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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
WASHINGTON — Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq, President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not continue past this summer, a development likely to infuriate Democrats and renew concerns among military planners about strains on the force.
Mr. Bush has made no decisions on troop reductions to follow those he announced last September. But White House officials said Mr. Bush had been taking the opportunity, as he did in Monday’s State of the Union address, to prepare Americans for the possibility that, when he leaves office a year from now, the military presence in Iraq will be just as large as it was a year ago, or even slightly larger.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush wanted to tamp down criticism that a large, sustained presence in Iraq would harm the overall health of the military — a view held not only by Democrats, but by some members of his own Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
We should draft the bush kids. Send them to die .
Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
At White House, a Second Look at Iraq Troop Cuts
Mr. Bush has made no decisions on troop reductions to follow those he announced last September. But White House officials said Mr. Bush had been taking the opportunity, as he did in Monday’s State of the Union address, to prepare Americans for the possibility that, when he leaves office a year from now, the military presence in Iraq will be just as large as it was a year ago, or even slightly larger.
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I think America has lost it's democratic ability to control itself. We have no say what our military does anymore.
Originally posted by biggie smalls
It actually would do a whole lot. Bushie would think twice before sending other sons and daughters off to war.
Why not draft the Cheney's and all of Bush's cronies kids as well and while we're at it why don't we send the politicians with them?
They seem pretty willing to send other people's children to war, but don't like to see their own suffer.
Originally posted by jerico65
So, based on that line of thinking, Clinton's daughter Chelsea should have been in the military during Operation Allied Force, when the US was bombing Yugoslavia? Or maybe Operation Desert Fox, when we bombed Iraq to try to institute a "regime change?"
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I think America has lost it's democratic ability to control itself. We have no say what our military does anymore.
Quite true, and unfortunately this goes much further!
Originally posted by biggie smalls
Why not draft the Cheney's and all of Bush's cronies kids as well and while we're at it why don't we send the politicians with them?
The 'surge' was never meant as a temporary fix as a previous poster mentioned; the intention was and still is to keep our soldiers there as long as possible.
Bushie is even trying to lock the next President into keeping our soldiers in Iraq till 2012 through a legally binding contract.
Originally posted by mmmeat
Because the United States currently doesn't have a draft. We have the strongest, bravest, best all-volunteer military in the world.
And I'd much rather have someone protecting us who wants to serve than have someone who doesn't.
Uh...yeah, it actually was. And it worked. And it's over. And more and more of our soldiers are coming home every month. The numbers don't lie.
Reeeeeeally. A "legally binding contract, eh?
That's pretty damned funny!
President George W. Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq.
...
The White House and the Iraqi government decided in December to pursue the pact as a way to define long-term relations between the two countries, including the legal status of American military forces in Iraq.
...
Formal negotiations won't start until February, and few details are known, but already the two sides are laying down markers. The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir - apparently tone-deaf to the American political debate - told The New York Times' Thom Shanker that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 or be able to defend its own borders from external threat at least until 2018.
...
That is far too long for most Americans, but not for Bush, who is quite comfortable leaving American troops fighting in Iraq for another decade.
Originally posted by biggie smalls
Originally posted by mmmeat
Because the United States currently doesn't have a draft. We have the strongest, bravest, best all-volunteer military in the world.
That's relative.
Uh...yeah, it actually was. And it worked. And it's over. And more and more of our soldiers are coming home every month. The numbers don't lie.
So if the surge is working so well why are we there still? Bush said 'Mission Accomplished' several years ago, yet our soldiers aren't home yet.
Do you see an inherent flaw in that statement?
Reeeeeeally. A "legally binding contract, eh?
That's pretty damned funny!
Its not funny actually because its true...At least he is trying to. That means if and when Hillary (or a democrat) is elected [they] can save face and say, "well you know the law states that we must stay in Iraq for X amount of years."
Originally posted by jerico65
People don't remember that. They think that after WW2, all troops went home the next day.