THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Published February 01. 2005

U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq May Drop Soon




By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
The first visible move toward reducing the American military force in Iraq could come as soon as March. That's when thousands of soldiers and Marines whose tours were extended prior to the election are due to go home.

If they do, that would shrink the overall force to about 138,000, the level that prevailed for much of last year before U.S. commanders decided they needed extra troops for election security.

The timing of cutbacks beyond that is highly uncertain. Stretched thin by a larger-than-expected commitment of troops in Iraq, the Army and Marine Corps would like to reduce forces soon. Administration officials are determined to avoid setting a specific timetable.

"It's not a month or a year. It's condition-based," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday in a CNN interview - his first public comments since the Iraq election.

Further reductions in 2005 will depend not only on the pace at which Iraqi government security forces are trained to confront the insurgency but also a political unknown: how the new transitional government that emerges from the elections will develop and contribute to stability.

Numerous times since the Iraq invasion was launched in March 2003 the Pentagon has laid plans for substantial withdrawals of forces, but those plans were scratched as the insurgency intensified and it became apparent that it would take longer to train adequate Iraqi security forces.

One year ago, for example, the Pentagon was planning to reduce the force to about 105,000 troops by the spring of 2004. That never happened. Instead of shrinking, the force grew.

Some U.S. analysts see slim odds that the Iraqis can handle the insurgency on their own.

"The Iraqi security forces are still largely penetrated by the insurgents and are largely ineffective," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service.

Katzman said a significant reduction in the U.S. force would risk a collapse of the Iraqi government.

"I don't see a point where we can realistically drawdown extensively and be able to depart without the place completely falling apart," he added.

Hopes that U.S.-trained Iraq security forces could bear more of the burden prior to the election fell short, prompting commanders to extend the tours of about 10,400 soldiers and Marines. In addition, about 1,500 soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division were sent in December for a four-month stint.

When the troop extensions were announced Dec. 1, Pentagon officials said those units would be sent home over a period of weeks starting in March unless circumstances changed.

No decision has been announced, but several defense officials speaking this week on condition of anonymity said the planned reduction from 150,000 troops to 138,000 was on track.

That reduction of 12,000 troops is exactly the number Sen. Edward Kennedy has urged the Pentagon to withdraw immediately. In a speech last week in which he became the first senator to urge the Bush administration to negotiate a timetable for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, Kennedy said they should all be gone as early as possible in 2006.

It's not clear what the position of a new transitional Iraqi government will be, but Ghazi al-Yawer, the current president, said Tuesday in Baghdad that it would be "complete nonsense" for Iraq to ask foreign troops to leave now. He said that some might go by the end of the year.

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in congressional testimony Tuesday that U.S. forces must get out of Iraq in the next two or three years, even at the risk of failing to achieve the main objective of stabilizing the country.

But he argued against a precipitous departure.

"`Cut and run' may become a necessity, but it can never be a strategy; only a massive defeat," he said.

Last December the Pentagon extended tours in Iraq of about 4,400 soldiers of the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd brigade; about 3,500 from the 2nd brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, about 2,300 from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, and 160 from an Army transportation company.

Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, deputy director of operations for the Joint Staff, said at the time that they would begin returning to their home bases in early or mid-March.

---

Iraqi president says U.S. troops should stay

... Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia first and use that country as 'light' for other countries to follow into democracy?

I think the answer is simply the close ties the Bush administration (and other previous administration, even clinton) has with the Saudi regime kept them from naturally following the trail of the 9/11 hijackers that actually did harm our country. I am amazed that the bush administration took time out to go to Afghanistan in a half hearted attempt to get Bin Ladden before going to Iraq.

It is good that the Iraqi's got to vote, but it still made no sense to invade Iraq when you consider all the other countries that still don't get to vote and are under just as oppressive regime's as Saddam Hussein if not worse. China comes to mind and there are a whole host of others. There are also a lot more terrorist and ties to AQ in other countries with a lot more "harboring" support than Iraq had if taken in the context that you defined "harboring support."

[size=8]And like Freedom Medalist Jerry Bremer, we'll disappear suddenly so that no one knows we've left until we're already gone. No, really, Dick Cheney will tell Bush when it's time, just like everything else. [/size]The truth is our george has no better idea about when we will leave than the one picking his nose in the Oval Office does. [size=8]Pressure from Americans who will grow suddenly tired, now that the elections have been held, of watching our soldiers die will have a lot to do with it, I suspect. That may be quite awhile (as in decades), especially as long as a skittish and gullible 50.8% of the electorate keep tuning in FOX for the latest...[/size]

george don't you kinda (maybe a little bit) think the whole exit idea giving a time frame is a two edged sword? I mean really, there is the valid argument that it might inspire the insurgents and on the other hand might give the Iraqi people some sense that in some knowable furture they will not be an occupied nation. Tough act I realize but not quite as clear as you seem to indicate. Yeah I know this is all a bit obscure but then actual measurable intentions have consistently not been in the Bush agenda.

georgeob, Glad to see you are so clear in this administration's plans for our troops in Iraq. Planning to build 14 US bases doesn't seem like we are planning to pull out any time soon. Having the largest embassy in the world in a country with 25 million people seems to this observer a bit of an over-kill, but what the heck, we'll leave as soon as the new Iraqi government asks us to scat.

You appear frozen to belief in both your own lies and to the lies of those to whom you compulsively adhere.

ican711nm wrote:

You appear frozen to belief in both your own lies and to the lies of those to whom you compulsively adhere.

What lies? Point them out. Mine, others, anyone's.I challenge you to respond without the ad hominem. I'm betting you can't.

That's remarkable. You lie about what ideas President Bush has or doesn't have

and then have the audacity to accuse me of ad hominem for declaring you lied.

You don't know what ideas Bush has or doesn't have, nor even what ideas Bush had or didn't have.

Reminds me of a revised version of an old saying: "sounds like a case of the griddle calling the pot greasy."

how does one refute another's ad hominem statement without one using ad hominem?

Yep. You called me a liar, but can't find where I lied.
... Where did I claim to know Bush's mind?

And like Freedom Medalist Jerry Bremer, we'll disappear suddenly so that no one knows we've left until we're already gone. No, really, Dick Cheney will tell Bush when it's time, just like everything else. The truth is our george has no better idea about when we will leave than the one picking his nose in the Oval Office does. Pressure from Americans who will grow suddenly tired, now that the elections have been held, of watching our soldiers die will have a lot to do with it, I suspect. That may be quite awhile (as in decades), especially as long as a skittish and gullible 50.8% of the electorate keep tuning in FOX for the latest...

You appear frozen to belief in both your own lies and to the lies of those to whom you compulsively adhere.

I have said this a dozen times; I'm going to say it again: I am going to be this President's most vocal critic on this forum. And if you don't like it, that's too bad. But your attempts to do me the way I am going to do Dubya are against the TOS.

The bottom line for you is: defend your boy or STFU.

PDiddie wrote:

Yep. You called me a liar, but can't find where I lied.
... Where did I claim to know Bush's mind?

PDiddie wrote:

And like Freedom Medalist Jerry Bremer, we'll disappear suddenly so that no one knows we've left until we're already gone. No, really, Dick Cheney will tell Bush when it's time, just like everything else. The truth is our george has no better idea about when we will leave than the one picking his nose in the Oval Office does. Pressure from Americans who will grow suddenly tired, now that the elections have been held, of watching our soldiers die will have a lot to do with it, I suspect. That may be quite awhile (as in decades), especially as long as a skittish and gullible 50.8% of the electorate keep tuning in FOX for the latest...

I don't care how vocal a critic you are of the President.

I shall, however, from time to time, point out that when you claim the truth is X has no better idea you are lying, because you do not know the truth of what ideas X has or doesn't have.

"The bottom line" for me is whatever I say the bottom line for me is. Furthermore, I will defend who I want, when I want, how I want, if I want. And, when I want, I will identify self-evident lies perpetrated by anyone (you included) whether they are participating in this forum or not.

...Finally, something we can agree on. You can say, defend, do anything you want. The truth is, you deserve to be banned from the forum for continually and repeatedly calling me a liar.Dare to call me a liar again?

You appear frozen to belief in both your own lies and to the lies of those to whom you compulsively adhere.