| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| US unlikely to reduce Iraq troops soon: general |
| 2005-06-22 |
| WASHINGTON - The United States is unlikely to begin reducing its 135,000 troops in Iraq in the coming months, in the face of attacks by a deadly insurgency there, a senior US military commander said on Tuesday. âAt this point, I would not be prepared to recommend a draw-down prior to the election, certainly not any significant numbers,â Army Lt. Gen. John Vines, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters in a teleconference from Iraq. But Vines said significant reductions could begin early next year following a referendum on a planned constitution this October and a subsequent national election on a new Iraqi government in December. Vines warned that polls in the United States showing that most Americans oppose the US presence in Iraq showed that âthey donât have a good perception of what is at stake here.â |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 "But Vines said significant reductions could begin early next year following a referendum on a planned constitution this October and a subsequent national election on a new Iraqi government in December" if youve been following the discussion on Belgravia, you will note that some of us are wary of a reduction in US forces even after December, given the difficulty in making the gains associated with search and destroy ops stick, after troops leave a given town. But we can see than how effective the expanded Iraqi forces really are. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-06-22 12:10 |
| #5 This DS Memo thingy is just the latest in a long line of sure-fire blame-game flops in the DhimmiSearch for the Magic Bullet to slay IdiotChimpHitler. One after another, they drag these idiot notions out and go apeshit - hoping without substance or logic it will save them from ignominy. Truly a pathetic lot. As smooth-brained as a cue ball. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-06-22 02:39 |
| #4 The general said in the interview that there will most likely be a drawdown of 20-25,000 troops after the elections. More Iraqis are being trained and running their own operations, but will probably take another two years before they take total control. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-06-22 01:30 |
| #3 Haven't the Downing St. memos been proven to "fake but accurate" Dan Rather-like "documents?" Check out Captain's Quarters for the 4-1-1. And even if they're "real," there's no "there" there. NMM=DNC talking points spinmeister=Turban Durbin or possible Hillary! in disguise |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2005-06-22 01:13 |
| #2 The 'pesky Downing Memo' doesn't prove anything close to what you think it proves. What it proves is that the Bush team understood well in advance what had to be done, and went and did it. Surprised that in 2002 the Bush team was getting ready for war? Surprised that it takes months and months to move a modern army halfway around the world and prepare it for battle? Please don't demonstrate your ignorance of simple, basic logistics, NMM. As to the claim of Saddm's 'cooperation' in the memo -- what is the evidence that Saddam's Iraq was cooperating in the last year prior to invasion? There was noise about cooperating, but Saddam was still making the same game of hinder, obstruct and obfuscate. We now know that Saddam's intel people had penetrated Mr. Blix's mission and generally knew what was coming. Because of this, the inspections process could really "repudiate" nothing. Mr. Blix and his team, with only a few exceptions, only saw what Saddam wanted them to see. And the Bush team knew this. One important point in this equation: Saddam acted guilty. He was buying protective biochem suits, atropine syringes, and other protective gear on the sly. He threatened the use of WMD even as he proclaimed he didn't have any. A fair number of his generals (generally a mediocre bunch) thought that it was the next unit around the corner with the biochem weapons. Another point: Saddam had used chemical weapons on the Kurds. So there wasn't much doubt about Saddam's willingness to use WMD. Put it together post 9/11: the man acts like he has them, he threatens to use them, he's penetrated the Blix mission so that the information provided by Blix has to be considered at least some suspect, he's never come clean on the storage and production even as inspectors thought he had few (or no) stocks, he was known to be consorting with various terror groups who had fewer qualms than he had -- put it together and you have a reasonable (not air-tight by any means) case. Good enough to go to war? That's what we ask Presidents to judge, and hold them accountable afterwards. A final note: the hullabaloo about the 9/11 Commission was why didn't the Bush team connect all the dots to stop 9/11. Now you're blaming the Bush team for connecting dots. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-06-22 00:22 |
| #1 Or maybe that pesky Downing Street memo has opened their eyes? |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2005-06-22 00:17 |