By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 8, 2008; 6:22 PM

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq told a Senate committee today that improved security in Iraq is "fragile and reversible" and recommended a pause in the withdrawal of U.S. forces after mid-July.

Under questioning from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus repeatedly refused to forecast when a drawdown might resume or offer any estimates of future U.S. troop levels.

The hearing, followed by a separate appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, provided a forum for the three presidential candidates to demonstrate their command of the issues in Iraq and promote their approaches to the five-year-old war. In the Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a candidate for the Democratic nomination, sparred with each other indirectly via their opening statements and their questions to Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who leads Clinton in the race for their party's nomination, attended the Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon and sought to pin down the two witnesses on a definition for success in Iraq that would allow U.S. forces to withdraw. Crocker and Petraeus agreed it was unrealistic to expect the complete eradication of al-Qaeda in Iraq or the elimination of all Iranian influence, but they balked at the idea of major force reductions if Iraq remained in what Obama called "the messy, sloppy status quo."

In his morning testimony, Petraeus said he has recommended to his superiors that the military continue rolling back a "surge" of U.S. forces that President Bush ordered last year in response to deteriorating security in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. But after U.S. forces are reduced to their pre-buildup level by mid-July, Petraeus said, the military should suspend the withdrawals and begin a 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation."

At the end of that period, he said, he has recommended starting "a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions." He strongly counseled against setting any deadlines for withdrawal.

"This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable," he said in his prepared statement. Instead, he said, it provides "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."

The Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), disputed Petraeus's generally optimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq and challenged him on his recommendation for a suspension of U.S. withdrawals.

"That is a clear open-ended pause," Levin told the general. "I think that this open-ended pause that you have recommended takes pressure off Iraqi leaders" to assume responsibility for their country's security, he said.

As Petraeus was answering Levin's questions, a demonstrator began shouting, "Bring them home!" The man was promptly escorted out of the hearing room.

Under questioning, Petraeus declined to specify the level he anticipates for U.S. troop strength in Iraq by the end of this year.

But Crocker made clear that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq beyond Dec. 31 and said the United States will need an agreement with Iraq to govern its presence after that date. He said the accord would not establish permanent bases in Iraq and probably would rule them out. Nor would it specify troop levels so as not to "tie the hands of the next president," Crocker said.

Petraeus also highlighted what he described as the "destructive role" played by neighboring Iran, which he said has supported Shiite groups involved in recent fighting in southern Iraq and in rocket and mortar attacks on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. The general testified that Iraqi leaders have become increasingly alarmed by these "so-called Special Groups," which he said are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah." The Quds Force is a special unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Hezbollah is a militant Shiite organization in Lebanon that also has received support from Iran, a Shiite theocracy.

"Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Petraeus testified.

He later told the Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. forces have detained a number of Special Group members, including four "master trainers." The military will soon present to reporters what it has learned about the Iranian involvement, he said.

The testimony by Petraeus and Crocker came seven months after they told Congress that the United States was largely meeting its military objectives in Iraq because of the troop increases ordered by Bush. Faced with a deteriorating security situation, especially in Baghdad, Bush sent about 30,000 additional troops to Iraq last spring, raising the U.S. military presence there to about 160,000.

Citing a drop in the overall level of violence in Iraq as the reinforcements deployed, Petraeus testified in September that U.S. forces could be reduced to "pre-surge levels" by mid-July "without jeopardizing security gains we fought so hard to achieve."

Petraeus and Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki needed more time to take advantage of improved security resulting from the troop surge.

After appearing this morning before the Armed Services Committee, Petraeus, 55, and Crocker, 58, delivered essentially the same opening remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). The House committees get their turn to question the two men tomorrow.

As the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, McCain spoke before Petraeus and Crocker testified, repeating his warnings that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq too soon would bring chaos to the country and possibly trigger genocidal sectarian warfare.

"We're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success," he said.

Clinton later reminded the committee that the purpose of the surge ordered by Bush and promoted by McCain was to "create the space" for Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation. But even Petraeus has acknowledged that the Iraqi government "has not made sufficient political progress," Clinton said.

"The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we divert resources" from the war in Afghanistan and from "other international challenges as well," she said.

While supporters of Bush's Iraq war policy often speak of the cost of leaving Iraq, they "ignore the greater cost of continuing the same failed policy," Clinton said. "I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops."

Later, Obama implicitly drew a distinction between his opposition to the war and Clinton's support of a 2002 resolution authorizing it. And he pointedly argued against Petraeus's rejection of setting a timeline for a U.S. pullout.

"I continue to believe the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder," Obama said in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He said last year's troop increase "has reduced violence" but that the Iraqi government has not taken advantage of it to resolve sectarian differences. The way to promote a resolution is by "applying increased pressure in a measured way," he told Petraeus and Crocker. This pressure, he said, should include a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

In response to questions from Levin and McCain, Petraeus acknowledged that an Iraqi offensive against Shiite Muslim militias and other armed groups in the southern oil hub of Basra was inadequately planned and executed. He said Maliki, who is a Shiite, ignored his advice in deciding to go ahead with the operation.

"There is no question that it could have been better planned and that the preparations could have been better," Petraeus said. He said the Iraqi forces were deployed rapidly and found themselves in combat "before all conditions were set."

He agreed with McCain that the operation has been "a disappointment" but cautioned that "it's not over yet," saying that Iraqi forces now control some key ports. "The operation is still very much ongoing," the general said.

In his opening statement, Petraeus cited "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq," saying that levels of violence and civilian deaths have declined substantially and that the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist organizations "have been dealt serious blows." In addition, he said, "the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security."

However, "the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory, and innumerable challenges remain," Petraeus said. "Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible."

In his opening remarks, Levin accused Maliki of "incompetence and excessively sectarian leadership" and said the United States must force Iraqi leaders "to take responsibility for their own future -- politically, economically and militarily."

He added: "Our current open-ended commitment is an invitation to continuing dependency. An open-ended pause starting in July would be just the next page in a war plan with no exit strategy." He quoted a senior U.S. military officer in Iraq as telling him during a recent visit, "It is time to take the training wheels off, and time to take our hands off the Iraqis' bicycle seat."

Levin charged that the Maliki government's "incompetence" was dramatized by its offensive in Basra. "Far from being the 'defining moment' President Bush described, it was a haphazardly planned operation, carried out apparently without meaningful consultation with the U.S. military or even key Iraqi leaders, while Maliki made unrealistic claims, promises and threats," he said.

Despite reaping a windfall from high oil prices, Iraq continues to rely on massive U.S. funding, Levin said. Instead of paying for "its own reconstruction," as the Bush administration promised it would, Iraq has been putting tens of billions of dollars of surplus oil revenue into bank accounts around the world, including about $30 billion in U.S. banks, he said.

While U.S. taxpayers fund at least $27.6 billion to date in major infrastructure projects, job training, education and the training and equipping of Iraq's security forces, they also are now paying $3 to $4 a gallon for gasoline, Levin said. "The Iraqi government seems content to sit by, build up surpluses and let Americans reconstruct their country and foot the bill. But the American people surely aren't content with that, and the Bush administration shouldn't be, either."

McCain also called on Iraq to use its own money to pay for more projects and programs and to "take on more of the financial burdens borne by American taxpayers."

But he strongly denounced calls by Democrats for what he termed "a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal" from Iraq at a time when the U.S. strategy is succeeding.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he did not want to keep U.S. troops in Iraq "a minute longer than necessary." But he warned that promising to withdraw forces "regardless of consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

Clinton used her turn at the microphone to emphasize the strains that Iraq has put on U.S. forces, saying that more than a quarter of the combat troops sent to Iraq in multiple deployments show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress.

She also grilled Crocker on the administration's plan to conclude an agreement with Iraq governing the presence of U.S. forces there. Crocker said Maliki plans to bring the agreement to the Iraqi legislature, but he said the Bush administration does not intend to put it before the U.S. Congress.

The veteran diplomat said the accord would be negotiated as "an executive agreement" and would probably not include elements that trigger the Senate's "advise and consent" role.

"I urge you to submit such an agreement to Congress for full consideration," Clinton told Crocker.

Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) told the panel that by his calculation, the current drawdown will leave 10,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq than before last year's buildup, or total troop strength of 141,000. There was no immediate explanation of the figure, which Petraeus did not dispute.

Webb said he understood there was a U.S. "security commitment" to Iraq in the agreement being negotiated, but Crocker said no such provision will be in the accord.