The Troops Stay On

President Bush held off on force cuts in Iraq and Afghanistan this fall. There's good reason -- but is there a good plan?

AT THE BEGINNING of this year it was an open secret that the Bush administration hoped to substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan by this fall. Reports said it was aiming for 100,000 troops in Iraq, compared with 165,000 at the end of 2005. In Afghanistan, the force level was to drop below 15,000 as more NATO forces were deployed. In part, the plans reflected the administration's optimistic assumptions about the progress that would be made in both countries. But it was hard to ignore the fact that the reductions were to come just in time for November's midterm election.

As the good news failed to materialize in either theater, we, among others, worried that Mr. Bush would pressure his military commanders to go ahead with the drawdowns. That didn't happen. This week several senior military commanders, including Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, stated publicly that the troop levels would remain where they are well into next year. The force level in Iraq, 145,000, is higher than it was this summer, while the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, at about 20,000, is well above the 16,500 reported at the end of last year.

Mr. Bush deserves some credit for being true to his word: He said that in deciding on troop reductions, he would be guided by conditions in the two countries and his commanders' recommendations rather than by the political calendar -- and he has been. The administration put this news out weeks before the election, even though the failure to bring troops home will add to the negative pull Iraq already exerts on Republicans in many congressional races.

The president's steadfastness would be much more impressive if it seemed to be attached to a winning strategy. Sadly, the events of the past several weeks suggest otherwise, at least in Iraq. Gen. Abizaid candidly described the progress of a U.S. military campaign in Baghdad, where additional American forces have been concentrated in the hope of stopping rampant sectarian bloodshed, as slight. Asked by reporters if the war could be won, he replied, "Given unlimited time and unlimited support, we're winning the war."

The problem, as both Gen. Abizaid and Mr. Bush well know, is that neither time nor resources are unlimited. Reports in several newspapers yesterday said the continuing heavy deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan had prompted commanders to discuss whether to call up more National Guard units at the expense of breaking rules about how often they are deployed.

The same day Gen. Abizaid spoke, the chairmen of a bipartisan Iraq study group set up by Congress delivered a blunt message to the four-month-old Iraqi coalition government, which has been slow to take desperately needed steps toward national reconciliation. "The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon, and the citizens of the United States, that it is deserving of continuing support," said former representative Lee H. Hamilton, who chairs the group along with former secretary of state James A. Baker III.

Unless that message is heeded, the sacrifice involved in holding U.S. troop levels steady for another six months -- in lives, above all -- is likely to be wasted.