From the New York Times, April 11:

Bush Defies Calls for Faster Withdrawal of Iraq Troops
WASHINGTON — Declaring that the United States had averted failure in Iraq, President Bush said on Thursday that the senior commander there could "have all the time he needs" before reducing troops further. Mr. Bush ordered shorter tours for troops, but defied calls by Democrats in Congress to withdraw more troops more quickly.

Mr. Bush defended the costs of the war, in lives and money, and said that withdrawing from Iraq would be catastrophic to the national interests. He signaled that an American force nearly as large as at any point in the last five years would remain in Iraq through his presidency, leaving any significant changes in policy to the next president.

"Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: al Qaeda and Iran," Mr. Bush said, speaking at the White House to an audience that included Vice President Dick Cheney, the secretaries of state and defense and representatives of veterans organizations...

"If we fail there, Al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies," he said. "Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region." Mr. Bush's focus on Iran, while not new, reflected deepening concerns in the administration and the Pentagon about that country's support for some extremists, which was evident during the indecisive Iraqi operation late last month to wrest control of Basra from Shiite militias...

He also announced that American troops headed to Iraq after Aug. 1 would deploy for only 12 months, instead of 15 months, a hugely unpopular extension he imposed as part of the buildup in Iraq last year. He also said that troops would remain at home at least a year for each year spent in the field, a requirement that many lawmakers wanted to codify in legislation.

Both had been key recommendations of the armed services and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who worried about the strain the war in Iraq was having on military readiness. At the same time, though, Mr. Bush endorsed the recommendation of General Petraeus to suspend any more withdrawals for at least 45 days after the last of the additional units ordered in last year leave in July.

At that point the United States will have just under 140,000 troops in Iraq, slightly more than were in early 2007, when sectarian violence verge on all-out civil war and Mr. Bush ordered in five more combat brigades as what became known as "the surge."

In his congressional testimony, General Petraeus said he needed 45 days to assess security in Iraq once those brigades leave, but he declined, despite persistent questioning, to commit to any additional withdrawals, saying that any reductions would be based on conditions that he did not clearly define.

Nor did Mr. Bush in his statement. "General Petraeus says he’ll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions," he said. "And I've told him he’ll have all the time he needs."

Isn't it neat how the enemy in Iraq has quietly switched from Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and Iran? And how the end of the "surge" will leave more troops in Iraq than the 135,000 there when "major combat operations" were declared over five years ago?