Gen. David H. Petraeus, left, accompanied by Ambassador Ryan Crocker, testifies on Capitol Hill yesterday, before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the status of the war in Iraq.

>

AP / Charles Dharapak

WASHINGTON — With the major presidential candidates adding pointed, on-the-spot commentary, the top U.S. commander in Iraq yesterday laid out a course that could leave more Americans fighting there when President Bush leaves office than when he ordered his strategic surge of 30,000 troops last year.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus told senators of “significant, but uneven security progress” in Iraq and reviewed his plan to finish reducing combat strength from 20 to 15 brigades by July, leaving more than 130,000 troops in Iraq. But at that point, Petraeus said U.S. officials will begin an assessment — with no firm decision deadline — of whether to make deeper force reductions sought by many political leaders and some Pentagon brass as well.

During more than five hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, outlined what they depicted as promising military, political and economic gains in Iraq — all of them “fragile and reversible,” in Crocker’s words, if the U.S. commitment flags.

Petraeus told the committee that since his last testimony in September, “levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially.” Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups “have been dealt serious blows,” he said, and Iraqi government forces have significantly improved their position.

“Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq,” Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee and top ranking committee Republican, said as the hearing opened. “We must choose, instead, to succeed.” McCain said that before Petraeus executed the surge strategy, “four years of mismanaged war” had left sectarian violence “spiraling out of control,” full-scale civil war seemingly “unavoidable,” al-Qaida on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces under extremist control.

Rather than a retreat with “terrible consequences,” the United States “chose to change strategies and try to turn things around,” McCain said. Now there is a chance for average Iraqis “to approach a more normal political and economic life,” he said, calling on Congress to sustain U.S. military support of the fledgling Iraqi government.

Without naming the rival Democratic presidential candidates who seek military reductions in Iraq, McCain warned against “a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our troops.”

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a Democratic presidential candidate and a junior member of the committee, retorted later: “It might well be irresponsible to continue this policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such a tremendous cost.”

Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, pressed Petraeus and Crocker later, before the Foreign Relations Committee, on their standard for success in Iraq. The Illinois senator said he worries that the goals — completely eliminating al-Qaida and Iranian influences — may be impossible to achieve and troops could be there for 20 or 30 years in a fruitless effort.

Over the course of the day, the contours of the partisan debate over the war — as well as fresh details of recent events and future war plans — emerged. Protesters attended as well, in black robes, sepulchral whiteface and hands painted blood read. One demonstrator interrupted McCain with loud slogans. Another was ejected after shouting repeatedly, “Bring them home.”

Clinton and other Democrats made clear that they will continue to press the Bush administration for a change of course that includes major withdrawals of troops — even though they lack the votes for Senate passage of such a policy.

Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed and others, Petraeus detailed some of the flaws and haste that plagued the Iraqi government’s recent offensive against Shiite militias in the key southern port of Basra — including the flight of some 1,000 members of the official forces. But he and Crocker reported encouraging signs that Iraqi army and police forces are beginning to learn their business under fire, while quarreling factions in the Iraqi parliament learn, haltingly, how to legislate the terms of a stable Iraqi future.

Petraeus was resolute in his refusal to spell out precisely how the long-sought reduction in the U.S. mission might proceed — or might not — after the so-called “surge brigades” are removed by July. Under the right conditions, force reductions might take a short time to begin, perhaps as early as the fall.

“It could be more than, it could be less than that” — possibly meaning no more troop cuts this year, Petraeus acknowledged under questioning from Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat. “I can’t give you any estimate” of how many U.S. troops will remain in Iraq at year’s end, Petraeus said.

Crocker warned that “a major departure from our current commitment would bring failure,” including “a second chance” for al-Qaida to establish a base in Iraq, more violent sectarian strife, and the opportunity for Iran to exploit the conflict among Iraq’s contesting ethnic and religious groups.

Levin told Petraeus that his recommendation of a possible suspension of troop cuts would “take the pressure off Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their own country.”

The only way to force the Iraqi government to take the political steps necessary for political reconciliation and stability, Levin said, is “to adopt a reasonable timetable for a change of mission and redeployment of most of our troops.”

“Promptly shifting responsibility to Iraqis for their own future — politically, militarily, economically — is the best hope for a successful outcome in Iraq and represents, finally, an exit strategy for most of our troops,” Levin said.

Petraeus and Crocker argued that there were encouraging aspects to the recent government offensive against Shiite militias in Basra, despite their view that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki rushed his Iraqi troops into the operation with insufficient preparation.

But in a blunt exchange with Petraeus, Reed argued that the rivalry between Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who leads one of the key dissident groups, and Shiite government leaders is far from the point where it can be resolved by political means.

Reed used the example of Sadr’s role in the conflict to argue that the internecine rivalries among Iraq’s Shiite groups remain intractable and fraught with the potential for violence. If that happens, U.S. forces are likely to be drawn into the conflict, Reed said.

jmulligan@belo-dc.com