White House Said to Debate ’08 Cut in Troops by 50%

[cal04]

Source: DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID S. CLOUD

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels to roughly 100,000 by the midst of the 2008 presidential election, and they would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26strategy.html?hp

[old guy]

1. Believe it only when you see it.

[arewenotdemo]

5. I think a reduction in 2008 is a distinct possibility.

Bush would only do it to help the Repukes win the election. If they do the reduction would be very short-lived.

Iraqi and American lives mean ZILCH to them.

[Honeycombe8]

16. Exactamundo. Sounds like the plan to me.

Lower the number of troops just long enough to placate the public and win the election, and then send all the troops back as soon as they've won. They'll have a new reason for it, and anyone who questions the move will be called unpatriotic and politicizing the war.

But that's the plan.

If there is ANYTHING we know about Bush, it's that HE DOESN'T CHANGE HIS COURSE OR HIS MIND. EVER.

[grytpype]

2. So this is a total 180 degree flip-flop.

They're giving up on pacifying Baghdad. That is a total reversal of our current policy and the stated reason of the Surge itself!

They must know the surge is failing.

[Cobalt-60]

8. They're going to end up with a net gain

He's pouring in more troops and holding the others there so it can look like he's given ground.

[rodeodance]

3. its the baker hamilton plan-LATE

[rodeodance]

4. our military is breaking and he knows it!!

[pretty_lies]

6. The Problem With This Is Logistics

In such hostile territory, getting materiel and food and fuel from sea to base is a major task.

Half the troops are there to protect the supply lines of the other half, and even then, food is already running short for the US as the Iraqi resistance fighters evolve ways to combat the occupiers. Furthermore, the UK is withdrawing from the south, where all supplies are routed through.

So a 50% withdrawal simply may not be possible in terms of logistics. On the other hand, it could be that the real plan is to replace many more troops with mercenaries from Blackwater at 10 times the cost, but at a political gain.

I'm skeptical about the mooted partial withdrawals happening under a Democrat president for the same reasons.

[okoboji]

7. cut the troops by 50%???

In Iraq? why? so those same troops can go to Iran?

[VP505]

9. Its called,

"if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, wow them with fancy foot work". How many times has Bu$h told us he will stay the course, and as Gravel asked, do you really think that is a lie? The operative words in the article "developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces", I would be willing to bet they will be developing those concepts up to the day Bu$h walks out of the WH ending his term...

[youngdem]

10. Disgusting election prank written in our soldiers' blood.

Plus, all he is doing is allowing the 'surge' and extended deployments will stack up forces in Iraq for early 08 so that they can call it a draw down of 50% for election purposes to help rescue the Repukes while actually just 'reducing' the troop levels to the same levels as in Jan of this year.

Our country reaches a new low point each day.

[rodeodance]

yes, this is immoral

[rodeodance]

11. yes, this is immoral

[AlCzervik]

12. Wait, what now? Bush is giving the evildoers a countdown calender, i thought

that was bad?

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. of course, troops in Iran will increase by 500%...n/t

[DRoseDARs]

14. So the forcefulness of the Democrats' Capitulation Bill finally made Der Moron see the light?

Pffft... whatever. :eyes:

[noamnety]

15. oh, excellent

"The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say." NYT, June 2006

"Just days after Iraq’s elections, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday announced the first of what is likely to be a series of U.S. combat troop drawdowns in Iraq in 2006." AP Dec 2005

"All signs point to a major drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006 — perhaps to fewer than 100,000 by year's end." AP, Feb 2006

"The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid." WAPO July 2005

:eyes:

[Gregorian]

17. This must mean the permanent bases are nearly finished.

Just the first thought that entered my head. And as usual, I posted it. :)

[Eugene]

18. White House plays down report of Iraq troop cut

Source: Reuters

White House plays down report of Iraq troop cut
26 May 2007 16:40:12 GMT
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) - The White House on Saturday
played down a newspaper report that the Bush administration was
weighing a scenario for possibly sharp cuts in U.S. troop levels
in Iraq next year.

The New York Times, citing unnamed senior U.S. officials, reported
the administration was developing "concepts" in which U.S. combat
forces would be reduced by as much as 50 percent by the middle of
the 2008 presidential election year.

-snip-

Perino said one of the goals of the increase was to set the "very
conditions" that would allow U.S. troops to return home.

"We, of course, would like to be in a position to bring down troop
levels, but certain conditions, as assessed by senior military
advisers and commanders on the ground, need to be met to warrant
that," she said in an e-mail in response to a Reuters query.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26204238.htm

[depakid]

19. The Republicans will now coopt the issue

while the Dem leadership is left squabbling over details and chasing whatever crumbs the far right throws their way.