Drawing Down Iraq: Drastic troop cuts are in the Pentagon's secret plans.

[tuvor]

By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek

Aug. 8, 2005 issue - Donald Rumsfeld doesn't like long-term occupations. He's always made that clear. After U.S. forces took Baghdad, the Defense secretary had plans to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq to 40,000 troops by the fall of 2003. Then the insurgency struck.

Now Rumsfeld is quietly moving toward his original goal—three years late. The Pentagon has developed a detailed plan in recent months to scale down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to about 80,000 by mid-2006 and down to 40,000 to 60,000 troops by the end of that year, according to two Pentagon officials involved in the planning who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work. Their account squares with a British memo leaked in mid-July. "Emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall from 176,000 down to 66,000," says the Ministry of Defense memo.

Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, hinted at those numbers last week. Casey told reporters that the United States will be "still able to take some fairly substantial reductions" if Iraq can keep to the timeline set out in the U.S.-sponsored interim constitution, which calls for elections for a permanent Iraqi government by Dec. 15, 2005. After that, U.S. officials believe, the main task of the U.S. occupation will have been completed.

U.S. officials denied that Casey's remarks represented any change in policy. But earlier this year the Pentagon had been mum on a withdrawal timetable, in part so as not to encourage the insurgents. Now the conditions for U.S. withdrawal no longer include a defeated insurgency, Pentagon sources say. The new administration mantra is that the insurgency can be beaten only politically, by the success of Iraq's new government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8770418/site/newsweek/

[mike_c]

1. it's a lose/lose situation for the Bush administration....

Any course they take will eventually lead to more violence and destabilization in Iraq, and all of it the direct consequence of Bush's little elective war. Have I mentioned today how much I hate the pigs running my country?

[Fridays Child]

2. Kinda makes you wonder when Iran will be invaded.

nt

[tuvor]

3. My first thought, too. n/t

[Rufus T. Firefly]

5. Why else would they be withdrawing?

I understand the logic of staying there to stabilize the country, but we haven't got enough troops or the right equipment. But if we withdraw, they can be re-fitted and sent right into Iran. But Iran has mountains, and I think we'd wind up with several Tora Boras and be right where we are in Iraq...except in Iraq at least SOME of the people welcomed us. In Iran, we'll be even worse off.

[wli]

4. pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan directly into Iran

Classic pincer attack.

[FloridaPat]

6. Iran invasion - the 2006 election sales pitch.

[Fridays Child]

7. Boys & Girls: This is a ploy to make you think that it's safe to enlist.

Do not, I repeat, do not believe it. If they don't send you to Iraq, you'll be sent to some other war. These assholes have wars planned into the next century.

So, please continue to shun the recruiters and ignore their false promises of non-combat duty!

[Robeson]

8. They want to reduce it by early 2006 so they can say, "See we won the...

...war and are bringing our boys and girls home"....just before mid-term elections. This whole thing is transparent. This administration has always played politics with our troops.

After mid-terms are over, they'll probably be sending them right back, since 40,000 troops aren't going to be able to maintain order. And the sheeple will go right along with it, without blinking an eye, or asking questions...

[dbt]

9. Cut And Run. AKA "Bawk, Bawk, Chickenhawk."

War For Profit Becomes War For Midterm Elections. We'll have the story right after these important messages:

Be Afraid.
Watch TV.
Go Shopping.
Obey.

[Divernan]

10. Bush can make his blood-soaked profits just as well in Iran.

nt

[brainshrub]

11. The goal is not peace in Iraq; they need a low-grade war.

You can't steal very much when there is peace.

While I like the idea of a troop withdrawal, they are not withdrawing from Iraq. The plan is to lower the numbers of troops until the election.

[Cocoa]

12. I don't believe a word of this

this "secret plan" doesn't exist.

[Boo Boo]

13. Rumsfeld isn't moving towards his original goal, Karl Rove is

moving towards his mid-term election strategy. Everything is political with this admin; absolutely everything. IMO, the Repubs are likely heading for a mid-term disaster. There's only one thing I can think of that Rove can do to (maybe) turn it around, and this is it.

[bearfan454]

16. Won't Diebold take care of everything anyways ? n/t

[Boo Boo]

22. Well, assuming that electronic vote-rigging is a reality, you still

have to get close enough to make it believable.

[grytpype]

14. Declare victory, go home, leave Iraq in chaos and civil war.

And then we will have endless arguments about whether we won the war or not... the SCLM will parrot the Administration line that we won because a government was set up. We will say no, look at the civil war that is still raging there. But the civil war won't get covered in the US media. It will be like Afghanistan again.

[Supersedeas]

17. Mission Accomplished already....again

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. "Then the insurgency struck"?? That's only if you believe Iraq was....

...really beaten by the time Baghdad was occupied. Contrary to most chimps' opinions, there was no "Mission Accomplished" because combat has been ongoing since the day Iraq was illegally invaded.

[Javaman]

18. Cut and run...

The oil ain't coming out of the ground the way they want and besides, the oil company's have divided up the fields anyway. No reason for us to be there anymore.

They oil companies will have their compound fortresses to protect their workers while civil war rages throughout Iraq. They have done this time and time again in other countries that were in civil strife.

We fuck the Iraqi's twice, taking their oil and plunging them into civil war.

All just in time for the midterms.
I can see it now, "we brought them freedom!" (and a civil war), "they now have control over their oil, to provide for their people!" (only if we say so). "we felt our job was done!" (just in time for the midterms).

Colossal failure*

[NNN0LHI]

19. Wish I had a nickel for every secret plan of drastic troop cuts during...

...Vietnam. They had a million of em.

Don

[Barrett808]

20. Neo-cons are already declaring victory, preparing to leave

See James Wolcott's excellent roundup:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x143953

[Barrett808]

21. AEI: "The War Is Over, and We Won"

The War Is Over, and We...
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x143956

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. The secret plan is to make people believe there is a plan.

And to increase chimp's approval numbers. If there were such a "timetable" we wouldn't be told about it.

[SoCalDem]

24. Why not? They thought they could sneak in, steal the oil and

be proclaimed "rescuers". The Iraqi people said NO!...all *² has gotten out of the Iraq mess is a big hassle (except for the oil company campaign coffers being refilled)..

*² has always been a quitter.. why would this be any different?

[wanpete]

25. Was I just dreaming when only a month ago I hear the

pResident saying that we will stay the course and never set a deadline for leaving because it would only foster a more vigilant insurgency? Now we are planning a massive draw down with an actual time line set? It seems as if the nightmare of the lies of this assministration will never end.