You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
U.S.A cancels deployment of 3,500 troops
2006-05-09
PENTAGON officials said today 3500 fresh US troops will not be deployed to Iraq as had been planned for early this month, as commanders monitor security on the ground. "The Second Brigade, First Infantry Division, based in Schweinfurt, Germany, will not begin its deployment to Iraq in early May as scheduled," the Defence Department said in a statement.

The statement said the decision would "not affect the current number of US troops in Iraq, which is numbering approximately 133,000".

Commander of the coalition forces, General George Casey, recommended last year substantial troop reductions for 2006. Late last month, he said selection of new Iraqi Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki was an important milestone in that respect. The Pentagon statement said more than 254,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and equipped.
Posted by:Oztralian

#14  Fewer US troops in Iraq also means a smaller target in the case of an Iranian first strike.
Posted by: mrp   2006-05-09 20:20  

#13  Send them to eradicate poppy in afghanistan.
Posted by: pihkalbadger   2006-05-09 19:20  

#12  Things are continuing to improve in Iraq as the Iraqis take on more of their own protection, and perhaps our troops will be needed elsewhere soon. Else, some can be sent off to start their Special Forces training.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-05-09 18:44  

#11  Drawing down the OIF force levels significantly (more than the 3.5k noted in the article) is a good way of getting an official vote in the Iraqi parliment. The most likely things are:

--- the Iraqis say "please don't withdraw any more" which would take away (or weaken) one of the LLL's talking points.

=== the Iraqis say, "OK you can withdraw a few more but no more than that" which accomplishes almost the same thing.

Posted by: mhw   2006-05-09 12:55  

#10  NS---If they aren't going to Iraq, bring them home.

I say, If they haven't left, bring them home. The Ulitmate LLL Oxy-Moroon™.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-05-09 11:20  

#9  DV - AQ may not be able to win.

If you think that an Iraq with an ongoing low level insurgency, a govt that cant really govern, leading either to a new authoritarian govt, or a division of the country, which each piece under the dominance of a neighbor, and each piece not a democracy (except maybe Kurdistan), and a situation where Iraq is NOT a model for anyone in the region, and where the US is seen as having withdrawn with its goals unaccomplished, at the cost of several thousand American lives and billions of dollars, and the use of assets that could have been used elsewhere, is an acceptable outcome, by all means support withdrawl without regard to the situation on the ground in Iraq. After all, if Zawahiri cant get a new training ground in Iraq, thats all that matters, right?

I think we need to do better than that to win. and i think failing to WIN, will leave us worse off than had we not gone in the first place.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-09 11:01  

#8  When we start bringing soldiers home, the MSM will have an awards program and pass out gold plated statues of peace doves to all the lefties.
They will claim victory over American imperialism.
At that time, we should machine gun them into hamburger meat. Then we can proclaim victory and have a keg party.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-05-09 10:01  

#7  I like to think of it as the US playing an immense game of chess against 100 opponents at the same time. The US is far ahead, with 100,000 pieces in play to their opponents combined 25,000 pieces. But the US can never withdrawl, anywhere, and cede just one little part of the board or soon that little piece of territory will be covered with enemy queens, venturing forth to wreak havoc elsewhere.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-05-09 09:54  

#6  If they aren't going to Iraq, bring them home.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-05-09 09:45  

#5  Better check the AQ memos lib. They are finished. Even AQ admits it.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-05-09 09:37  

#4  it IS the start of withdrawl. Thats how we'll do it - the forces there will rotate out on schedule, but wont be replaced man for man.

Now what this means depends who you talk to. Alot of the MSM, and far too many Dems, have taken the tack of "if there really is as much progress as you say there is, why cant you take US troops out" This would say "see, we can"

But for the folks like the Weekly standard, or Greg at Belgravia dispatch, who think we dont have adequate force, and that the Iraqi forces should complement US forces, rather than substitute for them, this is a sign Bush is caving to the pressure, and putting a win in November ahead of the situation in Iraq. Where the insurgency, its pretty clear, is barely contained, and, if its long run prospects are poor, is still almost as lethal as ever.

Myself, Im not sure.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-09 09:28  

#3  The news seemed to be all over this yesterday on TV. Going off on how "this could be a sign that the US is starting to withdraw" blah blah blah.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2006-05-09 09:22  

#2  So they said they were going to deploy troops and now they aren't? Aha! Bush Lied and .....uh, people stayed home! I look forward to seeing how this gets spun in the media as a lack of progress in training the Iraqi forces.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-05-09 09:14  

#1  Sounds reasonable, 387,000 trained troops should be able to do something.
Posted by: Hupinemble Jaling1017   2006-05-09 07:58  

00:00