength.

"If the United States were to withdraw from Iraq, and the result was severe war and severe civil strife, the Iraqi government only has itself to blame. It has set the stage for that. It has made the policies of the state increasingly sectarian," said Wayne White, who served on the Iraq Study Group, an advisory group appointed by Congress.

What about al-Qaida in Iraq? And what about Iran?

The Bush administration regularly holds up the Sunni tribal militias who have been fighting al-Qaida as a success story of the surge. The Sunni tribes began taking up arms against al-Qaida before making moves to cooperate with the US.

There is a strong argument that the Sunni tribal campaign against al-Qaida will continue even after the US draws down its forces.

But Iran's role in the region will form a crucial part of calculations on future US Administration policy. Over the last few years, US officials have regularly warned that Tehran is meddling in Iraq by funnelling aid and arms to Shia militias.

Military experts and members of Congress argue that a withdrawal from Iraq must be accompanied by a vigorous diplomatic initiative aimed at Iran and other neighboring states. "You need to keep an eye on where you are heading. The target is regional stability," Lieutenant General William Odum, a former director of the National Security Agency.