U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts [title changed] (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

How interesting that in the same week that Republicans shot down two Democratic bills that called for outlining a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq the NY Times reports today that in fact that is exactly what Gen. Casey is doing based on specific achievements - not "Stay the Course".

Note that the first troops would leave in September 2006 - just in time for the election! Also note that there is a specific timetable something that Republicans all week long were discounting and attacking Democrats for suggesting.

My spin? The Democratic plans and Gen. Casey's plan, while not identical are quite similar. Until this story the Repubican "plan" was "STAY THE COURSE" and ntohing specific whatsoever after that - in other words STONEWALLING as long as possible because the GOP are afraid to commit.

U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts

By MICHAEL R. GORDON - New York Times
Published: June 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 24 — 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.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.

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. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.

General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the plan comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/w...&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

I guess liberals are everywhere! :2razz:

I think they should set a timetable for when to vote on whether or not to set a timetable. Every few months they should completely reassess the situation and decide if Iraq is ready to share more of the load.

 

[Paul]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

How interesting that in the same week that Republicans shot down two Democratic bills that called for outlining a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq the NY Times reports today that in fact that is exactly what Gen. Casey is doing based on specific achievements - not "Stay the Course".

Note that the first troops would leave in September 2006 - just in time for the election! Also note that there is a specific timetable something that Republicans all week long were discounting and attacking Democrats for suggesting.

My spin? The Democratic plans and Gen. Casey's plan, while not identical are quite similar. Until this story the Repubican "plan" was "STAY THE COURSE" and ntohing specific whatsoever after that - in other words STONEWALLING as long as possible because the GOP are afraid to commit.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/w...&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Republicans would like the troops out of Iraq as much as Democrats. But, Republicans want them out when everything is safe and secure, not leaving the place in total chaos. Dems suggest a plan to reduce troops by dates, not specific events. When things go well troops can be sent home. We shouldn't send troops home becasue a season changes, or it is a new month. That makes no sense.

 

[Tashah]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

How interesting that in the same week that Republicans shot down two Democratic bills that called for outlining a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq the NY Times reports today that in fact that is exactly what Gen. Casey is doing based on specific achievements - not "Stay the Course".

Note that the first troops would leave in September 2006 - just in time for the election! Also note that there is a specific timetable something that Republicans all week long were discounting and attacking Democrats for suggesting.

My spin? The Democratic plans and Gen. Casey's plan, while not identical are quite similar. Until this story the Repubican "plan" was "STAY THE COURSE" and ntohing specific whatsoever after that - in other words STONEWALLING as long as possible because the GOP are afraid to commit.

I would hope that any troop reductions (or additions) are guided by the tactical facts in-theater rather than on self-serving domestic political considerations.

As to your spin, both Republicans and Democrats at some point anticipate US troop reductions. The Republican disagreement (valid in my view) concerned the Democrat's call for an artificial and comprehensive timetable for total troop withdrawal. IMO, any such contrived timetable would be detrimental to both near/long term US and Iraqi interests. All considered withdrawals should be accomplished in-phase with tactical reality and practicality.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

I would hope that any troop reductions (or additions) are guided by the tactical facts in-theater rather than on self-serving domestic political considerations.

Being an entirely rational, reasonable and sensible sentiment, it will be blatantly disregarded by politicians of all stripes. Domestic politics [read as 'keeping the campaign contributions rolling in'] trumps all.
Pols don't have nearly as much of an incentive to be statesmanlike as they do to engage in demagoguery. Staesmanlike stuff is for the last term before you retire.

 

[Tashah]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

Being an entirely rational, reasonable and sensible sentiment, it will be blatantly disregarded by politicians of all stripes. Domestic politics [read as 'keeping the campaign contributions rolling in'] trumps all.
Pols don't have nearly as much of an incentive to be statesmanlike as they do to engage in demagoguery. Staesmanlike stuff is for the last term before you retire.

I pray that this plays out differently, yet acknowledge that your assessment is astute and unfortunately on-target.

 

[scottyz]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

I always suspected there would be a pull out or troop reduction before the election no matter what the situation was in Iraq. I'm sure it will happen again in '08.

 

[oldreliable67]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

Repubican "plan" was "STAY THE COURSE" and ntohing specific whatsoever after that

Well, no, not at all. Haven't read the NYT today, but a significant difference in what you have outlined and what the admin has called for is that the admin has keyed its "stay the course" policy on recommendations of the ground commanders in Iraq.

The Dems (except for Hilary), on the other hand, have consistently called for a time-table irregardless of conditions on the ground in Iraq.

Big difference.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

The Dems (except for Hilary), on the other hand, have consistently called for a time-table irregardless of conditions on the ground in Iraq.

Big difference.

One of the big talking points from Bush and the GOP has been that if you tell the insurgents when we're leaving they will hang out until then and attack after we're gone. The announcement today outlines specific dates and troop reductions which in effect is "telling" the insurgents when we're leaving.

BTW - The Democrat's plans never called for total withdrawl. It does call for substantial reductions by a specified time IF the military leaders agree. It also calls for leaving troops at the bases we've built and over the horizon so the BS talking point that Dems would just "cut and run" and not leave a responsible force behind is just that, BS.

 

[oldreliable67]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

One of the big talking points from Bush and the GOP has been that if you tell the insurgents when we're leaving they will hang out until then and attack after we're gone. The announcement today outlines specific dates and troop reductions which in effect is "telling" the insurgents when we're leaving.

You are overlooking one of the key points in the article that you cited:

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.

[emphasis added]

Thus, the ground commander is clearly positing a time-table based on events, not the calendar.

BTW - The Democrat's plans never called for total withdrawl. It does call for substantial reductions by a specified time IF the military leaders agree. It also calls for leaving troops at the bases we've built and over the horizon so the BS talking point that Dems would just "cut and run" and not leave a responsible force behind is just that, BS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that there have been several different versions of "the Democrat's plan": Murtha's plan specified immediate withdrawals and included "over the horizon" basing in Kuwait and Okinawa (which would be a problem in and of itself); John Kerry, who has flipped and flopped on this issue as well -- in 2003, he gave a speech in which he criticized the early calls for withdrawal -- but now he apparently is in favor of immediate withdrawal. Pelosi and Reid? What do they want to do?

Moreover, the administration has been consistent with its criteria for withdrawal, as compared to the many different voices and opinions coming from the Dems. At this point in time, the first thing the Dems need to do is to come together and speak with one voice.

 

[Deegan]

This is just a disgusting display of politics, nothing more. It's an obvious race to be the first side to take credit for any withdraw, and it's a shame that these games are being played with our security, and that of Iraq's. I wish we all could just be happy that a large number of our troops will be coming home, can we at least agree on that?

 

[Navy Pride]

How interesting that in the same week that Republicans shot down two Democratic bills that called for outlining a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq the NY Times reports today that in fact that is exactly what Gen. Casey is doing based on specific achievements - not "Stay the Course".

Note that the first troops would leave in September 2006 - just in time for the election! Also note that there is a specific timetable something that Republicans all week long were discounting and attacking Democrats for suggesting.

My spin? The Democratic plans and Gen. Casey's plan, while not identical are quite similar. Until this story the Repubican "plan" was "STAY THE COURSE" and ntohing specific whatsoever after that - in other words STONEWALLING as long as possible because the GOP are afraid to commit.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/w...&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

As usual you are taking General Casey's words out of context..............He is for moving troops out of Iraq on if the Iraqis can fill the void that they leave........

Minor detail there chanps......:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - A TIMETABLE

I guess liberals are everywhere! :2razz:

I think they should set a timetable for when to vote on whether or not to set a timetable. Every few months they should completely reassess the situation and decide if Iraq is ready to share more of the load.

How about they vote on whether to set a time table to vote? :rofl