Troop Reduction, Losing for Winning

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Dec 23, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

    For reasons that should be apparent, I'm not so sure the adminstration shouldn't just say, 'Hey Congress, we got everyone in place and in jail. You take over from here. ' It's obvious that no one can do it right enough, fast enough, or appropriately enough. Links at site:

    Rumsfeld: U.S. to Reduce Troops in Iraq

    By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 26 minutes ago

    Just days after Iraq's elections, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday announced the first of what is likely to be a series of U.S. combat troop drawdowns in Iraq in 2006.

    Rumsfeld, addressing U.S. troops at this former insurgent stronghold, said President Bush has authorized new cuts below the 138,000 level that has prevailed for most of this year.

    Rumsfeld did not reveal the exact size of the cut, but the Pentagon said the reductions would be about 7,000 troops, about the size of two combat brigades. The Pentagon has not announced a timetable for troop reductions, but indications are that the force could be cut significantly by the end of 2006.

    That could include substantial reductions well before the November midterm congressional elections, in which Bush's war policies seem certain to be a major issue.

    The announcement won praise from congressional Democrats, who also used it to prod President Bush to go even further. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was glad Bush was "beginning to hear the calls" of the American public and lawmakers who want more detail on the administration's objectives in Iraq.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she hoped the reduction "will quickly be followed by others that will result in all U.S. combat forces being redeployed from Iraq next year."

    Rumsfeld said two Army brigades that had been scheduled for combat tours — one from Fort Riley, Kan., the other now in Kuwait — would no longer deploy to Iraq. That would reduce the number of combat brigades in Iraq from 17 to 15.

    "The effect of these adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq by the spring of 2006 below the current high of 160,000 during the (Iraqi) election period to below the 138,000 baseline that had existed before the most recent elections," the defense secretary said.

    Under the plan, only portions of the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, now stationed at Fort Riley, would go to Iraq to provide security and help train the country's security forces, the Pentagon said. The 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, now in Kuwait, would remain there for an undetermined time, based on conditions in Iraq.

    Further reductions will be considered "at some point in 2006," after the new Iraqi government is in place and is prepared to discuss the future U.S. military presence, Rumsfeld added.

    The Pentagon sent an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq to bolster security during the recent elections, and Rumsfeld has previously said those 20,000 would be withdrawn in January to return U.S. force levels to a 138,000 baseline.

    Friday's announcement marks the first time Rumsfeld has said troop levels will dip below that baseline.

    Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that troop reductions depend on political progress in Iraq and improvements in Iraq's own security forces. Later, the defense secretary flew to Amman to visit a military training center outside the Jordanian capital where a small number of Iraqis are trained in commando skills.

    He watched Jordanian special operations soldiers in a mock assault on a building, using live ammunition, and then spoke to a group who are among the 92 undergoing training now. Rumsfeld told them their work is important to eventually allowing U.S. troops to leave their country.

    "The United States and the coalition countries are anxious to turn over the security responsibilities to the Iraqis as soon as we are able to do so," said Rumsfeld, who arrived in the country Thursday for his 11th visit since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

    Bush is under growing pressure from the Republican-run Congress to cut U.S. forces in Iraq. The conflict's acceptance by American voters has plummeted as the war's toll has mounted to more than 2,100 U.S. war dead and 15,000 wounded.

    Bush, Rumsfeld and other administration officials have said a withdrawal would begin when the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces show sufficient signs of being able to defend the country against insurgents.

    There were 159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq on Thursday.

    Iraq on Oct. 15 held a constitutional referendum, and on Dec. 15 held elections for a full-term government.

    For the first time since the insurgency took hold in Iraq in midsummer 2003, Rumsfeld was spending the night in the country. He previously had made Iraq day trips but spent the night in other countries in the region.
     
  2. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Who you trying to please, Kathianne? The winners or the losers?

    Your accompanying link and article only exemplifies, in this American's mind's eye, the continuing confusion of OUR present WAR. What's your specifics?Your "apparent" deal just ain't working for this American?

    Psychoblues


     
  3. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Im now wondering if some of these cry baby Dems who are mouthing off (Murtha) didnt time this on purpose. The thinking goes like this:

    "I know the troop reduction is about to begin, so I can publicly complain that we need to pull out, and immediately afterward, the troops will start coming home, and I can PROCLAIM it was because of my insistence" (even though it was scheduled to begin anyways)
     
  4. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    I don't think they were expecting the Bush admin to fight back as much as it did. Teached em'.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Psycho, The war isn't confusing. The fact that we are winning isnt confusing. What is confusing is why we have a major party trying to pretend as though we have lost when everything we wanted to happen has happened.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Because they no longer have a base group. They are a rag tag team of fringe elements with special interests. They work more on fear and collecting anti Bush people/groups than standing for anything.

    So, that pretension is needed to get the anti war crowd.
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You're an American? Could've fooled me. By your rants, I've had you pegged as a Middle Eastern, anti-American jihadist bent on legitimizing evil and telling whatever lies you feel necessary to do so.
     
  8. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    I pegged you for a self aggrandising gunnery sergeant from the USMC that has a short and perpetually soft penis and an even shorter and softer attention span. I haven't changed my mind about that.

    Let's discuss the article as presented by Robert Burns and it's aftermath.

    The article suggests that there are immediate troop reductions without considering there were troop level increases pre-election. Go figure? The article suggests that there is a credible and coherent plan for troop withdrawal in Iraq while the troop level remains at pre-election period levels. The article suggests that victory is at hand while casualty levels exceed previous levels. Go figure?


    Psychoblues
     

Share This Page