Petraeus encounters opposition even among some superiors

WASHINGTON — For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible. Adm. William Fallon, his superior, argued instead for taking more risks to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats.

The discussion this month masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Mideast, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. He soon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops. One plan, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. forces in Iraq from 169,000 to about 35,000 by 2010.

In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus' team and exacerbated a schism between the two.

"Bad relations?" a senior civilian official laughed. "That's the understatement of the century. ... If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it."

The Bush administration has presented a united front, but senior officials remain split over whether Bush's strategy will work in the long term.

Fallon worries that Iraq is undermining the military's ability to confront other threats, such as Iran. "When he took over, the reality hit him that he had to deal with Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and a whole bunch of other stuff besides Iraq," a top officer said.

Fallon also was derisive of the Iraqi government's intentions and competence. "He's been saying from day one, 'This isn't working,' " a senior administration official said.

To Bush aides, Defense Secretary Robert Gates also has not seemed fully on board with the president's strategy. As a member of the Iraq Study Group, he had embraced proposals to scale back U.S. troops.

A Pentagon official said Gates has been "very concerned about all of our energy" being devoted to Iraq, an "overcommitment that is consuming and distracting us from everything else. [But] he knows there can't be another Saigon. There's this balance."

Petraeus has done his part in Baghdad, hosting dozens of lawmakers and military scholars for PowerPoint presentations on why the Bush strategy had made gains. Many Republicans and even Democrats, notably Rep. Brian Baird of Washington, came home impressed. Petraeus also persuaded intelligence officials to revise key judgments of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to reflect security gains.

Some visitors suspected a skewed picture. "We only saw things that reinforced their message that the surge was working," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

In early September, Bush visited Anbar province, where he met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, then with Sunni sheiks to highlight success of a U.S.-tribal coalition.

The trip energized Bush and his team. Even Gates said he was more optimistic than he had been since taking office.

But the trip did not end debate. Fallon has argued that Petraeus should consider political realities and lay out a guide to troop withdrawals, while Petraeus has resisted. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been sympathetic to Fallon's view.

Fallon said he and Petraeus have reached accommodation. "The most important thing is I'm very happy with what Dave has recommended," he said. As for earlier discussions, he begged off. "It's too politically charged right now."