Troops face indefinite stay

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0307100371jul10,1,926601.story?coll=chi-news-hed

General says U.S. to maintain force level in Iraq `for foreseeable future'

By Thom Shanker
New York Times News Service
Published July 10, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Gen. Tommy Franks said Wednesday that violence and uncertainty in Iraq make it unlikely that troop levels will be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.

"We have about 145,000 troops in there right now," Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said he had talked to "commanders at every level inside Iraq" and found that the size and structure of those forces were appropriate for the current situation.

As recently as early May, senior coalition officials in Baghdad said the Bush administration hoped to shrink the U.S. military presence in Iraq to two divisions, about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, with a third multinational division also on the ground.

Rumsfeld has never laid out a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home and has repeatedly pledged that the forces would stay as long as required. Even so, Wednesday's acknowledgment of the scope of the long-term military commitment to Iraq was the strongest indication to date that the reconstruction effort requires the deployment of large numbers of troops to Iraq--and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag.

more

[Jacobin]

1. No exit strategy? Hmmm. How un-corporate of them....

.

[saigon68]

7. WELCOME TO IRAQNAM

The longer one ignores history

The longer one is doomed to repeat it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. They'll keep them there until AFTER the next election.

That way, their anti-Bush votes and anti-Bush protests will be limited.

[ze_dscherman]

3. Bush compared Iraq war with the fight against AIDS

This was just another gaffe in the "Bring 'em on" speech.

The $15 bn. said to be spent fighting AIDS within the next five years will mean $3 bn. a year only. Occupying Iraq will cost $46,8 bn. a year.

[Zech Marquis]

4. if that's the case

what was all that talk about brining the 3rd ID back home yesterday? Another round of circle jerk jive talk from Rummy?

[underpants]

5. But the 3d ID will be home by September right Rummy?

Oh God somehting just hit me......... Don't be surprised to see them marching down 5th avenue in NY as the Repube convention is starting/going on.

Oh please tell me that is not going to happen.

[Star]

6. Ted Kennedy was really pushing Rummy on this

He point-blank asked Rummy if he had been "on the phone talking to Nato, to General Robertson, requesting troops". Rummy stuttered, stumbled, and then totally dodged the question "I'm not sure what you're asking", and then talked about requesting troops from "NATO countries" months ago.

He then went on to ask Rummy to provide them with the operating plan to reconstruct Iraq "or are we shooting from the hip in a piecemeal approach when American lives are at stake?"

Rummy's response? There certainly are plans for the reconstruction of Iraq, but the plans are not for the US or the coalition to reconstruct Iraq.

This man is just insane. It's amazing to listen to him not answer the questions. If you didn't see it, you can watch it here:

http://www.cspan.org/

[underpants]

8. I saw that yesterday

And you got almost word for word.

Rummy was trying to do his smartaleck routine that the Pentagon reporters WERE falling for, not so much anymore.

[Star]

9. Rummy was fuming!!

I was surprised smoke wasn't coming out of his ears. LOL

Interesting, also, to see how Rummy answered softball questions. He could remember every detail of who, what, when, where. But when a question was asked that he didn't want to answer, his memory failed every time. He "couldn't say exactly" or "we believe" blah, blah, blah.

I loved it when he snapped "I believe I've already answered that question" when he was pushed for a more definite answer.

[underpants]

11. Byrd said something about "We need to know now"

I read that here yesterday. This "Oh I'll get back to you on that" is typical of a delaying strategy and these clowns are not to keen on giving ANY information to ANYONE.

[mikeytherat]

10. I know it's a hackneyed '80s term, but can we all say, "Duh"?

"...the reconstruction effort requires the deployment of large numbers of troops to Iraq--and that the undertaking carries a hefty price tag."

Lots of (overextended) troops and tons of money with no exit strategy? Gee, maybe you guys should have listened to more of us when we took to the streets in protest. We indicated a high probability for this "suprising" scenario.

Do we have better crystal balls than the guv'mint?

mikey_the_rat

[Wapsie B]

12. This is something that can't be spun.

With troop morale the way it is and families wanting them home now, this could prove to be a real thorn in chimpy's side next year. All those pro-chimpy parents who sent their kids off "for our freedom" suddenly see the way the world really works. It's not just a matter of losing votes from the soldiers over there. Their families can influence people in the hometowns of this country. This could be another big nail in chimpy's coffin.