US Army to Keep 100,000 Troops in Iraq to 2006-NYT

[deneb]

"The newspaper reported that a "senior Army officer" warned that maintaining a force of such size beyond early 2006 would cause the Army to "really start to feel the pain" from stress on overtaxed active-duty, reserve and National Guard troops."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20031122/ts_nm/iraq_usa_troops_dc

Boy o boy, fit's hitting the shan this morning for sure. Buh bye Rumfilled, Chimpy and 'Martial Law' Franks.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Three years is a long time. Enough for right-wingers to mount a

patriot campaign for war if we get hit with another terrorist attacks If Bush stays in office, all the king's men will be in their positions and then prepare for LIHOP.

[Paschall]

2. This is sure to quell the "insurgents"

Why are we being told of these plans by the Pentagon rather than the Shirker in Chief?

[54anickel]

3. Why am I seeing 2006 in almost every news story?

The requirement for e-voting machines to have a paper trail=2006
The really nasty stuff for Medicare hits in 2006
Our troops in Iraq=2006

Perhaps chimps handlers are pretty sure he will be defeated and have begun setting up plan B? Set the fuse for middle of Democrat presidents shift and they will be sure to win in 2008? Gives them 4 years to get the Military State ready to slam right in there.
They have proven their patients in the past...
:tinfoilhat:

[sleipnir]

4. Timing is perfect for the new draft,

No way they can keep that many troops and not have to initiate a draft.