Iraq violence threatens U.S. troop drawdown

[rawstory]

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Officials_Iraq_violence_may_forestall_U.S._0227.html

LAT Titled: Pentagon Debate Flares Over Troop Levels

The recent explosion of violence in Iraq is forcing a debate inside the Pentagon about whether the U.S. military can proceed with plans to cut the number of troops in Iraq, Defense officials said Monday, The Los Angeles Times is set to frontpage in Tuesday editions, RAW STORY has learned. Excerpts:

#

The violence came at a crucial time for the U.S. military: Top generals must decide within weeks whether to carry out a long-anticipated reduction in American troops this summer. Threats of civil war in the country have raised questions about the wisdom of a troop drawdown in the next few months.

``One perspective certainly is that with so much turmoil, how can you possibly think about drawing down at this point?'' said one senior Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity because decisions on troop levels have yet to be made.
Advertisement

For nearly a year, senior commanders have said that political progress in Baghdad and the development of new Iraqi army units could lead to a substantial U.S. troop reduction this year. They have pointed to mid-2006 as a pivotal period, making pending decisions on troop levels a telling indicator of progress.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Officials_Iraq_violence_may_forestall_U.S._0227.html

[mom cat]

1. Surprise! ...not.

[fishnfla]

2. Civil war with or without US Troops

It doesn't matter. The Iraqi fiasco is a failure. History will show it is the worst foreign policy disaster to ever affect our nation, let alone the entire middle east.

What to fucking go bush.

[cliss]

3. This has interesting implications.

A while back, people were speculating that Bush HAS to draw down the troops in time for the mid-term elections in November. Remember all those threads? Everybody was speculating that Bush would draw down the troops, win a landslide election, and then send them right back to Iraq.

This really complicates the issue. Even after Rep. Murtha said, "You watch, they'll being the troops home".

The US public judges Bush primarily on his success/failure in Iraq. If it slides into civil war, Bush and his party are toast.

[Robeson]

6. This screws it up for Bush. They were planting the seed for token...

...withdrawels before mid-terms. Now, it doesn't look like he's going to be able to. People on here weren't wrong, they were calling it right, but events, have superseded Bush's ability to do so. Oh, well, back to tried and tested plan B for Bush...the voting machines.

[MrSlayer]

4. Right, as if they were ever going to bring them home.

The plan is to stay there forever.

[Voltaire99]

5. Occupations! Can't live with 'em--can't live without 'em!

"One perspective certainly is that with so much turmoil, how can you possibly think about drawing down at this point?'' said one senior Defense official

That perspective is not a little circular. The premise is that only peaceful conditions are suitable for these as-yet hypothetical drawdowns. But as the entire world can see, the occupation has always bred more "turmoil," as the good official delicately calls it. Accordingly, if we follow the official's logic, remaining in Iraq will always make it necessary to remain in Iraq. And only by quitting Iraq can the U.S. hope to produce conditions that would allow it to ever quit Iraq.

How about we flip a coin? Heads we leave next week. Tails we leave fucking tomorrow.

[Zhade]

8. Hear, hear!

:applause:

I recall hearing of another 'forced drawdown' - say, oh, little county in Indo-China?

Get the fuck OUT, already! It's DONE.

[saigon68]

7. speaking on condition of anonymity

ass-clowns fawning at the feet of the NeoCons