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.

 

White House Is Said to Debate '08 Cut in Iraq Troops by 50%

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

White House Is Said to Debate '08 Cut in Iraq Troops by 50%


www.nytimes.com

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
What is very distressing is that this discussion is motivated merely by politics. There is no military strategy here; it's all about making sure that another Republican gets into the White House. Don't get me wrong: the Democrats are all about keeping their power also, no matter the cost in money or people. Just as long as people cheer at their conventions, the parties will continue with their scorched-earth policies until the other side is totally gone.

My opinion has always been that there is no more question about whether or not the US should be in Iraq. That argument is over. Now we have to stay. The fact is, as Colin Powell said, we're beholden to the Pottery Barn rule: you break it, you bought it.

Because of the gross mismanagement of the peace in Iraq, it is vulnerable to its neighbors. It is the subject of pressure from Iran and Syria, and Al-Qaeda aligned or sympathetic groups make life a hell on a daily basis.

We now have an obligation to see this thing through. It's not just political, it's moral. We can't just throw a nation of 30 million to the wolves by leaving and letting everything descend into chaos. Especially when we made the choice to start it. You think the world's view of the US is bad now? What happens if we leave Iraq? The first thing that people will say is "you left them in a lurch, and look what is happening to them."

The fact is that there has been positive change in Iraq. But it's far from over: the political instability of the region presses upon the government and the people daily. Those of us who are so decadent here in America, Europe and Australia wouldn't survive a month under what those people are going through.

We have an obligation to stay, no matter the cost. Those who say that we should leave now because it's costing too much are no better than those who say we should be taking the oil to pay for the war: because in both cases you're putting money over lives. Everyone is worried about their petty politics and no one cares about the people being blown up. Everyone is so worried about Terrorists, Bush, the military, oil and conspiracies that we miss what this whole thing needs to be about now.

And yet, everyone discussing this issue has one singular goal: instituting their own policy preferences, crafting the world to their view, and obliterating anyone so daft as to disagree. The Repubicans want to win their election, the Democrats have won theirs, Tony Blair has resigned so Labour may continue to win theirs. And who loses in this?

Oh yes, the Iraqi people. But who ever gave a damn about them anyways?

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/26/2007 by Togetic]



new topics
 
1

log in

join