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.

 

Signs of US Troop Withdrawl from Iraq?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
So far 10 out of the 27 foward operating bases operated by US forces in Iraq have been closed. The base in Tikrit will be closed sometime next month.
This information is from Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Taluto, commander of the U.S. 42nd Infantry Division, told Pentagon reporters in a teleconference from Iraq.
The withdrawls are an apt demonstration of the progress that has been made in the training and equipping of the Iraqi national forces.
Taluto was quick to point out that the base closures does not mean that there will be a major US troop withdrawl next year.
US forces leave some bases in north Iraq: general

I look at this as the first steps in actually getting our troops back home and out of Iraq. I would expect that the military would not give a solid nod to this being the begining or even admitting to a timetable as it may engender the insurrgents.




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I think that the US, like the UK, are pulling a certain amount of troops out of Iraq, but they are being deployed elsewhere.

I know of certain units in the UK that have been pulled out of Iraq, only to be deployed in Afghanistan. My sons unit is just one of many.
I suppose the same could be happening with the US troops too.

Think this a space to be watched right now eh?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Why not? The ISF has become very effective at security and anti insurgency operations. This past referendums security was nearly 100% ISF controlled and implemented. At 200,000 strong they have more ISF on the ground than coalition forces.

I think coalition troops roles in Iraq are primarily big, military style operations directed at large terror groups and strongholds, where as the ISF has become nearly self sufficient in security.

This news comes as no surprise at all. After all, this has been the plan all along. This is more of an ISF success story than a USA pulling its troops story.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
no signs right now until 2006. u realize the number of American troops in the Iraq increased to about 160,000 compare to 138,000 months ago. some politicians say they may pull troops out if the Iraqi forces are able to take the job and execute it effective.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
That is the thing, according to Taluto, they are not abandoning the bases but are turning over more of the duties over to the Iraqi troops so going by his statement, the Iraqi troops maybe more capable of handling things that has been reported previously. Which again, leads to the possibility of a US troop withdrawl or at least a troop reduction.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Why not? The ISF has become very effective at security and anti insurgency operations. This past referendums security was nearly 100% ISF controlled and implemented. At 200,000 strong they have more ISF on the ground than coalition forces.

I think coalition troops roles in Iraq are primarily big, military style operations directed at large terror groups and strongholds, where as the ISF has become nearly self sufficient in security.

This news comes as no surprise at all. After all, this has been the plan all along. This is more of an ISF success story than a USA pulling its troops story.


Blah, blah, blah. You are like a broken record skippy. In the end, you are just trying to convince yourself. I feel sorry for you.

Decline in Iraqi Troops Readiness Cited

U.S. general says Iraq has one combat-ready battalion

U.S. general: Single Iraqi unit is combat ready
- New estimate of Iraq military capability calls U.S. pullout plan into question

Iraqi Military Not Ready For Solo



Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number of Iraqi army battalions rated by U.S. officers as capable of fighting without U.S. help had dropped from three to one.

That equals roughly 700 soldiers.


[edit on 28-10-2005 by cargo]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well kenshiro, I'll propose this as an alternative. Could there be a covert realignment of forces occurring towards Syria that might explain the closing of some bases and the increase of US troops in Iraq?

It would seem that it wouldn't make sense anyway to point American forces in Iraq east towards Iran just yet, with the Syrians able to strike from behind, i.e. the west. It would seem that the fleet in the Persian Gulf has much of Iran's attention, and would serve as backup should Iran try to intervene in Iraq if such covert action were taken against Syria. On that note, I'll leave you with a little report I happened over today while doing my usual surfing:


James Stewart here from Blackpool 911 and www.financialoutrage.org.uk

Through one of my contacts I was informed last Saturday that last Friday the US army, after initial skirmishes along the border with Syria, have actually invaded Syria. This was confirmed later by 2 further contacts - one from Germany and another from the USA.

Remember when the US invaded Iraq, it came to light that they were already bombing strategic targets for quite a while before the official invasion, so it's highly likely that a similar thing could be happening again.

Regarding an invasion of Syria or Iran, now that the US has completed their 25 Square mile military site in Israel, which was completed at the end of Aug-05, the media is now getting full of propoganda against Iran and Syria.

However, it is widely believed that there will have to be another False Flag atrocity in the US to gain the backing of the general public for a war on Iran or Syria.

Similarly in the UK, after the now proven Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction lies, another False Flag atrocity, would have to take place, to allow Blair to have any chance of leading us into supporting the US against Syria or Iran.

Another 7/7 - My contact at the MOD says from information that he has gleamed that the most likely date will be on Saturday the 5th November, 2005 (5+1+1=7) and (2+0+0+5=7), which he says seems to fit into the criteria that the international bankers, the financial elite, who control our governments require. If anything really drastic did happen on that date, the London stock Exchange is closed until the following Monday morning, thus minimising the effects that a major atrociry would have so soon after London 7/7.


Is it true? Your guess is as good as mine. But men don't grow on trees, and if there is increase in the insurgency and increasingly more sophisticated weaponry being used by insurgents, then it would seem that the insurgency is getting some help from somewhere. Where? For some time now we have been hearing US accusations that Syria is covertly supporting the insurgency in Iraq. And I think we have all heard the reports that the US military has been chasing insurgents back into Syria an engaging them, in addition to the occasional Syrian troops they come upon.

And to fuel the fire a bit, here's another interesting read:
www.post-gazette.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Why would the UK be pulling a certain amount of troops out of Iraq, if they were going to be deployed in Iran and Syria?

I know for a fact that they are being deployed in Afghanistan.
The same could be said of the US forces.

Not sure what is going to happen once they get there, but believe me, they are going there.




top topics



 
0

log in

join