It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Pentagon Planning Iraq Troop Withdrawl

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Anonymous sources are telling Newsweek magazine that Pentagon officials have developed a detailed plan to reduce the U.S.'s military presence in Iraq. The plan calls for reducing the number of troops in theater from current levels (approximately 138,000) to about 80,000 by mid 2006, and then again to 40,000 - 60,000 by the end of 2006. According to leaked documents and anonymous sources the withdrawl is, at least in part, possible because the conditions for U.S. withdrawl have been reconsidered and no longer include a "defeated insurgency".
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
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 [U.S. and Coalition forces] 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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


One of the key changes to U.S. policy is contained in the following paragraph, buried well down in the story:


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.


I'm just happy that a plan for withdrawl appears to be in place and the end may be in sight. I've personally had enough of the insanity of the suicide bombers. If I were Bush or Rumsfeld, I'd be sorely tempted to say "screw em", withdraw immediately, and post just enough troops along the border to keep the maniacs from getting out and let them destroy themselves.




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I really don't know what to say about this. Yes, it is good that we can see the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel," but the best exit strategy is victory. Clearly, the standards for unconditional surrender of past wars do not exist in the so called "asymetrical" wars we now find ourselves fighting, but it is not a good idea for the US to be "telegraphing" it's plans for withdrawal. Such knowledge only benefits our enemies, both foriegn and domestic. Journalists who reveal national security secrets really are the scum of the earth with their leaked documents and their unnamed sources. I'd like to see most of them lined up against a wall and shot.

[edit on 2005/7/31 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Yeah just like the bush vandals...do the damage, make a mess of everything, call it victory and sneak out of town. !!!

(mod edit-please mind your words on atsnn)

[edit on 2-8-2005 by asala]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yeah just like the bush vandals...do the damage, make a mess of everything, call it victory and sneak out of town. Bastards!!!



You Nailed it Perfectly!

Could not said it better Myself.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Do you really think that the US/UK forces will leave such a stratigicly important country as Iraq, not to mention it's important oil reserves. the US may be taking some troops out but that's all it would be easy to ferry them back in again if needed



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I think its a little premature to assign real numbers to planned Iraqi troop strength in 2006. There are just to many contingencies and dependancies remaining for such an exercise to be meaningful as yet. Get the country through the election process first and then assess the situation. Of course there's a ton of pressure on the Bush administration to do something so politics may end up ruling the day.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
It will be great if this happens but I'm starting to doubt all reports of reductions in troop levels because there have been quite a few before. I need to see it happen now before I believe it.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
To see troops withdraw would be nice but highly unlikely for some time. I would concur with poster Grady however it is unfortunate that there will be no victory in Iraq. It was a good move to dethrone Sadam but the resulting operation decayed very quickly and it was clear we got into a mess that has only backfired. Concerns now are for the many troops from all countries and somehow putting and end to this. At somepoint we will need to leave and let Iraq determine their own future, regardless of how bleak that may look for them.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yeah just like the bush vandals...do the damage, make a mess of everything, call it victory and sneak out of town. Bastards!!!


I'm no fan of Bush or the war, but it seems to me like maybe the current administration took a step back and realized that they're in a war they can't win. We hold our troops and commanders to a higher standard than the insurgents. We could kick the crap out of them if we fought a dirty, ruthless battle w/ no reguard for innocent civilians. We cannot and will not stoop to their level, so why keep throwing our boys and girls into the meat grinder. Yes it's a terrible mess, and this isn't the best solution, but every soldier they get out of there alive is a plus to me. We never should have been there, now we need to get the hell out. There's no chance the insurgents will stop attacking as long as we're there. If they won't stop after we leave, then others coutries can help through a U.N. peacekeeping force. Whether or not the U.N. agrees w/ how things went down, they need to step up and start saving lives.

Yes the U.S. created a mess, and I for one will be ashamed of that forever, but what's done is done. We can't hold theirs hands forever.

[edit on 8/1/2005 by yadboy]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Nice try yadboy but honestly the bush cartel has not shown a single iota of introspection or self examination since it was selected the first time and I see no evidence of it now. As for not wanting stooping to a low level all I can say is
!!!



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Nice try yadboy but honestly the bush cartel has not shown a single iota of introspection or self examination since it was selected the first time and I see no evidence of it now. As for not wanting stooping to a low level all I can say is
!!!


Fine let's have our troops strap bombs to their back and blow up women and childeren. (that was sarcasm)


The "Bush cartel" as you so partisanly put it, may not be pulling out for the right reasons, but the end result is the same, less American soldiers die. It may not be perfect, but I'll take it.

It's a friggen mesh over there, a mess made by pinheads who could "shock and awe" their way out of a wet paper bag. It's time to cut our losses and get out.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Iran....

It would seem like a plausable explanation,free up the troops for the next assignment



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
From the Oxford American Dictionary:

CARTEL: (1) An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the porpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition i.e. the Columbian drug cartels.
(2) A coalition or cooperative arrangement between political parties or groups intended to promote a mutual interest.

Origin: Late 19th cent. from the German Kartell, from the French cartel, from the Italian cartello. It was originally used to refer to a coalitio of the conservative and National Liberal parties in Germany in 1887, and hence any political combination; later used to denote a trade agreement (early 20th cent.)

Therefore considering the political marriage between the corporate plutocrats and the religious funnymentalists in the person and political machine of George "dubya" (the shrub) Bush my useage of the word cartel is an accurate discription and not a partisian one.

Be that as it may he is still a dickhead and deserves impeachment and criminal proscution for his lies to get us into this totally purposeless war.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Be that as it may he is still a dickhead and deserves impeachment and criminal proscution for his lies to get us into this totally purposeless war.


What a classy way to end an otherwise good post. Congrats - you should be proud of yourself.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I know that congrads was meant scarcastically but I loath bush minor...I dispised Nixxon but as time goes on junior makes tricky dick look better and better all the time.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Now they're saying there's a possibility of raising the troop levels for the upcoming elections, then draw the forces down.



sfgate
Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, noted that troop levels were raised last January during Iraq's first elections, and then returned to the current level of about 138,000 several weeks later.

"It's perfectly plausible to assume we'll do the same thing for this election," he said, while stressing that no decisions have been made.

Di Rita said he did not know how many extra troops might be needed during the referendum and election period.

Last January the U.S. troop level rose as high as 160,000. This was accomplished mainly by overlapping some of the units arriving in Iraq to begin a one-year tour with those who were finishing up their yearlong tours. In one case an Army brigade was kept a little longer than its scheduled 12 months in Iraq, and Di Rita said he could not rule out that this could happen again this fall, although the intention is to avoid tours longer than 12 months.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Funny how the Pentagon just wants to say whatever John Q. Public wants to hear for the day. Here is an article from the Washington Post saying how the Pentagon plans to send MORE troops to Iraq:

"Anticipating a new burst of insurgent violence..."

www.washingtonpost.com...







 
7

log in

join