Rumsfeld To Reduce Troops below 100,000 by summer

[Witling]

The Washington Post reported a few days ago that Rumsfeld is contemplating a plan to bring troop levels in Iraq down from the current 130,000 to below 100,000 by next summer. Post Article (this link is not behind a subscription). It will be interesting to see if that helps Bush's poll numbers.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is what McCain was complaining about on Meet the Press Sunday. (See this thread.) He believes we need more troops in Iraq, not fewer, and said this was a political decision, not a miltary decision. More Bush-lite arrogance that's going to cost American lives.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Maybe the Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, and Turks are planning to send huge contingents next year.

 

[Shelly21]

Japanese have troops? I thought they are only allowed to send money?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Japanese have troops? I thought they are only allowed to send money?

The Japanese have the most powerful, well organized, and best equipped military in Asia. Thier constitution does generally prevent them from sending troops overseas though.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Japanese have troops? I thought they are only allowed to send money?

The Japanese have the most powerful, well organized, and best equipped military in Asia. Thier constitution does generally prevent them from sending troops overseas though.

which they are trying to change now

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is what McCain was complaining about on Meet the Press Sunday. (See this thread.) He believes we need more troops in Iraq, not fewer, and said this was a political decision, not a miltary decision. More Bush-lite arrogance that's going to cost American lives.

Jumping the gun? How is this more "Bush-lite arrogance" when it is Rummy who is only waiting to make a decision based on the plan the military sent him.

U.S. military commanders have developed a plan to steadily cut back troop levels in Iraq next year, several senior Army officers said in recent interviews.

The plan to cut that number is well advanced and has been described in broad outline to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but has not yet been approved by him.

Wow - here I thought he was to reduce troops below 100,000 when in actuality he hasn't approved it yet:Q Then we get a YABB who starts rattling on about "arrogance" from a man who isn't even being talked about in this article.
Wow- just wow.


Anyway - I hope we can start lowing the troop numbers by next summer, if not sooner. It'd be great to see some help from the international community who seems to only want to talk about helping Iraq instead of actually doing it, it'd also be good to see MORE Iraqi's taking over the security roles via a new army and police force(both of which have been started and implemented) Both these things in addition to searching out and destroying the resistance will allow for the timely return of our troops.

CkG

 

[Zebo]

How do you know it was the only plan submitted? My guess is selective listening because we have an election comming up. You like the CIA/WMD thang.

 

[Witling]

He hasn't approved it yet, but there is tremendous political pressure to do so. As far as where the idea comes from, I can't use my favorite four letter word, but in the plumbing trade they'd say "scat flows down hill."

 

[CaptnKirk]

I remember how swimmingly wonderful things went in Viet Nam when we began
the reduction of our Armrd Forces after more than a decade of engagement.

Link

Does anyone up there in the Whitehouse think anything through anymore ?
With the investment we made do we really need to further jepardize our troops ?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Japanese have troops? I thought they are only allowed to send money?

The Japanese have the most powerful, well organized, and best equipped military in Asia. Thier constitution does generally prevent them from sending troops overseas though.

Japan has the most powerful troops per soldier, but their military is far from the most powerful in Asia.

Japan sending troops overseas is highly symbolic. The last time that happened, WW-II started. Even now, I don't think many Asian countries like the thought of revisiting imperialistic Japan again, even if its not for a selfish motive.

 

[nowareman]

"There are now 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The plan to cut that number is well advanced and has been described in broad outline to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but has not yet been approved by him. It would begin to draw down forces next spring, cutting the number of troops to fewer than 100,000 by next summer and then to 50,000 by mid-2005, officers involved in the planning said."

Shouldn't Rumsfeld ask for approval from the Iraq Stabilization Group before making any plans?

This looks like just an election year ploy from the Bush administration. After leaving Rumsfeld totally out of the loop when they created the ISG they are now going to allow him to begin troop withdrawal?

It just doens't add up.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: nowareman
"There are now 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The plan to cut that number is well advanced and has been described in broad outline to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but has not yet been approved by him. It would begin to draw down forces next spring, cutting the number of troops to fewer than 100,000 by next summer and then to 50,000 by mid-2005, officers involved in the planning said."

Shouldn't Rumsfeld ask for approval from the Iraq Stabilization Group before making any plans?

This looks like just an election year ploy from the Bush administration. After leaving Rumsfeld totally out of the loop when they created the ISG they are now going to allow him to begin troop withdrawal?

It just doens't add up.

It is the Pentagons job to draw up plans. He doesn't need to ask permission from anyone before having his staff come up with contingencies. The Pentagon would be useless otherwise.

The whole plan is however hard to seperate from political considerations.