What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End of 2011

High_Gravity

Belligerent Drunk
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
40,159
Reaction score
7,084
Points
260
Location
Richmond VA
This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!:evil:

Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End Of 2011

r-IRAQ-TROOP-WITHDRAWAL-OBAMA-large570.jpg


The Obama administration is willing to drop American troop levels in Iraq to as low as 3,000 by the end of this year, The Huffington Post has confirmed.

The new figure, first reported Tuesday by Fox News, represents a significant drop in the number of American military personnel expected to remain in the country after the American mission in Iraq expires on Dec. 31.

A source familiar with the situation told HuffPost that the 3,000 figure was correct, although there may end up being as many as 5,000 troops in the country at any time, given the logistics of troop rotations.

Administration and Pentagon officials had hoped to secure Iraqi-government approval for a larger troop presence in Iraq into 2012, with the U.S. recently pushing for a final figure of around 10,000. But administration officials have lately come to believe that approval would be hard to get for anything more than a few thousand troops.

The troop presence would probably include some combination of military trainers and air and naval advisers, the source said, adding that some Pentagon officials fear the 3,000 number may be too small to achieve even their limited missions.

Pentagon spokesman George Little denied that any final decisions have been made on the troop levels.

"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," Little told HuffPost. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."

Administration officials have been debating troop withdrawal plans for months now, with many officials arguing that while current levels of some 45,000 troops are unsustainable, a long-term military presence is essential for stability in the region.

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress, said the ultimate troop figure might actually obscure a much larger presence of armed American personnel in the country, even after the U.S. withdraws.

"Whether it's three to five thousand, or something larger, the American footprint will remain quite large no matter what," Katulis said.

A May study by the U.S. Institute of Peace determined that even a total handover of responsibilities in Iraq from military to civilian personnel would leave 17,000 State Department contractors and employees in the country.

Plans outlined publicly by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq earlier in the year indicated that the Iraq mission would be the Americans' largest diplomatic presence in the world, including more than a dozen embassy, consular and military assistance sites.

Another 5,000 security contractors would be required to protect civilians at these sites.

"We're going to have the largest diplomatic and development presence in the world, and there's going to be a very large army of private contractors defending them," Katulis said.


UPDATE: 3:15 p.m. -- In an early indication of the strong reaction the newly proposed troop figures may prompt, hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham quickly tweeted his disapproval Tuesday afternoon, saying, "Reducing our troop presence down to 3,000 would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."

Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End Of 2011
 

Rocko

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
19,393
Reaction score
6,127
Points
350
Location
NY
This is a travesty, but it's what I come to expect from Obama...The man who accuses his opposition of putting elections in front of country.

His loyal supporters will say it's not politics, and they will point to his so-called bold decision on the surge in Afghanistan (which he's given up on), but that was politics too....He was considered soft on terror, and weak on foreign policy, so fine 30,000 more on the good war.

Now the left is mad and as is the right...he has to do something that will at least make a bit of sense, when it comes to jobs, so before he announces something that will make a little, he uses this as an olive branch to the left, because they don't like things that make sense...

Finally, right before the election he wants to rally the base by putting our troops in danger, all in the name of left wing peace and love..

he is a sociopath.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?
 

Rocko

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
19,393
Reaction score
6,127
Points
350
Location
NY
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?

as long as we agree it's all about votes.
 

Rocko

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
19,393
Reaction score
6,127
Points
350
Location
NY
He should reduce it to zero.

conventional wisdom would tell you, in this case 0 is better than just 3,000 combat troops..Agreed.
 

Dude111

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction score
71
Points
63
High_Gravity said:
This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!:evil:
YES THEY SHOULD ALL COME HOME!!!!!

This is indeed disgusting,what happend to his promise??

"IF THE TROOPS ARENT HOME BY THE TIME I GET IN OFFICE I WILL BRING THEM HOME"

Amazing how many idiots fell for that!!
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,093
Points
245
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?

Tell you what, when Iran invades Iraq, builds a nuclear bomb, and starts making demands of us if we want to eat, don't expect any sympathy from anyone you are laughing at.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,243
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?

Tell you what, when Iran invades Iraq, builds a nuclear bomb, and starts making demands of us if we want to eat, don't expect any sympathy from anyone you are laughing at.

When was the last time Iran invaded another country with it's regular military? I mean, like, this century?

This is fine example of a country radicalized by outside interference. Ours.
 
OP
High_Gravity

High_Gravity

Belligerent Drunk
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
40,159
Reaction score
7,084
Points
260
Location
Richmond VA
I'm serious these 3000 Troops are going to be in serious danger, leaving behind a small force like that basically means we are putting their protection in the hands of the Iraqi Military and Security Forces who are not to be trusted, they are infiltrated by both the Sunni and Shite Militias. If this goes through I will be very scared for the Troops left behind.
 
OP
High_Gravity

High_Gravity

Belligerent Drunk
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
40,159
Reaction score
7,084
Points
260
Location
Richmond VA
Plan Would Keep Small Force in Iraq Past Deadline

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is supporting a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in Iraq after a deadline for their withdrawal at year’s end, but only to continue training security forces there, a senior military official said on Tuesday.

The recommendation would break a longstanding pledge by President Obama to withdraw all American forces from Iraq by the deadline. But it would still involve significantly fewer forces than proposals presented at the Pentagon in recent weeks by the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, to keep as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there.

The proposal for a smaller force — if approved by the White House and the Iraqi government, which is not yet certain — reflected the shifting political realities in both countries.

It also reflected the tension between Mr. Obama’s promise to bring all American forces home and the widely held view among commanders that Iraq is not yet able to provide for its own security. And it reflected the mounting pressures to reduce the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that have become increasingly unpopular as the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, approaches.

Even as the military reduces its troop strength in Iraq, the C.I.A. will continue to have a major presence in the country, as will security contractors working for the State Department.

In Iraq, a lingering American military presence is hugely contentious, even though some political leaders, especially among the Kurds and Sunnis, would like some American troops to stay as a buffer against what they fear will be Shiite political dominance, coupled in turn with the rising influence of neighboring Iran.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, has also indicated he would consider allowing American trainers to stay beyond the deadline, negotiated by President George W. Bush. At the same time, he owes his position as prime minister to the political followers of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who vehemently opposes any Americans remaining.

The Iraqi cabinet authorized the beginning of talks over an American military presence, but insisted that they be limited to a training mission, a senior administration official said. Mr. Panetta’s recommendation fell “within the confines of what the Iraqis said they need,” the official said.

Mr. Panetta himself, in comments to reporters as he traveled to New York for a Sept. 11 commemoration on Tuesday, said that no decisions had been made about how many American troops would remain in Iraq after the end of this year.

But despite the reluctance of several administration officials to publicly get out ahead of a formal recommendation and a presidential decision on such a delicate issue, as a practical matter Mr. Panetta has almost run out of time for the military to plan the logistics of a withdrawal by year’s end.

A recommendation to keep 3,000 American troops, first reported on Tuesday by Fox News, would leave in place a token force where many commanders had hoped to see a robust presence continue in a region that is viewed as strategic to American interests.

News of the plan was met with dismay by three senators who visited Iraq many times during the war: Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, and his Republican colleagues John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three released a statement calling the 3,000 troops “dramatically lower than what our military leaders” have said “is needed to support Iraq in safeguarding the hard-won gains that our two nations have achieved at such great cost.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?ref=middleeast
 

Rocko

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
19,393
Reaction score
6,127
Points
350
Location
NY
I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..

After everything we have sacraficed in this war, securing victory should be the first priority..Why would Obama not listen to his generals?

I know he's the commander in chief, but why should we believe his judgment is better?

Everyone wants our troops home, but I don't think we should forget about those who died for this cause, and what it would be like for them to die in vain.
 
OP
High_Gravity

High_Gravity

Belligerent Drunk
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
40,159
Reaction score
7,084
Points
260
Location
Richmond VA
I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..

After everything we have sacraficed in this war, securing victory should be the first priority..Why would Obama not listen to his generals?

I know he's the commander in chief, but why should we believe his judgment is better?

Everyone wants our troops home, but I don't think we should forget about those who died for this cause, and what it would be like for them to die in vain.

Leaving a small number of troops like this is even worse than pulling out completely, if we pull them all out we will ensure our troops are safe, the situation in Iraq for better or worse is pretty much as good as it is going to get. If you leave a small number of US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq they will be sitting ducks for all the insurgent groups out there, its a bad idea. This whole thing reminds me of the Beirut barracks bombing back in the 80s.
 

Rocko

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
19,393
Reaction score
6,127
Points
350
Location
NY
I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..

After everything we have sacraficed in this war, securing victory should be the first priority..Why would Obama not listen to his generals?

I know he's the commander in chief, but why should we believe his judgment is better?

Everyone wants our troops home, but I don't think we should forget about those who died for this cause, and what it would be like for them to die in vain.

Leaving a small number of troops like this is even worse than pulling out completely, if we pull them all out we will ensure our troops are safe, the situation in Iraq for better or worse is pretty much as good as it is going to get. If you leave a small number of US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq they will be sitting ducks for all the insurgent groups out there, its a bad idea. This whole thing reminds me of the Beirut barracks bombing back in the 80s.

I agree 0 is a better alternative than 3000, but im not sure that the situation is as good as it's going to get....I would defer to the men in charge of the war.

I will conced that its hard to imagine a total collapse...We'll still have amost 50,000 troops there any way, but we want a secure base, as well as a a secure Iraq..

In your opinion, would trusting the generals not be the right thing to do?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top