http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1224iraq-troops24.html

Hope rises for more troop cuts General: 'Less is better because it doesn't feed notion of occupation'

Robert Burns Associated Press Dec. 24, 2005 12:00 AM

FALLAJAH, Iraq - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's rationale for starting to shrink the U.S. military force in Iraq, even the setting of his announcement in this former insurgent stronghold, suggests U.S. officials foresee more cuts in coming months.

Those reductions, along with plans to shift some American troops to support roles like training Iraqi security forces, raise the possibility that U.S. losses may decline as well.

Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters after Rumsfeld announced the troops cuts Friday that he hopes to recommend more reductions as early as next spring, assuming progress such as formation of an Iraqi government.

But he added, "I don't have a goal for the end of 2006."

Casey said that with Rumsfeld's announced canceling of the deployment to Iraq of two Army brigades - one from the 1st Infantry Division in Kansas and the other from the 1st Armored Division now in Kuwait - the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq will drop by about 7,000, to about 130,000 by March. This year's base level has been about 138,000.

"In this kind of war that we're fighting, more is not necessarily better," Casey said. "In fact, in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation" or further deepen the Iraqis' dependence on American firepower.

In remarks to U.S. troops here and to Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad, Rumsfeld made similar points. He said the U.S. "footprint" must not be so large or intrusive as to "antagonize a proud and patriotic people or to discourage the Iraqi people from taking initiative to run their own country."

Those remarks echoed the argument by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a leading advocate of a quick U.S. pullout, who says the presence of American forces is helping fuel the insurgency.

Congressional Democrats praised the announcement and urged President Bush to go even further. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she hopes the reduction "will quickly be followed by others that will result in all U.S. combat forces being redeployed from Iraq next year."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he still wants Bush to "level with the American people" about the conditions he wants before more troops can be brought home.

Besides the force reduction, American officials have begun talking about shifting the roles of some U.S. combat troops to more behind-the-scenes tasks, such as advising Iraqi units.

"The coalition will continue to transfer responsibility for security operations to the Iraqi security force and place more emphasis on supporting Iraqi forces through training, support activities and counter- terrorist operations," Rumsfeld said in a speech to several hundred soldiers, sailors and Marines in a hall decorated with trappings of Christmas.

At the Pentagon on Thursday, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "You're going to read increasingly about Iraqi units" doing combat tasks as some American fighting units are replaced by technical-support teams.

Some officials believe that could reduce U.S. casualties, which have surpassed 2,100 dead.

Others caution that it will take time for the U.S. to cede its combat role to the Iraqis.

"I think we should be braced for it to be quite slow," said Brookings Institution foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon, "and 2006 will still be a bloody year in Iraq."