Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Proof we are "out of troops?"
The incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
He states that the surge cannot be sustained beyond April of next year without changes in our "force structure". That means adding more troops to the Army/Marines (where do we get those?) or lengthening deployments to 18 months, which they have already said is off the table due to wear and tear on the units/training requirements/etc.
Thus, we are out of troops.
In addition we are in no way working on an exit strategy for Germany or Japan. The definition of exit strategy necessitates an unfavorable situation from which we must extricate ourselves. The situation in Germany and Japan is neither by any reasonable estimate. Again though, you are taking as an exit strategy goals so nebulous that it is simply impossible to take them seriously.
The only positive thing I can see out of this is that things are getting progressively tougher for the Bush administration to push for more Friedman units. They won another few months back in June at the cost of blowing their last chance with the surge. Now the surge has failed to provide for any improvement in the political situation which was both its goal, and the widely accepted requirement for success in Iraq. The largely surge unrelated developments in Anbar provided enough good news however that they will get another 6 months of funding.
What's good about this is that the general who everyone is holding up as the Foremost Expert On Our Plan In Iraq has said that he would have difficulty justifying our continued level of deployment if things have not improved by March. I think most rational people at this point know that it is unlikely that they will have improved by then... and so I'll be glad to see either the actual support for troop reductions, or the even more hysterical flailing by the war enablers. I suspect both will be forthcoming.