Troop cuts may take heat out of U.S. Iraq debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The prospect of sizable troop cuts in Iraq may allow both U.S. presidential candidates to claim vindication, defusing what was once expected to be an explosive election issue.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois still have significant differences in how they view Iraq and those could come into sharper focus if current security improvements are not sustained.

But security gains in Iraq and recent policy statements in Baghdad and Washington suggest that the candidates, the Bush administration, Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders could all end up broadly in alignment over the way ahead in Iraq.

Obama, who visited Iraq earlier this week, has a goal of pulling all U.S. combat troops out of the country within 16 months of taking office -- giving him a target of mid-2010.

Obama wants to free up troops to tackle worsening violence in Afghanistan and commanders say the stretched U.S. military can only provide those forces once it has cut back in Iraq.

McCain also wants to send more troops to Afghanistan but he sees Iraq as the priority and favors the current policy of withdrawing troops from there gradually as commanders deem an area is safe enough to remain stable without U.S. forces.

But if Iraq continues to stabilize as it has over the past year, commanders' recommendations could allow troops to pull out roughly in line with Obama's timetable, some analysts say.

Adding to the impression of positions converging, the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki suggested during Obama's visit that foreign combat troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2010, if security conditions allow.

As Obama has said he will not be rigid in implementing his plan and wants to leave a "residual force" to conduct counter-terrorism missions, train Iraqi forces and guard U.S. diplomats, the differences seem to narrow even further.

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane said many of the main players in Iraq policy, including U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, likely had similar views on when troops could leave.

"If you took what's in Petraeus's mind -- and I'm not suggesting I know -- and our political candidates and probably Maliki and you asked them to put something on a piece of paper in terms of timing, I don't think there would be that much difference," he said.

MORE CUTS EXPECTED

The United States has some 148,000 troops in Iraq, having this year withdrawn more than 10,000 soldiers deployed in 2007 to stem rampant violence that came close to all-out civil war and made the conflict deeply unpopular in the United States.

With violence now at four-year lows, U.S. military officials have said they expect to make more cuts later this year. Analysts expect that further, more substantial withdrawals will follow after that if security holds.

"We are going to reduce our forces probably rather considerably in 2009 and also in 2010," Keane, who has advised Petraeus and recently returned from a trip to Iraq, told a seminar organized by the American Enterprise Institute.

But while they may foresee big troop cuts ahead, U.S. military commanders oppose the policy of a public timetable.

They say announcing military plans in advance would hand an advantage to America's enemies in Iraq -- from al Qaeda militants to Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias -- and could put security gains at risk.

Analysts also caution that statements about timeframes by Iraqi leaders should not always be taken at face value, particularly as provincial elections are on the horizon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst and retired U.S. Army officer, said they were trying not to alienate Iraqi voters or U.S. presidential candidates.

"I think they're just basically keeping their options open," said Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

"No Iraqi leader wants to be seen by the Iraqi people as advocating an American occupation," he added.

Nevertheless, for the first time, the Bush administration last week also accepted the idea of agreeing on dates for troop cuts -- even though it insisted the planned "time horizon" would contain only aspirations, not a fixed timeline.

Krepinevich said the administration also had a political incentive for backing troop cuts -- to send a message before the end of President George W. Bush's term that America had finally succeeded in a war that defined his presidency.

"You can probably look for a reduced American troop presence, in part because of success in military operations," he said.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)