do you think any candidate will withdraw troops from Iraq?

[Fern]

^ I took it to pretty much mean withdrawl all. Of course, there will be some left there for training and embassy duty.

But otherwise I think it fairly certain that some will be withdrawn. The military says we can't sustain current levels.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

As I recall, Obama and Hillary will leave at least 20,000. Way more than required for mere Embassy duty. And how long it takes to get to that 20,000 is unknown. And what goes down can also go up. Its ever so easy to have a temporary escalation become a permanent keep raising the ante escalation.

I do not see Iraq becoming anything but a damned if we do and damned if we don't in any predicable manner.
In some ways force levels are irrelevant, 170,000 is still way short of the 500,000 required to do anything meaningful.

 

[palehorse]

Maybe they could withdraw 140,000 troops for a 24-month break... and then we'll all go back well-rested and ready for action! :roll:

seriously, I dont see the number of troops decreasing quickly enough to satisfy anyone, regardless of who wins the WH.

MAYBE 20k/yr... maybe...

 

[piasabird]

I do not think an immediate withdrawl is possible. However, I could see a slow and steady withdrawl of troops as deployed units reach the end of their stay, we could just not replace them. Then we could have fewer and fewer troops till we have more of a token force there with a support role there.

The Iraqi's dont have an Air Force at this time. Sadam may have had a few planes but they were not a real threat so we destroyed most of them. I doubt if they can afford to make our type of hardened and armored Hum-Vees either. It might be we will decide to leave a few of our older vehicles there in lieu of transporting them back to the USA. Sometimes it costs more to transport supplies than they are worth.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Maybe they could withdraw 140,000 troops for a 24-month break... and then we'll all go back well-rested and ready for action! :roll:

seriously, I dont see the number of troops decreasing quickly enough to satisfy anyone, regardless of who wins the WH.

MAYBE 20k/yr... maybe...

Even though most of the Hussein devotees would say otherwise, that's probably the most correct assessment.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I do not think an immediate withdrawl is possible. However, I could see a slow and steady withdrawl of troops as deployed units reach the end of their stay, we could just not replace them. Then we could have fewer and fewer troops till we have more of a token force there with a support role there.

The Iraqi's dont have an Air Force at this time. Sadam may have had a few planes but they were not a real threat so we destroyed most of them. I doubt if they can afford to make our type of hardened and armored Hum-Vees either. It might be we will decide to leave a few of our older vehicles there in lieu of transporting them back to the USA. Sometimes it costs more to transport supplies than they are worth.

Iraq could always pay for our equipment with oil...

 

[Lemon law]

But But But---Iraq is not about the oil---GWB himself assured me of that.

Flowers and candy was supposed to be sufficient renumeration.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But But But---Iraq is not about the oil---GWB himself assured me of that.

Flowers and candy was supposed to be sufficient renumeration.

I was speaking only about payment for equipment we might give to Iraq if/when we leave.

Renumeration is an entirely different subject...

 

[Lemon law]

Meanwhile back at Yahoo news I found this from Robert Gates himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_...FXGbeedi5PwePtJzms0NUE

Its seems we will soon be drawing down to about 140,000 troops. And it also looks like Petraeus will be delivering a Petraeus report 2 to congress on April 8.

Gates delivers an upbeat assessment of the recent flare ups in Basra and elsewhere and notes his plan did not take into account any of the recent events.

I very much wonder what events will look like on April 8 when Petraeus does testify?

 

[Build it Myself]

Originally posted by: senseamp
All 3 will, just to different extent. We just don't have the money to keep this insanity going.

we don't have the money to bring them back either. The country is in the beginning (not the middle, not the end) of a recession, the job market is shrinking, consumer confidence is extremely low, the house market is stalled, companies are laying off people by the 1000's, major auto industries are trying to "buyout" their employees to get them to retire...what makes anyone think they'd willing bring all those able bodied soldiers back from Iraq to further dilute the workforce? At least in Iraq and Afganistan they have a job, back here they'd have nothing until the market picks up again, which won't happen until the raise the rate, not lower it. (we're emulating Japan's crisis in the 90's to a fault).

So my opinion? Nobody's coming home...*someone* i know in Iraq god knows I can't mention names about this stuff is already telling me we've got plans to invade Iran...

 

[chowderhead]

Top Obama advisors recommends keeping 60k to 80k troops in Iraq

"A key adviser to Senator Obama?s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

This is on top of another former, top Obama foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power's statements saying Obama of course won't rely on any statements or promises he made as Senator or a candidate for President for troop withdrawals. Once again, Obama and his campaign will say and promise one thing but turn around and try and have it both ways.
Obama is a typical politician running on empty promises of hope and change.