Pentagon Report to Call for Steep Iraq Drawdown

[ErinBerin84]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145848?from=rss

Who Says Less Troops?
By Michael Hirsh | NEWSWEEK
Jul 21, 2008 Issue

Barack Obama is taking heat for hinting that he might refine his 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report will recommend an even steeper drawdown in less time, NEWSWEEK has learned. If adopted, the 300-page report by a defense analysis group at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., could transform the debate about Iraq in the presidential election.

Expected to be completed in about a month, it will recommend that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now. The strategy is based on a major handoff to the increasingly successful Iraqi Army, with platoon-size U.S. detachments backing the Iraqis from small outposts, with air support. The large U.S. forward operating bases that house the bulk of U.S. troops would be mostly abandoned, and the role of Special Forces would increase.

The report's conclusions have been discussed inside Secretary Robert Gates's Defense Policy Board, a body of outside experts. And they've found favor with some former members of the Iraq Study Group, such as former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta. "That's basically the approach we thought made sense--embedding some of our forces at smaller outposts, transferring major combat to the Iraqis," says Panetta.Like the Study Group, this report also calls for a regional diplomatic effort complementing negotiations with the Iraqi tribes, which echoes the previous recommendations of such analysts as John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. "Even with a small leavening of American troops the Iraqis perform quite well," he says.

The biggest problem: Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, who oversaw the surge, is said to oppose the recommendations, according to a Defense contractor who is privy to the discussions. Asked about the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told NEWSWEEK that Gates "feels the most important military advice he gets is from his commanders on the ground." As the next head of Central Command, Petraeus will soon have responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan too, which could change his views on troop deployments and the new report. Spokesman Col. Steve Boylan says Petraeus "is focused on Iraq at this point and will continue to be."

[Danieljay]

1. Ya, we'll need em for Iran. n/t

[IDemo]

2. Damn, a person's gotta be quick on the keyboard around here...

[thewiseguy]

4. Look at this

Bush approves Israeli plan to strike Iran

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece

[ErinBerin84]

6. yup..."convenient" timing....

[ErinBerin84]

3. New York Times- US Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13military.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there.


snip

[patrice]

5. Couldn't they be getting ready for a build-up for Iran? nt

[philkd]

7. Its all about the permanent bases

They're trying to ensure that they get their permanent presence in iraq no matter who is president. The draw down is necessary to make Mc's 100 year argument seem a little more palatable. They also think they can paint Obama as careless for wanting a complete pullout by using the Powell thought of if you break it you own it and it's our moral responsibility to to stay until things are stable and US friendly. This also ties in with the current negotiations with iraq trying to soften their calls for US pullout.

Anyway you look at it it's just a talking point to keep Bush from having to do anything different until he is out of office.

[DLnyc]

8. By pulling out? Your logic escapes me. More likely, seems to me, BushCo

has decided to face reality: they failed to get the Iraqis to accept permanent basing, they failed to get the Iraqis to accept immunity for Americans in Iraq and they failed to get Iraqis to accept the transfer of ownership of Iraqi oil to American oil companies. Now they are thinking of 'declaring victory' and getting out of a lost battle. IMO.

Personally, I think it's our moral responsibility to get the hell out of there, now that it is clear that the Iraqis want us out. As far as "until things are . . . US friendly", I just flat-out disagree. Things are US un-friendly because Halliburton and the oil companies have hijacked the US government and are using its (our) armed forces to try to steal the Iraqi oil at the point of a gun. Staying longer won't help that.