Does anyone believe our troops will start to come home

[heretheycome]

after the elections in Iraq? My thinking is we will start to bring them home for our summer bombing in syria

[leftchick]

1. The USA has built 14 Permanent Military bases and

the largest embassy in the world in Iraq for a reason.

[heretheycome]

5. so we are staying

I can't take much more of this. I just refuse to believe we are doing this all for oil, but then I again I can't believe another woman would kill a pregnant woman just to take her baby.

Happy Holidays all!
:-(

[leftchick]

8. You need to learn about the PNAC....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

the "war" in Iraq is part of their plan for American Empire!

[heretheycome]

10. I perused it

I am familiar with William Pitt's writings as I live only a few towns away.

China and Russia will not allow us to do this. Will not happen... as she writes insecurely

[leftchick]

23. these neo-cons are insane...

and drunk with power. Common sense has nothing to do with it...

here is another link...

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

[Paleocon]

13. PNAC is evil...

Bad news those guys...

:mad:

[Peter Frank]

16. If I'm not mistaken, I've seen you on Hannity's board.

n/t

[Paleocon]

24. I'm sure there is more than one Paleocon...

I can assure you I wouldn't want anything to do with Hannity.

He's not my idea of a conservative...

He is however, my idea of a hypocrite...

Along with his pal O'Reilly.

[0007]

30. Military installations.....

The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.

Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.

The actual amount depends on how many troops are stationed there for the long term. If the US decides to reduce its forces there from the 138,000 now to, say, 50,000, and station them in bases, the costs would run between $5 billion to $7 billion a year, estimates Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. That's two to three times as much as the annual American subsidy to Israel. Providing protection for Israel is one of several reasons some analysts cite for the US invasion of Iraq.

If more troops are based in Iraq for the long haul, the cost would be higher. US Army planners are preparing to maintain the current level of forces in Iraq at least through 2007, The New York Times reported this week. But no decision has been made at the political level.

So far, the Bush administration has not publicly indicated that it will seek permanent bases in Iraq to replace those recently given up in Saudi Arabia, a possibility mentioned by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz before US forces moved into Iraq. The US already has bases in Kuwait and Qatar.

Where is the truth in this matter?

[MikeG]

2. 22 troops are coming home from Mosul. In body bags.

[leftchick]

3. if they are admitting to 22 in just a few hours...

after the attack you can be sure it will be more. Not to mention the wounded. :(

[LynnTheDem]

4. No. And BUSH just SAID they would NOT be coming home in 2005.

BUSH said the troop levels will INCREASE and REMAIN INCREASED thru all of 2005.

And RUMMY just said he hoped troops would be out by 2008-2009.

AMAZING tho how many rightwingnuts think our troops are coming home after "elections". They dion't even listen to their own bush-god and Rummy-god!

[Charles19]

20. They thought they were coming home after the invasion too

There will be a lot more going before there is ever more coming home. My estimate would be 8-15 years of bloody occupation. Or if people keep electing right wing nutjobs, we will go full blown Isaeli style occupation and just never leave.

[x_y_no]

6. No ...

I don't quite understand the argument that once some flawed form of elections are held, suddenly everything is going to be dandy. The Shiite majority is going to win, the Kurds will hold their own, and the Sunnis will be out of luck. We think they're going to be happy with that and just put down their guns?

I predict that that at this time next year we'll have a minimum of 200,000 troops in Iraq. I also predict that we won't be out of there for at least five years.

[heretheycome]

7. I hope you are wrong

My thinking is, if we stay until the election are over we could gracefully leave, and no one would accuse us of another Vietnam. I am trying to think like bush. Our military can't last like this until 2009. Too many of us will take to the streets. Refuse to serve.

[rurallib]

9. Gotta guard that pipeline

and them oil fields. Other than that, we might leave. Except those 14 bases. We may draw down, but never out.
By the way remember ****'s comment that we (US) will try to make sure 'someone we can work with' will win the election? So, is the election (here it comes) already decided? I'd say so. My money's on Alawi.

[durablend]

11. "Election is already in the bag"

"We will deliver the votes to Allawi...count on it"

-Diebold

[heretheycome]

12. Are you old enough to remember the 70s?

We had gas shortages and oil went from 32 cents a gallon up to 50 70 cents. That was huge in those days. I remember using our fireplace more, wearing sweaters....My point being, we started to do well without oil. Solar energy was becoming big. All kinds of things were being done to compensate for the lack of oil.

Then, (remember I was young) something happened and oil became cheaper and we got more of it. Gas prices went down and everyone stopped using alternative.

Since then I have not been afraid of an oil shortage and I almost welcome it. If we had stuck to it think about how much cleaner our air would be. We could eat sword fish more than once a week. We could swim in our waters

[x_y_no]

19. Indeed ...

If we would spend even a tenth of what we're spending in Iraq on a real push to develop renewable energy sources plus greater efficiency, we could be completely independent of mideast oil in not much over a decade. Carter made some small effort in that direction, but once Reagan came in we promptly forgot the whole idea.

[wpbpete78]

14. Army Reserve Bonus

The Army reserves is giving $10,000-$15,000 signing bonuses now to help with recruiting. Troop levels wont be below 100K when b@@h goes home to crawford in '08.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi wpbpete78!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wpbpete78]

33. thanx

[Peter Frank]

15. This mess will take years to clean up. n/t

[MadHound]

17. LOL friend, hell, troops won't be coming home anytime soon,

In fact Bushco is sending in additional troops, upping the number to 152,000 plus. And they won't be decreasing the troop numbers any time soon. And if they're still planning an invasion of Iran or Syria, well, why should they bring them home.

With all of this troop shortage, and additional deployment, a draft is coming. I think that this was partially behind Bush's dour speech yesterday, admitting that things aren't going as well as planned in Iraq. Softening up the public before the call for a draft.

[x_y_no]

21. I'm not convinced about the draft

There are strong military as well as political reasons against reinstating the draft. That said, if things continue to go badly, and we're up to, say, 350,000 troops in Iraq in two years or so, I think we'll have little choice in the matter. The all-volunteer force just won't sustain that kind of level.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. What military reasons? The draftees that have fought all our

wars, from WWI to Vietnam, proved to be just as good, and often better than volunteer soldiers. Draftees democratize the military, coming from all backgrounds, rather than the two basic social sets the volunteer military comes from -- the career military families being one and the lowest income tier being the other. The problem that the military had with vietnam wasn't the quality of the soldiers, but the quality of their civilian leadership that was feeding them into a meat-grinder with no apparent regard for the soldiers, no real plan for ending the war, and no coherent political goal the war was supposed to accomplish.

As for the politial reasons against the draft, do you think this administration is afraid of being caught in a lie? Really?

You are right, that the all-volunteer force cannot sustain troop increases in Iraq. After all, they can't sustain the current levels. The draft is, IMHO, inevitable since * was elected.

[x_y_no]

31. Reasons, military and political ...

While individual draftees certainly were in very many cases every bit as good as today's volunteers, I disagree that overall the quality of the draftee military force was as good as today's force. And it's not hard to understand why - statistcally, those who have voluntarily signed up for something are more likely to be thoroughly dedicated to it than those who have been forced against their will to participate.

Another factor, of course, has been that the military has been able (in peacetime) to be quite selective regarding whom they accept. That advantage of the volunteer force is gradually disappearing as the pool of willing volunteers dries up.

As for the political reasons - sure, the administration is afraid of being caught in its lies. But even more simply - the draft is tremendously unpopular. Any administration - Republican or Democrat - would avoid it to any extent possible, since it means almost sure defeat in the next election.

This administration has shown remarkable talent for avoiding and obscuring reality - but unless they change significantly in the next couple of years, reality is going to overtake them.

[AG78]

18. They're staying

Our troops are stationed all around the planet. We still have bases in Japan and Germany, and they're both docile in terms of a military. Even if there wasn't a mess going on in Iraq, we wouldn't leave. Our military will always have a presense in Iraq.

[nostamj]

22. your last sentence says it all

Our military will always have a presense in Iraq.

and it will always be under attack too.

[NoPasaran]

25. Even Busholini doesn't believe that any more

We're be sending more troops over there, not bringing them home.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1088195&mesg_id=1088195

[molly]

26. This is horrible to say - but will there be any left

to come home?

[marc_the_dem]

29. They'll be coming home alright....

in body bags, I'm sad to say.

[Allenberg]

32. Well...

I'm just glad my enlistment is over in May, and due to a bad back, I'm non-deployable, and non-recallable. :D

[ChairOne]

34. Only the dead ones... sigh...... /eom

[Vote4Kerry]

35. Troops will be in Iraq as long as Halliburton keeps getting contracts n/t

[Jesus H. Christ]

36. Not very attentive, are you?

They said the troops would come home after "mission accomplished." They didn't. They said the troops would come home after we captured Saddam and killed his sons. They didn't. They said the troops would come home after we handed over power to the interim Iraqi government. They didn't.

Why the hell would any sucker think anything would change after a phony election?

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. I think heretheycome has a good point. She was saying that they

will come home just as the soldiers in Afghanistan came home -- to prep for deployment in Syria. All we need is another Pearl 9/11 for us to kick off the draft and invade Syria and/or Iran, per the PNAC plan.

On edit -- And just as in Afghanistan, there will remain a sizable force in any case.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

38. Sunday, I spoke with the mother of a "boy" I know who is over there

...she is so happy and excited that he "will be coming home at the end of January". I shared in her enthusiasm on the surface, but am not so optimistic as I let on. Really worried about him... He is such a great guy.