LAT: Hopes for Iraq Pullback Fading

[DeepModem Mom]

Hopes for Iraq Pullback Fading
The worsening situation in the west means U.S. troops are likely to stay, officials say. Military sends backup but denies an offensive is coming.
By Louise Roug and Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writers
May 31, 2006

BAGHDAD — The Pentagon's hopes of making substantial reductions in U.S. troop levels in Iraq this year appear to be fading as a result of resurgent violence in the country, particularly in the Sunni Arab stronghold of Al Anbar province, military officials acknowledge.

Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, said Tuesday that he was moving 1,500 "backup" troops from Kuwait to Al Anbar, the western region that includes the war-torn cities of Fallouja and Ramadi.

Publicly, Pentagon officials insisted Tuesday that the move was temporary and unrelated to Casey's much-delayed recommendation on overall troop levels, now expected to be made next month. But other officers have privately acknowledged that the worsening situation in Al Anbar — particularly in Ramadi, which U.S. officials say is now under insurgent control — is likely to prevent any significant drawdown this year.

Since the beginning of the year, military commanders have said that progress in forming a government and training the Iraqi military might allow U.S. troop levels to be reduced from more than 130,000 to 100,000 or fewer. But a senior officer privy to Iraq planning discussions, who requested anonymity when discussing internal Pentagon debates, said there was "a growing realization" that ongoing violence was hampering withdrawal plans.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair hinted at that realization last week when, after a meeting with Casey, he said he expected insurgents to "test" the new Iraqi government "very, very strongly" in coming months. Blair and President Bush, meeting at the White House last week, postponed an anticipated announcement on troop reduction....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-reinforce31may31,0,6346976.story?coll=la-home-world

[global1]

1. Come On - You Really Don't Expect Them To Pull Out Of Iraq....

ever do you. This is going as planned. Big embassay being built in Baghdad. Strategic positioning in the Middle East. Growing insurgency to keep us there - justify us staying there. As long as we keep mixing it up - *Co will be able to perpetuate this war until we grow so insensitive - we'll just let them have their way. I question whether there really is an insurgency. Perhaps *Co is backing the killing of all these Iraqi's we hear about everyday. Again - as long as things keep looking bad - we'll be staying.

[grytpype]

2. Sorry, I disagree.

This is not what the neocons wanted, it's their worst nightmare. They wanted a US-friendly Iraq where we could have bases and do operations against other countries, and that we would pump as much oil from as we wanted. Not this.

[shadowknows69]

3. But they'll stay the course

doesn't matter how much of the cannon fodder it will cost. bush will have his empire.

[callous taoboy]

5. I also disagree:

Harper's had a great piece a couple of years ago on the hidden agenda in Iraq, and what is occurring now is not the scene Harper's portrayed. Perhaps they are now trying to make lemonade out of lemons, but the original plan (when Bremer was still in the mix) was to squeeze the life-blood out of Iraqi owned businesses and install American owned businesses. It was going to be easy as 1-2-3, especially with Bremer in charge of setting tax rates and calling other business shots right out of the gate. Having our finger in the oil pie was surely going to follow. Then it became very clear very quickly that the Iraqis were on to us and were not going to let this happen. Now it has turned into a big, ugly, bloody mess and the Neo-cons are shitting bricks.

What is happening now was no one's intention, not ours, not the Iraqis.

[cliss]

7. I'm going to say I agree with you.

For the longest time, I was conflicted between, "did they create the chaos on purpose?", or "did they really believe there would be flowers and candy?"

Any reasonable person would have been able to conclude that, YES the Iraqis would resent our presence and they would resort to guerrilla warfare to get us out.

But these are not reasonable people. I think in the initial planning stages, they were completely isolated from reality, and used "group-think" where everybody agreed on everything.

It's hard to believe: how could they NOT think it was going to end in chaos and their own ultimate failure. Especially since we were defeated in VietNam 30 years ago, and Cheney and Rumsfailed were involved in that war.

But to get the REAL answer on these men is to look into their history. Cheney in particular, has made tons of mistakes. He's made so many errors, in fact, that they called it the "curse of Cheney" (for people who worked with him in the past).

Incompetent, delusional to the point of psychotic.

[callous taoboy]

8. Well, if you've read PNAC

then you know that a part of the plan was to totally get Americans on board with an invasion, and 9/11 provided them with perfect ammo. This is how Cheney approached it. He remembered all too well those disgusting hippies in the streets during VN, and he was going to have none of that this time around. Plus, he's an arrogant fool who is getting a big-time lesson in karma at present.

[bemildred]

4. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[adriennui]

9. i don't have a masters degree in international relations

but even i knew this was quicksand. this has become so bizarre i'm beginning to question my sanity. vietnam redux.

[Terran1212]

6. It shouldn't be UP TO THEM!

It should be up to the public of the coalitions' countries and the Iraqi public