Will U.S.troops be home before the '08 elections?

[mtowngman]

Will Bushco. use this tactic and, if so, can it save the republican candidate?

[rwheeler31]

1. No

nt

[Crazy Guggenheim]

2. No.

[tularetom]

3. They're screwed no matter what they do

If they bring the troops home they will be ridiculed for "cutting and running".
If they don't bring them home casualties will mount and they will catch hell from the majority of Americans for the needless deaths.

[still_one]

4. maybe the democrats should propose it first, huh?

[spindrifter]

5. Check my post re the Brits.--It looks like * and Tony

may be putting Talabani out there to sell the idea that we have to be there for a long--not forever, mind you--time. Remember, it was only a few months ago that we were getting word that the Japanese and the Brits were going to be out of there in early '06.

[mtowngman]

10. I think it was your post

that got me thinking this in the first place

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. There will be more of them by 2008.

I have to assume that there will be some really ugly surprises ahead in Iraq that will give them an excuse to escalate it. As long as nobody cares, why not?

[punpirate]

7. I have a very hard time believing that...

... all the troops will be home by Christmas, so to speak. Complete withdrawal was never in the original game plan, nor is it now. Something to keep in mind--we had personnel in Saudi Arabia from the months before the Gulf War until the beginning of the invasion of Iraq (hell, that's why al-Qaeda was sponsoring acts of terror against us). Not until the preparations for the invasion began did we move most of those personnel out of Saudi Arabia (to Qatar, Kuwait, and eventually to Iraq).

We've had a military presence in the Middle East for fifteen years now, and I can't imagine us giving it up entirely now. The thing to look for--if they haven't already been drawn up in secret already--are so-called "status of forces" agreements which Iraq and the US will make to permanently place US troops in Iraq.

What I expect is a normal rotation of 20-30,000 personnel close to the 2006 election disguised as a troop pull-out, because we've been gradually raising the number of personnel in Iraq (often with the use of NG and reserves) to about 170,000 now. We won't be going below the original number of 140,000 or so.

Then, because the insurgents will take advantage of those reduced numbers, after the 2006 election, there will be a gradual return of those troops for additional tours because of the threat.

2008 is a little far away to speculate--lots of things can change in that amount of time--but, if the 2006 ploy works to save the Republicans' butts, expect a repeat or a variant in 2008.

Cheers.

[rosesaylavee]

8. No, they will be fighting in Syria or Korea or Iran or...

n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. Yes, Yes, and Yes.

It was always about winning elections.

Not bases, not democracy, not Israel, not even oil.

Winning elections means control of the world's largest economy, and through legislation and the courts, extending that control for a generation.

They payoff from that dwarfs all other reasons.

When control over the levers of power is threatened sufficiently, all the other players -- neocons, Likudniks, theocrats, even the oil barons, are expendible.

The tax code is the Holy Grail. That and the courts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Only if the Iraqis finish throwing them out.

Or, congress miraculously grows some spine and defunds the occupation.