Central Command fields queries on troop levels from Senate Armed Services Committee

The top U.S. commander in the troubled Central Command region endured a bipartisan grilling before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday over the potential for troop reductions in Iraq, the lack of political progress there and whether two agreements being negotiated with Baghdad would require Senate approval. Committee members also expressed outrage over the visit to Iraq by Iran's anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and concern over what they saw as a deteriorating military and political situation in Afghanistan.

Adm. William Fallon tried to assure the senators that no decision has been made on the pace of troop withdrawals and presented a more positive view of conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He suggested that Iraq had to deal with Iran but hoped the government would press Ahmadinejad to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq.

The Central Command leader also insisted that the status of forces agreement and the document establishing U.S. relations with Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires would not tie the hands of the next administration and were not treaties that would require Senate approval. "We may have a disagreement on that," replied Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., whose view was echoed by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., filling in as ranking member in the absence of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Adm. Eric Olson, commander of the Special Operations Command, acknowledged that the demands for his elite force far exceeded his ability to respond and listed a number of weapons systems for which additional funding was needed. Olson particularly stressed the need for additional intelligence and reconnaissance assets, faster procurement of the CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and additional trained personnel. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. sided with Olson, noting that the proposed fiscal 2009 budget requested $300 million less for SOCOM than it received this year.

Levin and Warner both expressed highly critical views on the conditions in Fallon's region with particular concern over the failure of the Iraqi government to capitalize on the reduction in violence achieved by the "surge" of U.S. forces and the resurgence of Taliban strength in Afghanistan. Levin complained that administration statements indicate there would be as many U.S. troops in Iraq when President Bush leaves office next January as there were before the 40,000 were added, and "Iraqi leaders continue to squander the opportunity our troops and taxpayers have given them."

Warner also stressed the increased violence in Afghanistan and called the huge increase in opium production since the U.S. invasion unacceptable. Both of the committee leaders and other members expressed concern that, without a sharp reduction in force levels in Iraq, the stress on the Army and Marine Corps could become unbearable. But Fallon said there was too much focus on the "pause" that Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, has suggested was needed after the surge forces were withdrawn. The admiral insisted there was a plan for continued reduction in troop levels, but would not give a timeline or numbers, pending Petraeus' report.