Bush, Under Pressure to Cut Troops, Faces Dilemma in Iraq

[bemildred]

Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush and his defense and foreign policy advisers meet at the president's ranch today facing a dilemma on Iraq, with pressure to start bringing troops home balanced against the risk of destabilizing the new government if the U.S. withdraws too soon.

The administration has settled on a ``rolling target'' for troop reductions as the Iraqis approach another political milestone next week by drafting a constitution, according to administration officials and defense analysts.

``We can't ramp up because we don't have the forces,'' said Loren Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, a defense policy research group in Arlington, Virginia. ``That leaves two choices: we stick it out for years to come or come up with some excuse to draw down our forces'' he said. ``It is abundantly clear that the Bush administration wants out.''

Bowing to U.S. demands, Iraq's interim government has vowed to meet an Aug. 15 deadline for a draft constitution, an October referendum and a December general election. With those dates on the calendar and continued efforts to train Iraqi security forces, the Pentagon is forming plans to cut the number of troops in Iraq to 100,000 by mid-2006 after raising the number to 160,000 from the current 138,000 for the elections.

Bloomberg

[NNN0LHI]

1. Wonder why they are still working to build all them permanent bases then?

Its because this is smoke and mirrors. Bush won't leave the worlds second largest known oil reserves because of what someone thinks. He doesn't care what anyone thinks. If people keep signing up to guard oil pipelines Bush will keep sending them. That is the truth.

Don

[bemildred]

3. Yes. They will blow their brains out in a bunker,

along with their girl friends and dogs, before
admitting that they are and always were full of it.

[cliss]

16. Yes, exactly. My first thought on reading that sentence,

"It's abundantly clear that they want out".

Really? Since when? And why? As you mentioned, what about the 14 bases that CONGRESS approved.

What does Bush care about troops. Now, I'd like to know more about this Loren Thompson and the Lexington Institute. Are they a right-wing Think Tank? Are they responsible for feeding the public more lies?

One of the best things I learned since surfing into the DU is the wording of articles. Here, the posters nit-pick a biased article to death, and you can really see through to the truth of all the crap. They've sliced and diced and dissected articles. I've started to think that way now. Whenever I read stuff like this, I always wonder about the source.

[tabasco]

18. He cares what his corporate overlords tell him to do.

That would inlude the Saudis, Dick Cheney, and other people with lots and lots of money.

Those are the ONLY people Bush listens to. For his willing participation in corporate warmongering, Bush is guilty of war crimes IMO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. This doesn't say they want to remove all troops, just cut them

They don't need loads of troops at the permanent bases - they're not going to be there to patrol Iraq. The smaller number of troops that will be there will be to maintain the bases in readiness - so that if there's any sign that the US's control of the government is slipping, they can send a lot more troops, planes etc. over. America can't afford to keep huge numbers of troops all over the world - just enough to man secure garrisons that they can reinforce at short notice.

The chaos on the streets outside the bases will be Somebody Else's Problem, as far as the Pentagon is concerned. All they worry about is having the military upper hand in the region.

[Cocoa]

2. it's not "abundantly clear" to me

I personally think the talk of troop reductions is another Big Lie, which the media is not nearly skeptical enough of.

This article makes absolutely no mention of the serious questions about the sincerity of all the troop reduction talk, or about the parallels to Vietnam. It simply takes it at face value and goes from there.

It also makes no mention of this recent statement:

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-5/112376259579010.xml&storylist=topstories

But first the Pentagon will likely have to increase the number of U.S. troops above the current 138,000 to improve security for a planned October referendum and a December election, when a burst of insurgent violence is expected, Rumsfeld spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said this week.

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, this is mostly bullshit.

But they really are painted into a corner, so I am wondering what the next "strategy" is going to be?

[leftchick]

9. the next stratergery....

[bemildred]

11. And this:

[leftchick]

12. Bell is the best!

thanks, I needed that. :)

[Journeyman]

17. Actually, the article does mention the planned increase. . .

". . . the Pentagon is forming plans to cut the number of troops in Iraq to 100,000 by mid-2006 after raising the number to 160,000 from the current 138,000 for the elections."

[Catchawave]

5. But aren't the military leaders asking for more troops ?

It's heartbreaking enough that most of these troops are reservists, and especially disturbing that we lost a firefighter and police officer in the latest casualties :( We're wiping out our First Responders, which I fear is making Amerikka more vulnerable, and yes, less secure.

Paul Hackett and Cindy Sheehan speak for me !

Edit: left out a word and spellllling

[bemildred]

6. That's an interesting question.

What are the "military leaders" on the ground asking for? Damn if I know; although the unit that just got chewed up in W. Iraq was reported to have asked for another 1K troops, and been denied, before being chewed up.

I've seen some internet rumors that the sanctions on the 4-star at TRADOC had nothing to do with sexual misconduct and everything to do with weeding out "insubordinates" that had the temerity to point out the bonehead stupidity of Dumbsfeldt's military policies.

[tblue37]

13. Commanders on the ground are asking for more troops.

Higher-ups are saying, "Of course commanders on the ground want more troops. Commanders on the ground always want more troops. But they don't look at the big picture, and the big picture is that we have enough troops."

Of course, these higher-ups are careerists who don't want to rock the boat and maybe lose their chance to keep moving up by contradicting Rummy and Bush, who say we have enough troops. They are all aware of what happened to Gen. Shinsheki when he went against the cakewalk party-line and said we would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq.

[ninkasi]

15. That was my opinion, bemildred

regarding the 4 star general. It's only my opinion, though, and is based on nothing but this administration's record, and how they operate.

This war, which * wanted in the face of world opposition, isn't quite going the way frat brat thought it would. Let's just get our troops home now, before any more are needlessly slaughtered, sacrificed to Dubya's massive ego.

[leftchick]

10. biden, clinton. reed and lieberman are asking for "more troops"

it isn't just the military. :(

[Catchawave]

14. I think they're listening and paying attention to the

military ? Unfortunately, right now, the military are between a rock and hard place under Bushco. I hope more politcos are listening :patriot:

I've spent my entire life as a military dependent....daughter and wife...and as a Dem, always felt like the monkey in the middle !

Maybe the new Support the Troops Dem cry, should be "Listen to the Commanders". Or Paul Hackett ! Anyone ?

[tabasco]

19. That was LBJ's biggest mistake.

Believing Westmoreland's lies.

Now these foolish Senators are going to believe generals that the Bush administration has moved to the top?

[Catchawave]

20. Gotcha !

...and these generals wouldn't dare question this "noble cause".

So sad :(

[MisterP]

24. I don't think Bidenmanllary are being fooled, however: they move in

imperialist circles--PNAC affiliates like the Black Sea bloc, Cmte. on the Present Danger, AVOT, and calls for invasions from Lebanon to Venezuela. They make me vomit.

[bluestateguy]

7. You know what angers me?

If tomorrow Bush ordered all troops out of Iraq in 6 months--to in effect, end the war--he would get a huge bounce in the polls. He would get political credit for ending the clusterfucked, phony war that he started. Not fair.

[iconoclastic cat]

8. Only until the vets started to speak out.

Then his goose is cooked.

[alfredo]

21. He already is bring troops home.

[Jacobin]

23. QUAGMIRE

Rumsfeld said "I don't do quagmires" so this is just another lie.