U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq

[Rose Siding]

snip>
President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

It also follows agreement this week among Iraqi politicians that the U.S. troop presence ought to decrease......

....
U.S. officials hope that by the end of 2007, the remaining U.S. force will be small enough to not offend Iraqi sensibilities yet large enough to help Iraq's military with reconnaissance, intelligence gathering and air power.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-withdraw26nov26,0,4761481.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[madame defarge]

1. Good news...

I'm all for getting the troops out as soon as possible, so this is definitely a step in the right direction. However, the huge cynic in me thinks this is definitely a GOP political ploy... Polls are down and the ONLY way he can get them up again (if at all) is to start troop withdrawal. Words are good, but I want to see action.

[Sinistrous]

28. Like reeds in the wind...

The cynical bastards saw how the Democtrats' plan resonated with the public, and they stole it.

[0007]

36. Read the link below and confirmed your suspicions.

In January 2005 it was reported that the Pentagon was building a permanent military communications system in Iraq. The new Central Iraq Microwave System, is to consist of up to 12 communications towers throughout Iraq, along with fiber-optic cables connecting Camp Victory to other coalition bases in the country.

Click here to get the skinny

[kurth]

2. U.S. troops going home by Iraqi popular demand

Yep. Mission Accomplished!

[meti57b]

3. I am pleased and excited that Iraqi troops have been found ready, so fast

and we can hopefully get out of Iraq in short order.

I should add, I've had not forgotten the Richard Nixon gambit.

[54anickel]

18. 230,000 Iraqi troops by Dec 15th

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=afhnXDeYJKag&refer=us

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Iraq's new army has recruited 2,662 junior level officers who served under Saddam Hussein in an effort to add more Sunni Arabs as it increases the size of its security forces, according to U.S. military officials.

The goal is to recruit 3,000 of these officers by year's end, most of them Sunni Arab lieutenants and majors, and the results to date are encouraging, U.S. military officials say.

The return to the military of Sunni Arabs who once constituted Hussein's political power base -- along with successful elections and the growth in Iraqi security forces -- are cited as major barometers of progress.

snip>

The U.S. projects Iraq will have about 230,000 trained and equipped security forces by the Dec. 15 parliamentary election, an increase of about 30,000 since the constitutional referendum in October and about 92,000 since January's vote for a temporary government.

These new recruits are on top of many former Iraqi regular army and Republican Guard general officers who have rejoined. The U.S. has vetted the process to prevent enlistment of hardcore members of Hussein's Baathist Party or the Special Republican Guard who were his most elite units and bodyguards.

[Barrett808]

20. Of course, these numbers are all made up

Iraq has no Army. But that won't prevent us from cutting and running.

[54anickel]

21. Actually I'd like to know more about this "vetting process" of recruits.

[cantstandbush]

39. Yeah, like over the week-end a lot of readiness has happened. n/t

[leftchick]

4. large enough to protect Iraqi oil

the enduring bases will hold close to 100,000 US troops I am sure.

[still_one]

5. I don't believe it

they will make a token move, the media will superficially report it, then it will be business as usual, and people will be too busy with Christmas shopping to concern themseleves with such trivia

Remember the whole goal of PNAC was to establish permanent bases, and control there. That has NOT changed

[leftstreet]

6. Good point n/t

[PhilipShore]

9. It is just a tactic to manipulate public opinion (a lie)

[tabasco]

13. You are right. Don't expect the casualty rate to drop.

The haves and the have-mores will hold onto Iraq until we pry it from their dying hands. The US military will continue to bleed for corporate profits.

[Amonester]

22. At the expense of the young soldiers' lives and limbs, and...

also at the expense of the taxpayers (the ones who still are, or still will be... taxpayers)...

It's the Enron syndrome : Can't defraud the workers, the investors, and taxpayers anymore? Damn! Let's start an illegal war of aggression, reap billions in illegal profits, and let the young soldiers and tomorrow's taxpayers (if there are gonna be any left...) pay for all its cost$!!

How come these obvious criminals ain't all rottin' in jail by now? :wtf:

[salin]

16. remember the secret war in Cambodia.

Nixon was hailing draw-down of troops in Vietnam, all the while increasing the number in combat and secret bombing missions in Cambodia and Laos.

It isn't what bushjr says, it is what he and his administration DO.

[librechik]

7. Isn't that cute? I'm sure they thought it up all by themselves

ain't it amazing how last week the Iraqis were years away from being ready to take over, yet today they're just about right!

Good thing we have such a wise and thoughtful president who can take new info and turn on a dime--WITHOUT FLIP FLOPPING! Seems like a physical impossibility, yet he managed to do it!

He's BETTER than Jesus!

[Rose Siding]

10. I think this is nothing but a campaign speech -and about as truthful

An army of 100,000 for years longer is still an occupation.

This is an actual pull-out in the same sense that bush is a compassionate conservative. Now he's running the war like he ran for office; with language approved by Karl et al.

[librechik]

25. yeah--pullout before November, buildup in January.

eternal war is the goal--there's nothing but a brazen appeal to voters for 06. Moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

Shameless!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. So starting the pull out now won't be a "recipe for disaster" after all

And, as above, it's amazing how quickly the Iraq troops became able to "stand up."

I hope it really happens, and isn't more lip service. MKJ

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. My BS Detector is going off...rapid, increasing tone.

[lonestarnot]

14. Agree... I smell bullshit too!

[LibDemAlways]

12. This is called "propaganda" ......

The bullshit excuse that the Iraqis can't fend for themselves is wearing thin, so the meme will now be "the Iraqi troops are now ready but still need 'help' from the US military." A few troops will come home with great fanfare while the bulk remain to establish permanent bases, protect the oil, and continue to be blown up by the "insurgents."

[twaddler01]

29. Well said :)

You got it right I think...we have a winner! :party:

[zann725]

15. There still has to be "numbers" large enough to build large U.S.Bases

...PERMANENANT U.S. bases we've all heard is the plan there. There'll be no pull-out before then...or alteration of that plan...PLEASE! We may remove "active" assault forces in 2 years, but...

And isn't it convenient how quickly Shrub has 'come'round' to the thinking of dissenting Repubs like Murtha;and Dem's like Kerry, who've been citing similar timetable for some time now. Shrub always steals others' ideas (once they become overwhelmingly popular), and pretends they were his own. What a genius, indeed?!

[ktowntennesseedem]

17. Two thoughts, both of which make me sick:

First, this is just conveniently-timed, cover-your-ass bullshit, plain and simple. Public opinion has forced them into a corner, so now they need to come up with a "plan" to take some of the heat off. If support for the war was still strong, there would be no need for a draw-down plan, and certainly no need to announce such a plan.

Secondly, whenever troops do finally start coming home, and regardless of whether it is sudden or gradual, near-future or distant-future, this administration will spin the withdrawal so as to take full credit for it. Even if it takes years, they'll claim it happened as a result of the draw-down plan from Nov. 2005.

And yet, a third thought that gives some relief: the troops need to come home, they've fought long enough and hard enough. Even if it comes at the expense of Republican bullshit and spin (and it will, regardless), so be it.

[truth2power]

19. This is BS....

Has nothing to do with the '06 elections or Iraqi army ready to take over.

It's going according to plan. If they're going to withdraw troops it's because the deals have already been made behind the scenes. We have (or soon will have) secured control of the oil for the next 40-50 years, which is ALL its about. Forget about WMDs, bringing democracy blah, blah. A puppet government will approve the Production Sharing Agreements and we can move on to the destruction of yet another Middle Eastern country and its people.

Meanwhile, none of our leaders (sic) has the brains or the foresight to start implementing plans for what we're going to do when there's NO more oil to be pumped, in the ME or elsewhere (at least none that doesn't require more energy to obtain than it gives us back).

Cheney must be ecstatic! 'Course, he'll be dead. Sooner rather than later, the way he looks these days. And his children and grandchildren are not his concern. If there is a hell..... :evilfrown:


edit> clarity

[yltlatl]

23. Here's What the Cabal Will Do

They'll draw down US troop levels to some ridiculously low level--say a few thousand in and around the Green Zone in Baghdad. Then a really crack bombing plot--possibly involving WMD or a dirty bomb--will *somehow* succeed in killing a few hundred of them. Then the cabal will manipulate the media and public opinion into demanding we bring the hammer down, and the US goes back in full force.

That's the short term scenario. Long term, they also draw down troop levels very low, but then in a climate of spiraling oil prices Iraqi collaborators refuse to sell Iraqi oil to the US (or production never really gets off the ground again), and the US goes back in to get what they came for in the first place...

[reprobate]

24. Someone please consider the dire alternative.

If it's true that the Sunni officers of Saddam's army are returning to lead the 'new' army, how likely is it that a majority of them and of the Iraqi army itself are to be insurgents. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of the jr officers brought their old troops back with them and entire units of the old Saddam army have been reconstituted under the 'new' army. That many (or most) Iraqis hate the american soldiers is a given by this time.

Seems to me what Boy Bush is doing is nothing more than organizing and arming our enemies. Which is REALLY dangerous for our troops, but could be the thing that finally gets bush impeached if the 'new' Iraqi army turns on our troops.

And then there's the majority of the Iraq population, the Shias. Many or most of them have family ties to Iran, and it's probable that Chilabi was working for Iran when he talked our 'brain' trust into attacking Iraq. What do you think will happen when the Iran leadership sees a Sunni army composed of Sunni insurgents getting armed with tanks and other bad shit? Well, hell, you know what will happen. The Second Iran-Iraq War. That's what will happen. And our troops will be stuck in the middle.

What Boy Bush did in '03 was like poking a hornet's nest with a stick. When you do that you don't want to hang around and try to organize the hornets. You want to run like hell and hope there's a body of water to dive into, like the Atlantic Ocean.

"Cut and Run" may not sound like the macho thing to do, but it may be the only safe thing to do for America and Americans.

[VegasWolf]

27. Yes, I agree. nt

[54anickel]

32. Unless the Shiite win the elections. Interesting theory from Gen Odom

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?search_str=ODOM&fuseaction=home.advanced&imageField.x=13&imageField.y=12

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

[VegasWolf]

26. I have a very bad feeling about this. Commanders on the ground

argue that they need more troops on the ground, not less. Bush has used the non-readiness of the Iraqi army as an excuse to remain in Iraq to protect his precious oil. Now all of a sudden US elections are here, the war on Iraq is taking its toll on the pukes, and the Iraqi army is suddenly ready to take over. Methinks Bush hopes his remaining 100,000 troops deployed along the eastern pipeline will be enough to protect his oil. History has already demonstrated this falsehood. The insurgents will be even more emboldened. The Iraqi politicians, whose hands are tied by the fake constitution to allowing control of the oil to US and UK Oil companies will simply encourage more insurgency to rid Iraq of the American parasites so that they can sell their oil to China who is both willing and able to pay far more for it that the US and UK can or will.

[twaddler01]

30. Yes, I say all or nothing.

We can't just leave "some" there and pull out "some", this will only make a shortage and make things worse. I say pull out ALL or leave it the same. That won't happen cuz this is after all, just propaganda.

[Maggie_May]

31. WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

[Disturbed]

33. 100K will stay to gaurd the oil.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

34. Don't kid yourself into thinking they're gonna come home.

I got a fin sez they're redeployed- by the time they actually get around to moving them out, they'll be "needed" in Syria.

Don't buy your party hats just yet.

So what if I'm a cynic? Cynics are usually right.

[0007]

35. I wanna hear about the U.S. giving up those new 14 military

installations that cost billions to build. How come we never hear anyone talk about troops employment if the U.S. is indeed gonna keep those bases?

This is a must read;

"Iraq Facilities

A 20 April 2003 report in The New York Times asserted that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region." The report, citing anonymous sources, referred to one base at Baghdad's international airport, another near Al-Nasiriyah in the south , the third at the H-1 airstrip in the western desert, and the fourth at Bashur AB in the north.

There had been several statements at that time about the possible duration of the US military presence in Iraq. Mr. Richard Perle mentioned six months; Ahmad Chalabi, two years.

American officials have tried to make the point that the US presence in Iraq will not be a permanent or long-term one. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a 21 April 2003 press conference said that any suggestion that the United States is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate." Rumsfeld said "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting. ...

Click here to get the skinny

[banana republican]

37. Thank GOD; Just in time for 2006 elections!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[pfitz59]

38. Another speech with military props....

The little dictator is now doing ALL his speechifying in front of troops. Why? Military members are prohibited BY LAW from booing or otherwise showing contempt or disrespect for any elected official! Bush* is scum........