U.S. military confirms plan to reduce troops

[ECH1969]

Plans to pull 28,000 combat troops from Iraq may begin this summer

U.S. government officials confirmed on Saturday that Army Gen. George Casey has submitted an early draft of a plan to withdraw roughly 28,000 combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2007. But the officials emphasize that the plan is conditional on the security situation on the ground in Iraq.

The total number of forces that could possibly be withdrawn under this plan would be larger than the 28,000 combat forces because as the number of combat troops is reduced, an undetermined number of support elements could also be withdrawn.

Military official acknowledge that the New York Times' story reflects more of the political reality here at home than the security situation on the ground in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13530762/

[OneBlueSky]

1. subtitle: . . . "Republicans kick off fall campaign" . .. n/t

.

[uppityperson]

2. "may, could possibly,submitted early draft of a plan"=let's play politics.

[mike_c]

3. good-- withdraw the rest, too....

eom

[Erika]

4. Republicans are trying to save face and get out of there

while accusing tempered and measured democrat reduction plans as being "cut and run".

The irony of it all.

[Matriot]

5. I'll believe it when I see it

[madrchsod]

6. i just read where the army is rotating 21,000 -new- troops

into iraq this summer...my how things change

[NYC]

7. How many times have they reduced troops? I'm serious.

I have read many, many times that they are reducing troops. (Usually while increasing troops at the same time, so net effect =0.)

Think about how many times they have reported they are reducing troops.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes they have

That's why I believe Kerry decided any Iraq resolution needed to have dates. He wanted a resolution to being home the 20,000 troops they promised after the election in Dec, we didn't get it and they didn't bring troops home. They keep promising, but we never end up with less troops in Iraq. I'll believe it when I see it too.

[teryang]

9. This is exactly what Casey and Rumsfeld say they wouldn't do

...in their last press conference.

[gratuitous]

10. Cutting and running?

Or a temporary drawdown in time for the election, followed by an immediate build up as soon as the voters have been gulled again? We saw last week during the House "debate" on the non-binding resolution that the Pentagon has chosen the party it will serve when it issued the 74-page talking points bulletin. And then every last GOP speaker cribbed something from that bulletin.

The Democrats really need to get going on a Department of Peace, with funding equal to the Pentagon and the defense budget.

[smoogatz]

11. I think we've been asked to leave

by the Maliki government, which, as others have pointed out is a great opportunity for Bush--one he'd be insane to turn down. Unless, of course, his true objective in Iraq has nothing to do with his stated objective.

On edit: the NYT raises this possibility in this morning's front page story. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[gratuitous]

13. Oh, but the devil is always in the details, isn't it?

From the article: "American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces."

"Continued progress" is a remarkably liquid term, and like trying to grab a mercury globule, very elusive. And what is Bush's true objective in Iraq? Well, we know that Iraq is producing oil again, though probably nowhere near its pre-war production. But since the price of a barrel of crude has doubled or tripled, you probably don't need to pump quite so much to ensure a tidy little profit. Curious thing about Iraq's oil: Nobody seems to have any hard production numbers, and who the oil is being sold to, who's paying for it, and where the money (if it's being paid) is going all seem to be uninteresting questions to the Bulldogs for Truth of our valiant Fourth Estate.

You don't suppose Iraq's oil output is being stolen, and the revenues diverted to non-Iraqi companies and persons?

[smoogatz]

14. Perish the thought.

Good points, all. I was struck by the "continued progress" line, too--and the reporter's uncritical regurgitation of it. Has there been progress? Since when and toward what?

[Barrett808]

15. In fact, there's almost no accounting of Iraq oil exports

Much of the oil is being lost to piracy. Also, much of Basra's oil output is de facto controlled by the Fadhila party, i.e., a militia.

So your intuition is correct: Iraq's oil will be a source of corruption and conflict for a very long time.

[young_at_heart]

12. If I was a soldier or a parent of one, I'd be more than upset at this

Those who have to stay are really going to be vulnerable now.....maybe a few Republican leaders can go against Cheney/Rumsfeld for once in their lives!