Sources: Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000

[Hosnon]

Source: www.foxnews.com

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.

Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

---

Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/

---

Not confirmed by any other news agency yet (or rather, by a news agency yet).

[babylonsister]

1. "...are SAID to be livid..."???? That's definitive. Makes me

wonder how fabricated that is.

Nah, not really wondering at all.

[liberalmike27]

2. So

There are 40,000 troops now, is that right? And what, 60,000 mercenaries drawing 100K salaries off the American tax dime? How many mercenaries will we leave?

[Demeter]

18. 3000 Hostages, 3000 Americans with Bullseyes on their fronts

and nobody at their backs. Great idea. Why didn't I think of that? Makes a great pretext to re-invade, when the targets get hit....

All out. And send the mercenaries home, too.

[ProSense]

3. Breaking

on Fox Noise?

<...>

This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.

Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."

<...>

Seems more of the Cheney/RW use of Hillary to bolster their arguments!

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. The gains "the Iraquis" have won over the years?????????

Bullshit.

Poor bastards have lost almost everything..their country, their wealth, their health, their future, millions dead, millions more slowly dieing from massive cancer outbreaks, lack of decent health care, etc.

[trud]

33. Poor HIllary, poor Joementum

lost another opportunity to kill more people, you warmongers.

[TwilightGardener]

4. If true, I'm glad.

[Javaman]

20. Same here. It would be even better if he stays with the complete removal

by December 31st.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Define "troops" --

"Combat troops" specifically or troops in general, I wonder? There has been confusion about the distinction in the past. O's own plan called for a residual force to remain but the number was much higher. Has this changed now?

[tblue]

6. This is from Fox News

I'll believe it when I see it but I hope they got this right. Love their spin!

[notGaryOldman]

31. HuffPo is reporting it too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/iraq-troop-withdrawal-reducing-forces_n_950576.html

[MineralMan]

7. If this proves to be true, it is excellent news. It signals

President Obama's commitment to getting us out of there. Now, for a commitment with regard to Afghanistan. 2012 may prove to be very interesting.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Great stuff, if true

Now it's time to do the same in Afghanistan.

[YvonneCa]

22. I think we'll get there. Afghanistan is...

...complicated by Pakistan and the nuclear issue...so it's a bit more difficult. I do think Obama is committed to it, though. :)

[woo me with science]

9. Yet the budget keeps going up.

Of course they will draw down troops in some places now. They may draw down in some areas and escalate in others, they may substitute paid mercenaries and unmanned drones for soldiers so that they can claim they have "drawn down" troop levels...

but make no mistake about it, the Military Industrial Complex will be funded and protected under this administration.

Of course they talk about drawing down troops. It is election season.

Yet even while they promise to drop troop levels in Iraq, the military budget is INCREASING, and Obama's Secretary of Defense is out arguing publicly that Social Security and Medicare must be CUT when the SuperCongress convenes later this year, in order to protect military spending.

It is all smoke and mirrors, designed for public consumption. WATCH THE MONEY. The Third Way "Democrats," including this President, are still trying to maintain the illusion that they want to end the wars. It is flat-out misrepresentation. They do not want to end the wars, because the wars are extremely profitable for the banks (because the wars run on borrowed money) and for the corporations who provide arms and technologies.

At this point, enough people wish to believe that Democrats will not be as hawkish as Republicans that the administration is trying simply to maintain that illusion through carefully chosen words that mislead. They talk about "troop drawdowns," but that is an illusion and a sham, because troops are increasingly being replaced by paid private mercenaries who earn two to ten times as much.

The Pentagon budget is increasing, not decreasing, despite all claims to the contrary. All promised cuts to defense are conveniently to happen sometime in the future and are not reflected in President Obama's own budget for next year.

And remember this post: What are being described as planned deep cuts to the Pentagon budget actually reflect an increase in planned levels of financing. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1639452

They admit that we will be in Afghanistan until 2024 at least; we will be there far longer. We will remain in Iraq. And now, since Obama took office, we are also installed in additional countries. The budgets continue sky high.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1402614

The Third Way Democrats will not end the wars. They have no intention of ending the wars that profit banks and corporations. They are INCREASING and DEFENDING, not reducing, the war budget. Again, follow the money, not the pretty words.

[trud]

34. woo me with science

Exactly what you said. It's smoke and mirrors. The administration thinks we're idiots.

[bluestateguy]

10. "Sources" = people too cowardly to go on the record

But they get to feel important by blabbing.

[Scuba]

11. How many contractors will be left? How many slaves will they oversee?

[SKKY]

25. Have you ever worked in this part of the world?

Because if you haven't, I don't think you'd understand how accurate your description actually is. The TCNs (Third Country Nationals) as they're called, are indeed modern-day slaves.

[Scuba]

27. I'm learning, and it doesn't look pretty. n/t

[Lasher]

37. As of March 2011, there were 64,253 DOD contractor personnel in Iraq.

DOD obligated approximately $15.4 billion on contracts in the Iraq theater of operations in FY2010.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf

The State Department had another 7,000 mercenaries at the time.

[Badsam]

12. I guess this means me are moving to Iran?

[obxhead]

13. How many private contractor troops will remain?

Will that number be increased?

[SoapBox]

14. I can never help but think...WTF is having military ALL over the world costing?

And the Party of Thug and Bully complains that granny is getting some Medicare or Medicaid?

[toddwv]

16. Probably something close to the tune of 500-800 billion

Don't forget that the US military is also the world's largest single consumer of oil which means that there is also a hidden tax every time you fill your car up due to the increase in prices.

[mike_c]

15. take them ALL out, dammit....

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan!

[thereismore]

17. Maybe Blackwater can pick up the slack. They are a private corporation, not subject to

military. Right? Let's see all the blackwater fuckers shit their skivvies and run away after their protecton by the US military is gone.

[woo me with science]

21. We pay Blackwater mercenaries.

When they are over there, they are over there because the US government is paying them, and we pay them a hell of a lot more than any troops. In 1997, the US government was paying each Blackwater guard about 445,000 dollars per year (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1952112).

Private mercenaries are one reason the administration can get away with this "drawing down the troops" bullshit rhetoric. They keep replacing troops with private mercenaries, and we, the taxpayers, end up paying these people two to ten times as much as ordinary army security.

We still go into debt for these wars, and the banks still profit, and people still die.

This "drawing down the troops" crap is a smokescreen, when we are ramping up in other areas, building drones, hiring private mercenaries, and continuing to grow the military budget. We are in MORE countries now, not fewer.

And Obama's own Secretary of Defense is out there now saying that "we" will need to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to keep up the war budget.

[thereismore]

26. I suspected that military numbers were a mirage. nt

[GeorgeGist]

23. Smells like Foxaganda.

[DrunkenBoat]

24. And the contractor level?

[pampango]

28. Without a new SOFA, all U.S. troops might still have to exit Iraq, rendering the U.S. decision moot.

The reported decision comes after months of fruitless back-and-forth with the Iraqi government on an agreement to allow American troops to stay. A Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated by the outgoing Bush administration in 2008 pledged to the Iraqis that the U.S. would withdraw all of its troops by the end of 2011. Without a new SOFA, all U.S. troops might still have to exit Iraq, potentially rendering the U.S. decision moot.

Obama, though, remained undeterred by various conservative criticisms that the U.S. should stay in Iraq to support Maliki against Sadr, or that withdrawing could open the door to a re-invigorated insurgency and Iraq “could go to hell.”

Those fears are not shared by U.S. diplomatic and military spokespersons. In July, a State Department spokesman in Baghdad said the U.S. was “confident that Iraqi security forces’ capacity will continue to grow.” Last month, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said that Iraqi security forces could handle the insurgency when the U.S. withdraws.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/06/312474/obama-iraq-3000-troops/

[bemildred]

42. Yes, this "story" is about trying to leave some there.

The stuff about reductions is spin.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

29. But DU said Obama was just like Bush.

:rofl:

[shanti]

30. i'm livid too

no troops should remain in the M.E., bring them ALL back home!! :mad:

[trud]

32. Meanwhile I suppose he's raising a similar amount in Afghanistan

since that's what he's done so far. Expect me to applaud when all the stupid wasteful wars are over, assuming we have any country left by then.

[harun]

35. I don't believe a word of it.

[TomCADem]

36. It Is Easy To Forget That McCain Was Promising To Stay In Iraq

While President Obama was promising to withdraw according to a timetable, which he is doing.

Oddly, Republicans continue to blast the President for pulling troops out too fast and ignoring the advice of his generals.

[Lasher]

38. Obama didn't stick to his own timetable.

He's not going to withdraw according to Bush's SOFA timetable either. Maybe he has a secret plan timetable that he's following.

[TomCADem]

44. Thats A Bit Of False Equivalency - McCain's One Hundred Year Promise To Stay

...Versus President Obama is withdrawing, but not quite fast enough.

[Lasher]

45. I made no claim of equivalency. I didn't even mention McCain.

I merely pointed out that Obama has not kept his promises to withdraw from Iraq. I shall demonstrate:

In Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/25-key-obama-promises-20080719

During the debate with McCain, Obama's withdrawal became a reduction when he said, “We should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

And then in February 2009 the 16 month deadline was extended for 3 more months and the number of troops to remain was defined as 30,000 to 50,000. This was when the August 31, 2010 deadline was established.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-26-obama-iraq_N.htm

If Obama would have stuck to his Primary campaign promise, our troops would have been out of Iraq by May 20, 2010 - 16 months after he was inaugurated. But at the end of June this year there were still 46,000 US soldiers in Iraq. They're being called 'noncombat' soldiers now, so that we can pretend they are not still there. But there is a problem with that deception.

On August 19 this year Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “We will fulfill the commitment that we are going to take all of the combat forces out of Iraq.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/panetta-iraq-has-agreed-to-negotiate-extended-u-s-presence-1.152633

How can it be that we're going to have our combat forces out of Iraq by the end of this year if we already got them all out a year ago, pursuant to Obama's February 2009 promise?

Now we're shooting for December this year, the SOFA deadline established by George Bush before he left office. But it looks like we're still going to have soldiers there next year, and that's why I say Obama can't even follow Bush's timetable.

I say all this to explain why I object to your characterization that Obama is withdrawing from Iraq according to a timetable he established during the campaign.

[Lasher]

39. Here's a version of the story without the Fox spin:

Plan Would Keep Small Force in Iraq Past Deadline

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is supporting a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in Iraq after a deadline for their withdrawal at year’s end, but only to continue training security forces there, a senior military official said on Tuesday.

The recommendation would break a longstanding pledge by President Obama to withdraw all American forces from Iraq by the deadline. But it would still involve significantly fewer forces than proposals presented at the Pentagon in recent weeks by the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, to keep as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there.

The proposal for a smaller force — if approved by the White House and the Iraqi government, which is not yet certain — reflected the shifting political realities in both countries.

It also reflected the tension between Mr. Obama’s promise to bring all American forces home and the widely held view among commanders that Iraq is not yet able to provide for its own security. And it reflected the mounting pressures to reduce the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that have become increasingly unpopular as the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, approaches.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/middleeast/07military.html

[DCBob]

40. good.

[workinclasszero]

41. Should have been done on day one

of his administration. We should have been out of Afghanistan long ago too.

This is one reason why the President is polling so low!

[bemildred]

43. Plan Would Keep Small Force in Iraq Past Deadline

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is supporting a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in Iraq after a deadline for their withdrawal at year’s end, but only to continue training security forces there, a senior military official said on Tuesday.

The recommendation would break a longstanding pledge by President Obama to withdraw all American forces from Iraq by the deadline. But it would still involve significantly fewer forces than proposals presented at the Pentagon in recent weeks by the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, to keep as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there.

The proposal for a smaller force — if approved by the White House and the Iraqi government, which is not yet certain — reflected the shifting political realities in both countries.

It also reflected the tension between Mr. Obama’s promise to bring all American forces home and the widely held view among commanders that Iraq is not yet able to provide for its own security. And it reflected the mounting pressures to reduce the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that have become increasingly unpopular as the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, approaches.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/middleeast/07military.html