White House to Offer Iraq Plan of Gradual Cuts, Falling Far Short Of What Congress Wants

[babylonsister]

Groundhogs Day?

White House to Offer Iraq Plan of Gradual Cuts


By STEVEN LEE MYERS and THOM SHANKER
Published: August 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials.

One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on “a sustainable footing” at least through the end of the Bush presidency.

The officials said the White House would portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. Many Republicans have urged Mr. Bush to unveil a new strategy, and even to propose a gradual reduction of American troops to the levels before this year’s troop increase — about 130,000 — or even lower to head off Democratic-led efforts to force the withdrawal of all combat forces by early next year.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of their reluctance to discuss internal White House deliberations publicly.

Administration officials involved in drafting the new strategy said the White House intended to argue that the troop increase ordered by Mr. Bush had succeeded on several levels in providing more security, with fewer sectarian killings and suicide attacks, and had established the conditions for a new approach that would begin troop cuts in the first half of next year.

At the same time, the administration will use the occasion to argue that vital American interests in Iraq and across the Middle East require a sustained commitment of American forces and that any rapid withdrawal would be catastrophic for the United States and its regional allies.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/washington/18military.html?ex=1345089600&en=fb41ba83bb74aefa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[unhappycamper]

1. It's all bullshit.

Over 50% of the country wants us out yesterday.

[babylonsister]

2. Yep. I'm waiting to see how Dems receive this. Will they cave again? nt

[unhappycamper]

7. Sadly, I think they will.

I remember about 15 years ago I just started on a new job in the phone company. One of the LAN servers I inherited had an admin password of 'BOHICA'. When I asked what that meant, I was told 'Bend over, here it comes again'.

I wish we could tag these guys with that acronym.

[rodeodance]

3. The intent is to PACIFY the Mod Repugs--to stall for an year!

[Solly Mack]

4. Quit picking on Groundhogs Day! (Damn Bill Murray)

:)

as an aside:

This tells the full tale -

"...at least through the end of the Bush presidency."


and this:

"...new strategy ..."

LMAO...well, that is groundhogs day

:)

[HereSince1628]

5. No way we are really leaving Iraq with Cold War Part II just beginning

The hawks who call themselves "strategists" will insist that it is in the vital interest that the US be able to project power from the southern border of the former USSR. The guys who play this game in earnest have spent 7 years pushing for advances of western power('encroaching' on what was the Russia sphere of influence by bringing eastern Europe into NATO, and surrounding the Bear by placing bases in various former southern and easter soviet states) that couldn't be made in the 1st Cold War.

They aren't going to let the politicians give up these gains.

[spanone]

6. bu$h* simply wants to pass this fiasco to the next prez.

he's done this shit his entire worthless life.