BOB SCHIEFFER: And with us now from Phoenix, Arizona, Republican Senator Jon Kyl, who has been a supporter of the president's policy pretty much all along.

But, Senator, I have to ask you this question. When General Petraeus comes before the Congress and he is asked what I think is the key question -- is it making us safer to keep these troops in Iraq -- he answered, I don't know. What is your response to that?

SEN. JON KYL: Those were the first three or four words that he spoke. Twice later in the hearing, he came back and gave a more fulsome answer that made it clear that he believes that if we succeed there, that it will help us be more secure here, and that the consequences of a premature withdrawal would have disastrous consequences, not only for the people in the area and the Iraqis, but also for our own security.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you just heard Senator Levin say it wouldn't cause a disaster if we left faster.

SEN. KYL: I don't know of any responsible foreign policy or military analyst that doesn't appreciate that a premature withdrawal would have severe national security consequences. The president has talked about it. Secretary Gates has talked about it. General Petraeus has talked about it.

Start with Iran. Leaving a vacuum in Iraq for Iran to fill would have disastrous consequences for us. The genocide that would likely -- and the ethnic cleansing that would probably occur if the Iraqi forces are not able to keep peace and stability there would be blood on our hands, in effect.

We went in there and bought it. And as Colin Powell has said, when you buy it, you own it then.

The consequences to our own security by Al Qaida having a place to plan and a safe haven for their work -- we can't predict, but we know that it would be disastrous to have a place for Al Qaida to be safe. All of these things would be horrible consequences for a premature -- as a result of a premature withdrawal.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this question, Senator. The president put great emphasis on the fact that the success we have accomplished so far in Iraq has made it possible to draw down these troops that we put in there this year. But other experts and even some people in the Pentagon will tell you that basically that the president had no choice, that we simply do not have an Army large enough to keep the number of troops we have in Iraq there past this spring. They say in the phrase of one, he is wrapping a vocabulary of success around what is frankly just a military necessity.

SEN. KYL: Well, two responses. First of all, if the object is to bring troops home, you would think people would be happy with that, regardless of what the reason was. Take yes for an answer, in other words.

But secondly, General Petraeus himself answered that question, and said that while it's his recommendation to begin bringing back the troops who were part of the surge, that he could have requested that the surge continue longer. We have the ability to do that.

SCHIEFFER: Do you -- does it bother you, I guess that's the way I would put it, that there have been no consequences for the failure of the Iraqi leaders to come together and work out the compromises and the things that are necessary to share power and make the country run efficiently?

SEN. KYL: In one sense, yes, but in another sense I think there have been consequences. Clearly, the talk in the United States about withdrawal is partially fueled by that. And I suspect that our troops could well be withdrawn earlier than they otherwise would have, because of the Iraqis' failure to achieve all of the success that we'd like to have them achieve.

But you had the right take on this in your question to Senator Levin, what makes you think that if we withdraw early, that that will help them achieve what we want them to achieve. All of the evidence points to the contrary, that the more stable the situation is, the more likely it is that they will achieve success.

One other thing. We always think of the Iraqis doing things our way. The top-down model is what we've talked about with these benchmarks. The Iraqis are actually working it bottom-up, from the provinces, and with the tribes. And it may be that that's the way the Iraqis end up doing things, not exactly the way that we would have them do it.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the president has simply left it to the next president to figure out what to do about Iraq when he talks about this long-term commitment? And clearly, there are going to be maybe 100,000 troops in Iraq next December, when the next president takes office in January.

SEN. KYL: No. President Bush is simply being realistic. Not all the troops are going to be pulled out before he leaves. Anybody that thinks that's incorrect simply doesn't understand the situation.

And the Iraqis themselves have asked for a long-term relationship with the United States. Why wouldn't we want a long-term relationship with an ally in that region?

But we're not going to have huge number of troops there in the long run, but, you know, 60 years after World War II we still have troops in Germany. And we have troops in Korea. So it's not unthinkable that we would have some level of troops. Bob, can I make a quick point here, though?

SCHIEFFER: Sure.

SEN. KYL: All of this talk about change of mission ignores a key fact. And that is, one of my colleagues in the Senate -- we're going to structure a change in the mission that will get 60 votes. The mission should be defined by the military requirements and our capabilities by General Petraeus. Not by senators on whatever it takes to get 60 votes.

And this concept of change in mission as somehow we can do counterinsurgency with a very small force is incorrect. May I just read what General Petraeus said about that?

SCHIEFFER: We have no time, Senator. Make this very quick.

SEN. KYL: Well, Petraeus makes the point that you can't do a counterinsurgency mission without conventional forces, without intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, all of the things that we have there today. That's what it takes to defeat Al Qaida in Iraq.