Article

2006-05-09 Home Front: WoT

U.S.A cancels deployment of 3,500 troops

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Oztralian 2006-05-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sounds reasonable, 387,000 trained troops should be able to do something.

Posted by Hupinemble Jaling1017 2006-05-09 07:58|| 2006-05-09 07:58|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 09:14|| Front Page Top

#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">Laurence of the Rats 2006-05-09 09:22|| 2006-05-09 09:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 09:28|| Front Page Top

#5 Better check the AQ memos lib. They are finished. Even AQ admits it.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-05-09 09:37|| 2006-05-09 09:37|| Front Page Top

#6 If they aren't going to Iraq, bring them home.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-09 09:45|| 2006-05-09 09:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 09:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 10:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 11:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 11:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 12:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 18:44|| Front Page Top

#13 Send them to eradicate poppy in afghanistan.

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-05-09 19:20|| 2006-05-09 19:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-05-09 20:20|| Front Page Top

23:36 Dorf
23:27 DMFD
23:22 DMFD
23:17 Rambler
22:56 RWV
22:47 SPoD
22:40 Frank G
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:35 Barbara Skolaut
22:35 trailing wife
22:30 Frank G
22:21 Manolo
22:20 ed
22:19 JosephMendiola
22:15 Manolo
22:11 ed
22:08 ed
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:08 tu3031
22:06 SPoD
22:06 Oldspook
22:06 Anonymoose
22:02 Oldspook
22:00 Frank G