21 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/27/09 1:36am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told lawmakers on Thursday he plans to withdraw most American troops from Iraq by August 2010 but leave tens of thousands behind to advise Iraqi forces and protect U.S. interests, congressional officials said.Obama is expected to announce the new strategy on Friday during a trip to Camp Lejeune, N.C.In a closed-door meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders, Obama and his top advisers estimated that 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain. Among those attending the meeting were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had also been expected to attend as well.Rep. John McHugh, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Obama promised him to reconsider the new strategy if violence rises. McHugh said he was worried the situation in Iraq remained fragile, especially as it approaches elections in December."Our commanders must have the flexibility they need in order to respond to these challenges, and President Obama assured me that there is a 'Plan B,'" McHugh, R-N.Y., said in a statement.Some Democrats, too, are skeptical, but because they say it would leave too many troops behind."I have been one for a long time that's called for significant cutbacks in Iraq, and I am happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president," Reid told reporters before the briefing. "But when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated."Pelosi had said Wednesday that she was eager to hear the president's justification for keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq."I do think that there's a need for some," Pelosi said this week in an interview on MSNBC. "I don't know that all of them have to be in country."Boehner said that getting troops out 19 months after Obama took office in January — "may have sounded good during the campaign." But Obama should "listen to those commanders and our diplomats who are there to understand how fragile the situation is," he said.An existing U.S-Iraq agreement, negotiated under President George W. Bush, calls for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Baghdad and other cities by the end of June, with all American forces out of the country by the end of 2011.
(07/03/08 3:45pm)
WASHINGTON – No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.\nIraq’s political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or leave. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it’s done so has been achingly slow.\nThe White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory” – almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by The Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks – enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues – are unsatisfactory.\nIn the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq’s military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.\nThey have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein’s political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.\nBut for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.\nAmnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn’t been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.\nLikewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq’s leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.\nIn the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation’s police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.\nOverall, militia control has declined and Baghdad’s security forces have “demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics,” as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes.\nRep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who requested the administration’s updated assessment, scoffed at the May report, which he says uses the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is “satisfactory” versus whether the benchmark has been met. He estimates that only a few of the 18 benchmarks have been fully achieved.\nDemocrats also say more solid progress could have been made had the administration starting pulling troops out sooner.\n“We’ve tried repeatedly to get the administration to shift responsibility to the Iraqi leaders for their own future, since there is broad consensus that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.\n“The administration, however, has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis and appears willing to do so again,” Levin said.\nBut whether the next president will be much more successful in forcing the Iraqi government to reach a lasting political settlement remains to be seen.\nWhether the new administration starts pulling troops out of Iraq right away, as Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has promised, or refuses to set a timetable, per Republican John McCain’s suggestion, most agree that a functional democracy in Iraq could still be years away because of the complexities of the issues involved and the deeply rooted distrust among the nation’s sectarian groups.\n“Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law,” Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq said in April when he last testified before Congress. “Whether it realizes that potential is ultimately up to the Iraqi people.”
(04/10/08 3:36am)
WASHINGTON – The top U.S. military commander in Iraq said Wednesday that he is unlikely to call for another troop buildup in Iraq, even if security deteriorates after the extra American soldiers return home this summer.\nGen. David Petraeus told a House panel that such a move would be considered the last resort, in part because of the strain it would place on the Army. First, the military could try to reallocate existing troops to respond to any hotspots. It also would rely more on Iraqi forces, which are improving in capability, he said.\n“That would be a pretty remote thought in my mind,” he said of reinstating last year’s influx of troops.\nPetraeus has recommended to President Bush that the U.S. complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 troops that were sent to Iraq last year to calm the violence there. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day evaluation period, to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.\n“We think it makes sense to have some time to let the dust settle, perhaps to do some adjustment of forces, re-evaluation,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.\nBush is to address the nation on his decision about troop levels in Iraq at 11:30 a.m. EDT Thursday from the Cross Hall of the White House. Aides signaled – as the president has for weeks – that he would likely embrace Petraeus’ recommendations. White House press secretary Dana Perino also said it is “within the realm of possibility” that Bush would discuss the length of soldiers’ tours of duty in Iraq. She wouldn’t be specific, citing the ongoing testimony and Bush’s meeting Wednesday afternoon with congressional leaders.\n“I think the president has gotten a lot of advice,” she said. “I think he’s pretty far down the path of what he’s going to say tomorrow.”\nWednesday’s hearing marked the second day of testimony by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq. Both described Iraq as a fragile state and warned that hard-fought security gains could slip if troops leave too soon.\nDemocrats said pausing troop reductions would signal to the Iraqis that the United States was committed to the war indefinitely.\n“Political reconciliation hasn’t happened, and violence has leveled off and may be creeping back up,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House committee. “So how can we encourage, if not force, the intransigent political leaders of Iraq to forge a real nation out of their base sectarian instincts?”\nRepublicans were considerably more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than last year.\n“No one can deny that the security situation in Iraq has improved,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the No. 1 Republican on the committee.\nWhen pressed by Skelton, the four-star general said he can envision more troops leaving after July.\n“I can foresee the reduction beyond the 15” Army brigades that will be left behind in Iraq this summer, he said. \nBut like Tuesday, he refused to give senators any kind of timetable: “The question is at what pace that will take place,” he said.\nPetraeus said the health of U.S. ground forces was a “major strategic consideration” in his recommendation and will continue to be a factor in his assessments. The Bush administration is expected to announce this week that combat tours will be reduced from the current 15 months to 12 months, regardless of the 45-day pause in troop withdrawals.\n“I am keenly aware of the strain,” Petraeus said. Having been deployed himself since 2001, “this is something that my family and I do know a great deal about personally.”
(04/09/08 3:19am)
WASHINGTON – The U.S. general commanding the Iraq war called Tuesday for an open-ended suspension of U.S. troop withdrawals this summer, reflecting concern about a recent flare-up in violence and leaving open the possibility that few, if any, additional troops will be brought home before President Bush leaves office in January.\nGen. David Petraeus told a Senate hearing that he recommends a 45-day “period of consolidation and evaluation” once the extra combat forces that Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause.\n“At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions,” Petraeus said.\nHe did not commit to any additional troop withdrawals beyond July.\n“This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit,” he added. “This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable. However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.”\nThe plan gives Petraeus maximum flexibility at a time of rising violence in Baghdad and some others parts of the country. It runs counter to Democrats’ push for a more rapid reduction in the U.S. military commitment and a faster transfer of responsibility to the Iraqi government.\nPetraeus said his approach takes account of the fact that security gains achieved over the past year are fragile and reversible, and he said it is intended to “form a foundation for the gradual establishment of sustainable security in Iraq.” But he did not say when he thought that goal would be reached.\n“Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year,” Petraeus said.\nBush has said he intended to accept Petraeus’ recommendation. On Thursday, the president will make a speech about the war, now in its sixth year, and his decision about troop levels.\nUnder questioning by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus said he could not predict when troop reductions would be resumed or how many U.S. troops were likely to remain in Iraq by the end of this year. There currently are 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and the Pentagon has projected that when the scheduled troop withdrawals are completed in July there will be about 140,000 troops there.\nLevin reminded Petraeus that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said a pause in troop reductions should be brief, and the senator said the Petraeus plan amounted to an open-ended suspension.\n“What you’ve given to your chain of command is a plan which has no end to it,” Levin said. He asked Petraeus when he would be in position to recommend further troop cuts, once the 45-day evaluation period ends in September.\n“It could be right then, or it could be longer,” the general said. He declined to be pinned down, saying he would recommend further cuts when conditions were right.\nOne of the few other committee members to press Petraeus on a timeline was Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. He urged Petraeus to give at least a rough estimate of when further troop reductions might be possible. The general would not budge.\n“If you believe as I do – and the commanders on the ground believe – that the way forward on reductions should be conditions-based then it is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say this is when it would be or that is when it would be,” Petraeus said.
(02/27/08 4:40am)
WASHINGTON – The Army’s top general said Tuesday he wants to reduce combat tours for soldiers in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months this summer – and hopes that sticks.\nGen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, told a Senate panel he would not embrace going back to the longer tours even if President Bush decided to suspend troop reductions for the second half of the year. The Army is under serious strain from years of war-fighting, he testified, and must reduce the length of combat tours as soon as possible.\n“The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future,” Casey said.\nCasey, who was the top U.S. commander in Iraq before taking the chief of staff job last spring, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that cutting the time soldiers spend in combat is an integral part of reducing the stress on the force.\nHe said he anticipates the service can cut combat tours from 15 months to 12 months this summer, as long as the president reduces the number of active-duty Army brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 units by July, as planned.\nThe committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., pressed Casey on whether he could keep tour lengths at 12 months if Bush decides to suspend the troop reductions after reaching 15 brigades in July.\n“We believe it will still be possible, even with the pause,” Casey replied. When asked by Levin if that would hold true “regardless of the length of the pause,” Casey replied, “Yes.”\nHowever, the number of soldiers retained under the service’s stop loss policy – which forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates – is unlikely to be reduced substantially.\n“We are consuming readiness now, as quickly as we’re building it,” said Army Secretary Pete Geren, who also testified.\nGeren also urged Congress to pass a $100 billion war spending bill this spring, contending that the Army will run out of money by July.\nAccording to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Army could probably last until August or September by transferring money from less urgent accounts. Army officials counter that this approach is inefficient and can cause major program disruptions.\nThe hearing came as the Senate headed toward a vote on whether to cut off money for the Iraq war within 120 days. The measure, by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was widely expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to pass.\nThe White House said the president would veto such a measure.\n“This legislation would substitute the political judgment of legislators for the considered professional military judgment of our military commanders,” according to an administration statement.\nSenate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the bill is a good chance for the Senate to go on record again as refusing to cut off money for the war.\n“All the more so will we oppose it when the fight in Iraq, by all accounts, is showing clear-cut tactical progress, and now, at last, some important political progress is also being made,” McConnell, R-Ky., said.\nIn recent months, violence in Iraq has declined and the Baghdad government has made small steps toward political reconciliation, including plans to hold provincial elections on Oct. 1. While Democratic voters remain largely against the war, the security improvement has helped to cool anxiety among Republicans and stave off legislation demanding that troops start coming home.\nWith Feingold’s bill almost assured to fail and lacking a veto-proof majority in Congress even if such a proposal passed, Democrats are talking about whether to shift their strategy. Instead of repeating losing votes on legislation tying money to troop withdrawals, many party members want to focus more on the policy issues surrounding Iraq, including the preparedness of U.S. troops and reining in private contractors.\nAnother desire by many Democrats is to tie the ailing economy to the war. A coalition of anti-war groups said this week that it plans to spend more than $20 million this year to convince voters that the Republican party’s support for the war is bad for their wallets.\nStill, other Democrats, including Feingold, say they want to pursue more votes to end funding for the war.\n“Keeping our troops in Iraq will not solve Iraq’s problems, and it won’t help us address the growing threat posed by Al Qaida around the world,” Feingold said.\nAccording to aides, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who co-sponsored Feingold’s proposal, agreed to stage Tuesday’s vote in exchange for Feingold’s earlier support of a defense policy bill.
(11/14/07 3:54am)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won’t approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.\nBy the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.\nIf Bush vetoes the bill, “then the president won’t get his $50 billion,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.\nHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.\nTheir remarks reflect a new Democratic strategy on the war: Force Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.\nIf Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.\nThe tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.\n“We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people,” said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer.”\nIn a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.\nEngland also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, lay off civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.\n“The successes (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good work,” England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.\nA White House spokesman said Bush would veto any legislation that sets a timetable for troop withdrawals.\nDespite the administration’s opposition, the Democratic legislation is not a dramatic departure from Bush’s current plans for Iraq. The Pentagon has already begun to reverse its buildup of 30,000 troops – an act that would more than satisfy the bill’s requirement that Bush withdraw an unspecified number of troops.\nBut the administration says troop levels should be based on conditions on the ground and not predetermined by Congress.\nThe bill to be voted on this week is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the timetable from the $95 billion bill and approved the war money without restrictions.
(10/03/07 1:33am)
Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.\nThe 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.\nThe developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.\nHoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.\nWhile the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.\n“I think that’s where you’re going to see the next dogfight,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.\nDemocrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.\nSimilar attempts have been made but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.\n“Many of us have reached a breaking point on this,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “I’ve done this for too many years. I’ve waited for the president to start bringing this war to an end. I’m not going to sign up for this any longer.”\nIn the House, Democrats are pushing for a bill that would require the administration to report to Congress in 60 days and every 90 days thereafter on the status of its redeployment plans in Iraq.\nThe bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders who focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.\nBut after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.\n“This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq,” Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.\nIn February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate’s defense policy bill authorizes Bush’s initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistent vehicles.\nIn addition to war money, the Senate’s defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.
(09/20/07 4:00am)
You have a decision to make, according to Meredith, the most beautiful woman on TV with scarred lips. That opening motif in the third season of Grey's Anatomy carries through more than intern-doctor adultery, ferry-boat catastrophes and mothers with Alzheimer's. \nThis season is emotional, so emotional it's exhausting because the script always mirrors two characters' lives. Christina (Sandra Oh) is getting married while Izzie's (Katherine Heigl) fiance just died. George's (T.R. Knight) father is living through cancer at the same time that Meredith's (Ellen Pompeo) mom is slowly dying from Alzheimer's. \nEach episode -- particularly the four extended episodes -- reveal a depth of character that had never been reached until this third season. At the same time, the intensity wears you out. It leaves you with a temporary feeling and a sense of skepticism that it can't keep moving forward. Meredith has always been vapid and narcissistic, but she's bordering on annoying.\nThis season dwarfs the past two in episodic length. Though it has two fewer episodes than the second season there are four extended episodes with commentary, lasting over an hour a piece. It's a cool bonus feature to see the entire show, unabridged by TV, but sometimes it's just too long.\nThe camera shots get uncomfortable too. "Where the Boys Are" is an hour of suspenseful close-ups. In the episode, all the men of the hospital go on a camping trip, including Joe, the bartender, and his boyfriend. The story line just serves to fill their sexual diversity quota and plays like "the token gay episode." They use sexuality as a plot line and theme when it's only an aspect of character. The "open-hand combat" fight between George and Alex Karev (Justin Chambers) is ridiculous. \nThe special features commentary for first episode "Time Has Come Today" explains the episode's flashback scenes that are otherwise confusing. Some of the flashbacks were from way back in Season One and even the diehard fans have forgotten plot subtleties from two seasons prior. The blooper reel is filled with inside jokes among the actors, making the viewers fee like the outsiders looking into an elite acting clique. Nonetheless, some of the bloopers are funny.\nOverall, for two seasons, Meredith's been struggling through misguided love affairs. In Season Three she makes a choice that makes her happy, but the audience bored and longing for her wild streak. Luckily, other doctors' sex-capades are enough to keep us tuning in.
(09/13/07 3:06am)
Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday rejected the call by the top U.S. general in Iraq for a reduction of up to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by next summer, saying it does not go far enough.\n“This is unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.\nReid said the recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, expected to be embraced on Thursday by President Bush in a speech to the nation, “is neither a drawdown or a change in the mission that we need. His plan is just more of the same.”\n“I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lockstep as they have with the president for years in this war. It’s time to change. It’s the president’s war. At this point it also appears clear it’s also the Senate Republicans’ war,” Reid told a Capitol Hill news conference.\nReid said that Democrats would offer amendments “to change the course of the war” when the Senate takes up a defense bill next week. He said they were reaching out to Republicans for help – especially those Republicans who had been calling for a change in September.\nBush held out the promise of such a change, but it is not materializing, Reid said.\nHe wasn’t specific about what amendments Democrats would offer, or whether they had the necessary 60 votes to prevail.\nSen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the troop buildup Bush announced in January had been intended to give the fledgling Iraqi government breathing room.\nBut that government remains dysfunctional and “the president is just going to stay the course indefinitely,” Levin said. He said that even Petraeus, in two days of congressional testimony, had acknowledged that the purpose of the military buildup, which the administration has called a “surge,” had not been accomplished.\nEarlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that stabilizing Iraq would be a lengthy process that won’t end when violence in that country – and U.S. troop strength – is reduced.
(09/11/07 5:09am)
WASHINGTON – Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next summer.\nIn long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter’s buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives “in large measure.”\nAs a result, he told a congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, “I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level ... by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve.”\nTestifying in a military uniform bearing four general’s stars and a chestful of medals, Petraeus said he had already provided his views to the military chain of command.\nRebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House’s bidding, he said firmly, “I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress.”\nUsing charts and graphs to illustrate his points, Petraeus conceded that the military gains have been uneven in the months since President Bush ordered an additional 30,000 troops to the war last winter.\nBut he also said that there has been an overall decline in violence and said, “the level of security incidents has delined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June of 2006.”\nPetraeus also said the Iraqi military is slowly gaining competence and gradually “taking on more responsibility for their security.”
(09/05/07 2:06am)
Baghdad has not met 11 of its 18 political and security goals, according to a new independent report on Iraq that challenges President Bush’s assessment of the war.\nThe study, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, was slightly more upbeat than initially planned. After receiving substantial resistance from the White House, the GAO determined that four benchmarks – instead of two – had been partially met.\nBut the GAO stuck with its original contention that only three goals out of the 18 had been achieved. The goals met include establishing joint security stations in Baghdad, ensuring minority rights in the Iraqi legislature and creating support committees for the Baghdad security plan.\n“Overall key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds,” said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker in prepared remarks for a Senate hearing Tuesday.\nAn advance copy of the 100-page report and Walker’s testimony was obtained by The Associated Press.\nThe GAO’s findings paint a bleaker view of progress in Iraq than offered by Bush in July and come at a critical time in the Iraq debate. So far, Republicans have stuck by Bush and staved off Democratic legislation ordering troops home. But many, who have grown uneasy about the unpopularity of the war, say they want to see substantial improvement in Iraq by September.\nNext week the top military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, are scheduled to brief Congress.\n“While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, measuring such violence may be difficult since the perpetrator’s intent is not clearly known,” the GAO states in its report. “Other measures of violence, such as the number of enemy-initiated attacks, show that violence has remained high through July 2007.”\nEarlier this year, Bush sent 30,000 extra troops to Iraq to enhance security in Baghdad and Anbar province. In a congressionally mandated progress report released by the White House in July, Bush judged that Baghdad had made satisfactory progress in eight of the 18 benchmarks. In five of those eight areas, the GAO determined that Iraq had either failed or made only partial progress.\nThe disparity is largely due to the stricter standard applied by the GAO in preparing the report. The GAO used a “thumbs up or thumbs down” approach in grading Baghdad, whereas Bush’s assessment looked at whether Iraq was achieving progress. For example, Bush said Iraqi politicians had made satisfactory progress in reviewing Iraq’s constitution, whereas the GAO ruled they had failed because the process was not complete.
(06/28/07 4:58pm)
WASHINGTON – Sen. George Voinovich said Tuesday he believes the U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, joining Richard Lugar as the second Republican lawmaker in as many days to suggest President Bush’s war strategy is failing.\nHe said the Iraqi people must become more involved and “I don’t think they’ll get it until they know we’re leaving.”\nThe Ohio senator’s remarks followed similar comments made by Lugar, R-Ind., on the previous night. The two GOP senators previously had expressed concerns about Bush’s decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq in a massive U.S.-led security push in Baghdad and Anbar province. But they had stopped short of saying U.S. troops should leave and declined to back Democratic legislation setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.\n“We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq,” Voinovich wrote in a letter to Bush.\nLugar and Voinovich said they were still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal. But both made it clear their patience was gone.\nOnce Iraq’s neighbors “know we are genuinely leaving, I think all of a sudden the fear of God will descend upon them and say, ‘We’ve got to get involved in this thing,’” Voinovich told reporters.\n“It can’t be something that is precipitous, but I do believe that it should be enough so that people know we are indeed disengaging,” he added.\nThe loss of GOP support for the president’s strategy is significant. Democrats may still not be able to push through legislation demanding an end date for the war, but softer alternative proposals are in the works that could still challenge Bush.\nAfter the Fourth of July recess, “you’ll be hearing a number of statements from other (Republican) colleagues,” predicted Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a longtime skeptic of the war strategy.\nSpokesman John Ullyot said Warner is drafting a legislative proposal on the war but declined to discuss the details. The measure would likely be offered as an amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill on the floor next month.\nThe White House on Tuesday appealed to members for more patience on the war in Iraq.\n“We hope that members of the House and Senate will give the Baghdad security plan a chance to unfold,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow.\nSnow also said Lugar was a thoughtful man and that his remarks came as no surprise.\n“We’ve known that he’s had reservations about the policy for some time,” he said.\nIn January, Lugar expressed concerns about the president’s decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Baghdad. But he voted against a resolution opposing Bush’s troop build up, contending that the nonbinding measure would have no practical effect. In the spring, he voted against a Democratic bill that would have triggered troop withdrawals by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pullout in six months.\nIn a floor speech Monday, Lugar said the U.S. should reduce the military’s role in Iraq and called on Bush to press other diplomatic and economic initiatives instead. Because of Lugar’s position as the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, his speech was a considered a blow to the administration as it tries to shore up sagging political support for the unpopular war.
(04/27/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.\nThe 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.\n“The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq,” said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: “It’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq.”\nThe $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.\nAcross the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will “get harder before it gets easier.”\nRepublicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival upon reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats.\n“The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops,” said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.\nRepublicans Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska sided with 48 Democrats and Independent Bernard Sanders in supporting the bill. No Democrats joined the 45 Republicans in voting against it. Missing from the vote were GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both staunch advocates of the president’s Iraq policy.\nSen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.
(04/23/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – Democrats are considering their next step after President Bush’s inevitable veto of their war spending proposal, including a possible short-term funding bill that would force Congress to revisit the issue this summer.\nAnother alternative is providing the Pentagon the money it needs for the war but insisting that the Iraqi government live up to certain political promises. Or, the congressional Democrats could send Bush what he wants for now and set their sights on 2008 spending legislation.\nThe options are being weighed as Bush and Congress head toward a showdown this week on his Iraq policy. House and Senate appropriations meet Monday to negotiate a final bill that, if approved by both chambers, could reach the president’s desk as early as the end of the week.\nArmy Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Iraq war, is expected to brief lawmakers behind closed doors as they cast their final vote.\nThe legislation is expected to fund the Iraq war but call for combat troops to leave, probably by March 31, 2008. Bush has promised to reject it and Republicans say they will back him, leaving Democrats short of the two-thirds majority support needed to override the veto.\nSetting an end date to the war before it’s won “would be a death blow to forces of moderation throughout the Middle East,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.\nDemocratic leaders have been reluctant to discuss their next step, focusing instead on their ability to send Bush legislation rebuking his Iraq policy. But other lawmakers say there is no denying that Democrats do not have the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush’s veto. And soon enough, everyone will be asking what happens next.\nRep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military funding, said he wants a bill that would fund the war for just two or three months. Before that second bill would expire in summer, Democrats would try again to pass legislation calling for an end to combat.\nBush has said the military needs more than $90 billion through September, most of which would finance combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.\nMurtha’s proposal would give Democrats time to try to rally support among Republicans growing increasingly frustrated with the war who have so far been reluctant to tie the hands of their GOP president.\nThe tact also would attract party liberals in the House who don’t want to fund the war at all.\nRep. Lynn Woolsey said she likes the idea of a limited funding bill because it keeps open the possibility that Congress will cut off money for the war this summer.\n“Look at it every single day,” Woolsey, D-Calif., said of the violence in Iraq. “I hope it’s not worse, but it will be. ... In two months, it might be that there should be no more money” for the war.\nBut that impression is precisely why such a plan would be difficult to pass in the House and likely sink in the Senate, where more conservative Democrats say they prefer other means to twist the president’s arm.\nCutting off funding for the war is the “wrong message to our troops” and would fail, said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Then “the defeat of an effort to cut funding would be used by the president as evidence of support for his policy,” he added.\nAccordingly, Levin said he would support legislation that would fund the war through September but insist the Iraqi government live up to its political promises.\nLast fall, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to make laws establishing provincial elections, regulate distribution of the country’s oil wealth and reverse measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.\nLevin, D-Mich., said that should Bush veto the war spending bill, Democrats could pass legislation that would drop the timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal but require the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks. He declined to provide further specifics.\nIn order to attract GOP support and force Bush to sign the bill, Democrats would have to craft language that gives the president some flexibility. At the same time, Democratic leaders will have to persuade their own party members that the bill still challenges Bush’s Iraq policy.\n“The greater clarity of the consequences for the failure to meet the benchmarks, the greater pressure on Iraqi leaders,” Levin said.\nWhite House spokeswoman Dana Perino dismissed Murtha’s suggestion of a short-term funding bill and said Democrats should focus instead on providing troops what they need.\n“Since there’s only five months left in this supplemental, having this same debate in another month, given their track record on producing legislation, doesn’t seem prudent,” Perino said.\nRep. James Moran, a member of defense appropriations panel, said Democrats might not have much of a choice in responding to Bush’s veto other than to consider the short-term funding bill.\n“We don’t want to throw in the towel,” said Moran, D-Va. “The problem is (Bush) is willing to play chicken with funding the troops and we aren’t. We just aren’t going to take a chance (the Pentagon) will run out of funding for the troops.”
(04/04/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Tuesday called Democrats in Congress irresponsible for approving war bills that order U.S. troops to leave Iraq by certain dates. He said such efforts will backfire, keeping some troops in battle even longer.\n“In a time of war, it’s irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds,” Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.\n“The bottom line is this: Congress’ failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,” Bush said. “Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to.”\nAccording to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Bush and Congress have about three months to resolve their standoff before a lack of funds would begin to adversely affect operations in Iraq.\nThe CRS concluded in a recent analysis that money for the war runs out in mid-April. After that, Pentagon accountants would move money around in the department’s more than half-trillion-dollar budget to make sure operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not disrupted.\nBush’s comments underscored his standoff with Congress. Democrats won power in November, largely fueled by national anti-war sentiment. They intend to use their power over money to force Iraq to take more responsibility and prod Bush to wind down the war.\nThe president renewed veto threats on both a Senate-passed bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, and an even stronger House-passed bill demanding a September 2008 withdrawal. He said both bills “undercut the troops.”\nBush bluntly said that Congress could not override such a veto.\nThe president’s remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress’ proposal to set a deadline to end combat.\n“It’s interesting that Harry Reid, leader Reid, spoke out with a different option,” Bush said. “Whatever option they choose, we hope they get home, get a bill, and get it to my desk,” Bush said. “And if it has artificial timetables for withdrawal, or cuts off funding for our troops, or tells our generals how to run a war, I’ll veto it.”\nThe Senate is in recess this week; the House is on break for two weeks.\nThe House and Senate are preparing to send Bush a bill by the end of the month that would approve of some $96 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also set an end date to combat in Iraq.\nThe House wants to order troops out by September 2008, whereas the Senate wants troops to begin leaving right away and set a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations on March 31, 2008.
(03/30/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from “the civil war in Iraq,” dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.\nIn a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.\nThe vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.\n“We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,” Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, “and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders.”\n“We expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people’s money,” he said.\nThe Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration’s handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion.\n“We have fulfilled our constitutional responsibilities,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters shortly after the vote.\nIf Bush “doesn’t sign the bill, it’s his responsibility,” Reid added.\nIn a show of support for the president, most Republicans opposed the measure, unwilling to back a troop withdrawal schedule despite the conflict’s widespread unpopularity.\n“Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way,” said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
(03/28/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats said Tuesday the White House’s latest veto threat would not dissuade them from pushing ahead on legislation calling for combat troops to come home from Iraq within one year.\nAs the Senate debated the bill Tuesday, the White House issued another stern warning to Congress that the president would reject any legislation setting a timetable on the war.\n“That’s not surprising from a White House that has stubbornly refused to change course even in the face of dwindling support from American people whose sons and daughters are dying” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.\nThe administration contends that setting a timetable on the war assumes failure in Iraq.\n“This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration’s plan to develop the Iraqi economy,” the White House said in a statement.\nThe $122 billion bill would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but order Bush to begin bringing some troops home right away, with the goal of ending combat missions by March 31, 2008.\nAn upcoming vote on whether to uphold the withdrawal language could come down to just one or two votes, testing Democratic unity on a proposal to begin bringing troops home.\nDemocratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson are expected to deliver the critical votes.\nThe bill is similar to one the House passed last week, but with a tougher deadline. While the Senate identifies March 2008 as a goal – giving the president leeway to ignore the deadline – the House voted 218-212 to require all combat troops out as of Aug. 31, 2008.\nSen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., has proposed striking the withdrawal provision, which GOP members say would broadcast the nation’s war plans to the enemy and tie the hands of military commanders. “It’s a bad message all the way around,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.\nWhether Republicans have enough votes to beat the narrow Democratic majority depends upon their ability to enti
(03/02/07 5:00am)
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration filed charges Thursday against David Hicks, an Australian suspected of aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan and the first terrorism-war era detainee to be charged under the new law for military commissions.\nThe decision was made even though officials of Australia already had asked the United States not to bring such charges. Australia has been a steadfast ally to the Bush administration in its war on terrorism.\nHicks, whose case has drawn international attention, is a former kangaroo skinner captured in Afghanistan in December 2001. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for more than five years without trial.\nHicks is being charged with “providing material support for terrorism.” He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, according to a Defense Department announcement.\nDespite a recommendation by military prosecutors that he also be charged with attempted murder for battling coalition forces in Afghanistan, officials decided to drop that charge.\nHicks would have a trial in a special military tribunal, established in a law that Congress passed last year, rather than a civilian court. Opponents have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of the military tribunal proceedings.\nAn earlier formulation of such military tribunals was declared unconstitutional last year by the Supreme Court.\n“This is an important milestone for military commissions,” said Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.\nHicks was among 10 detainees who had been charged with crimes under the earlier law that the court struck down. Then, he had been charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.\nLast month, military prosecutors recommended that Hicks be charged with attempted murder and providing support for terrorism.\nOn Thursday, Susan Crawford, the head of the military commissions, formally charged Hicks only with providing material support for terrorism. The military offered no immediate explanation of why the attempted murder charge was dropped.\nThe military eventually hopes to charge 60 to 80 of the Guantanamo detainees – none of whom have ever gone to trial.\nHicks’ legal status has been a sore spot for Australia. Last month, nearly half the members of Australia’s Parliament signed a letter to the U.S. Congress appealing for help repatriating him.\nThe topic was also discussed last month in a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Australian Prime Minister John Howard when Cheney visited Australia. Under growing public pressure, and with elections due later this year, Howard has begun pushing U.S. officials to deal with Hicks’ case more quickly.\n“Our sole concern is about the passage of time and the bedrock principle of our legal system ... that people should not be held indefinitely without trial,” Howard told reporters.\nIn the fall, Congress passed a law that outlined the rules for trying terrorism suspects; the system is intended to protect classified information and provides detainees with fewer rights than civilian or military courts.\nOnce formal charges are filed, a timetable requires preliminary hearings within 30 days and the start of a jury trial within 120 days at Guantanamo Bay, where nearly 400 men are held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.\n–Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this story.
(02/14/07 3:06am)
WASHINGTON -- House members fiercely debated Iraq war policy Tuesday in an emotional and historic floor faceoff over a conflict that Speaker Nancy Pelosi lambasted as a U.S. commitment with "no end in sight."\nThe confluence of arguments came as the war nears the four-year point with over 3,100 American deaths, billions spent and lawmakers grappling what position to take on President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops into battle.\n"The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq and they are demanding a new direction," said Pelosi, a California Democrat who became the first female House speaker after her party took control of both the House and Senate in the fall elections.\nA resolution putting the House on record as against Bush's expansion of troop strength was expected to be approved by week's end. It was nonbinding, but nevertheless unmistakable in its message. "No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq," Pelosi declared.\nCountered White House press secretary Tony Snow: "Members of the House and members of the Senate have the freedom to go ahead and write their resolutions, and do what they want with them. The one thing we do expect is, we do expect those who say they're going to support the troops, to support them."\nRepublicans, now the minority party on the Hill for the time in 12 years, issued impassioned warnings of the consequences of undermining the president's policies in Iraq. "We will embolden terrorists in every corner in the world. We will give Iran free access to the Middle East," said Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "And who doesn't believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?"\nBoehner teared up before reporters as he listened to Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, describe being a prisoner of war in Vietnam and learning of U.S. protests back home.\nHouse Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., insisted that they had no intention of impeding the mission of those in Iraq. "There will be no defunding of troops in the field. There will be no defunding which will cause any risk to the troops," he told a news conference.\nThe House rejected, on a 227-197 vote, a Republican procedural attempt to force a vote on a proposal that would have barred Congress from cutting off funding for American troops in harm's way.\nDemocrats expressed confidence the measure would prevail and said they would attempt to use it as the opening move in a campaign to pressure Bush to change course and end U.S. military involvement in the war. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died in nearly four years of fighting.\nDemocrats called on several freshmen who served in the military to make their argument against further commitments in Iraq.\nRep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., a captain in the Army 82nd Airborne, said that "three years after I left Iraq, Americans are still running convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi street corners."\nBut Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., stressed that "we go to war to win, we go to war with a mission." He said "we dishonor the lives of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice if we in fact abandon that mission. ... We have a duty to pursue nothing less than victory."\nRepublicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen members of the GOP were likely to break ranks and vote for it.
(02/07/07 3:43am)
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out hope Tuesday that U.S. forces might be able to start leaving Iraq before the end of the year, if daunting conditions including subdued violence and political reconciliation are met.\nGates told lawmakers the current buildup of forces by 21,500 troops is "not the last chance" to succeed in Iraq and conceded that he's considering what steps to take if it doesn't work.\n"I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.\nBut he asserted, "We at this point are planning for success," and he described in sketchy form what could bring about the beginning of a withdrawal.\n"It seems to me that if the plan to quiet Baghdad is successful and the Iraqis step up" by providing promised forces of their own and move toward resolving the country's bitter political disputes, Gates said, "I would hope that we would be able to begin drawing down our troops later this year."\nGates said last month that the troop increase seems likely to last months, not years. The outgoing top general in Iraq, George Casey, has said he hoped some of the extra troops could start returning home by late summer.\nGates was grilled on the war as the full Senate remained stalled on debating a resolution that would join most Democrats and some Republicans in a stinging critique of President Bush's course in Iraq.\nHis testimony came, too, with U.S. and Iraqi forces on the verge of opening their campaign to subdue the insurgency in Baghdad. Gates said the operation was to have started on Monday but "it's probably going to slip a few days, and it's probably going to be a rolling implementation."\nGates did not say what other options he was considering if the addition of U.S. forces fails to control the violence in Baghdad and western Anbar province, where the Sunni insurgency is based. But he and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to assure lawmakers that the additional troops pegged for Iraq will go there with sufficient equipment for the fight.\nThey said a shortage of armored vehicles in one phase of operations will be remedied by July, and troops who need them will not be deployed from their compound in Iraq until the vehicles are supplied.\nPace said the number of ammunition-packed roadside bombs encountered by U.S. forces has doubled in a year, and these weapons now include a deadlier version coming from Iran.\nUpdated jamming equipment and other disabling tactics have proved effective in rendering more of the bombs harmless, he said, but U.S. casualties have remained about the same because of the higher numbers and deadlier nature of the explosives.\n"The amount of ammunition available is incredible," Pace said, despite the clearing of 430,000 tons of ammunition from more than 15,000 sites.