PDA

View Full Version : U.S., British forces could be cut by '06



Nickdfresh
07-11-2005, 10:14 AM
U.S., British forces could be cut by '06
Secret memo outlines pullout plan for Iraq
By GLENN FRANKEL and JOSH WHITE
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000725.html?sub=AR)
7/11/2005

LONDON - The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret - UK Eyes Only," said, "Emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

Reid on Sunday did not dispute the authenticity of the document but said no decision on troop levels had been made. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said officials there had not seen the document.

The undated memo, which was reported in the newspaper the Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."

While top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials have been hoping to reduce troop levels in Iraq for some time, the British memo is apparently the first time such a significant reduction has been outlined under a specific timetable. President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal date, citing concerns that such a deadline would allow insurgents to wait out the U.S.-led occupation.

The memo, posted on the newspaper's Web site, notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious."

While U.S. commanders have praised the development of the Iraqi army and police forces, none of the provinces in Iraq are solely protected by Iraqi forces.

"At any given time, there are a number of plans, for all sorts of developments, good or bad," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman.

Many analysts consider the tenacity of the Iraqi insurgency to be the major impediment to troop withdrawals, although U.S. officials have heralded their recent success in quelling violence.

Part of the overall reduction, said the memo, would be a drop in total British forces by mid-2006 from 8,500 to around 3,000. The change, the memo added, could save Britain half of its current cost of around $1.8 billion per year.

Reid, in a statement Sunday following publication of the memo, said the British government had "made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed.

"No decisions on the future force posture of U.K. forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi Security Forces as their capability increases," Reid said. "We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies."

Interesting...

Nickdfresh
07-11-2005, 01:02 PM
Nobody has a comment of the 'secret' UK (and possibly US) war/withdrawl plans for IRAQ?

Serling
07-12-2005, 09:44 PM
Turn up the heat and the ChickenHawks will crack. Election time will cause more than a few to change their tune.
Remember, many of them where around for the Viet Nam war & remember how ugly it got when the public lost confidence in the Nixon administration. They aren't eager to repeat that page in history.

Warham
07-12-2005, 10:20 PM
Actually, it was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that got us in that Vietnam mess in the first place and the increased escalation of the numbers of servicemen who were being drafted and sent over there. Johnson didn't even run for a second term because he probably didn't want to deal with it for four more years. Nixon would have EASILY won re-election had he not fucked it up with the Watergate scandal.

Serling
07-12-2005, 10:25 PM
Hindsight is a beautiful thing. "Had he not run the most corrupt administration in American history....."

Oh, what might have been.

If he had been as ruthless as Reagan, he would have appointed a fall guy, say a "Ollie North" if you will, to insure that the President didn't have to "remember" trading hostages for arms.

And now in 2005, one of those same "terrorist" has become the President of Iran. How the chickens come home to roost.

BigBadBrian
07-12-2005, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Serling
Hindsight is a beautiful thing. "Had he not run the most corrupt administration in American history....."

Oh, what might have been.

If he had been as ruthless as Reagan, he would have appointed a fall guy, say a "Ollie North" if you will, to insure that the President didn't have to "remember" trading hostages for arms.

And now in 2005, one of those same "terrorist" has become the President of Iran. How the chickens come home to roost.


Dude.....


What the fuck are you trying to say?


Huh?

Serling
07-12-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Dude.....


What the fuck are you trying to say?


Huh?

Read slowly, repeat process. Allow it all to sink in. Get back to us in a few days. Thanks for playing.

Warham
07-12-2005, 10:53 PM
Serling's trying to be the new playa around here.

We don't need more wiseguy liberals around here.

FORD, Nick and Lounge do just fine on their own.

Nickdfresh
07-12-2005, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Actually, it was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that got us in that Vietnam mess in the first place and the increased escalation of the numbers of servicemen who were being drafted and sent over there. Johnson didn't even run for a second term because he probably didn't want to deal with it for four more years. Nixon would have EASILY won re-election had he not fucked it up with the Watergate scandal.

You mean FDR/TRUMAN/EISENHOWER got us into Vietnam really. But Ike made the biggest error when he refused to allow a democratic election after the French withdrew.

Warham
07-12-2005, 11:02 PM
Yeah, I was trying to correct what's his name's comments by saying Nixon was taking the heat for Vietnam.

Nickdfresh
07-12-2005, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, I was trying to correct what's his name's comments by saying Nixon was taking the heat for Vietnam.

Well, you are correct that JOHNSON destroyed his Presidency I think, but The Pentagon Papers came out on NIXON's watch and WATERGATE is what caused him to self-destruct.

Cathedral
07-12-2005, 11:10 PM
I think it's great....

Talk of pulling out will increase the sense of urgency in the Iraqi's to step up to the plate and take their country back.

I expected more fight from the citizens against the insurgence, but they apparently fear standing up to have us just pull out on them again.

An exit strategy gives them a deadline to act, which is a good thing.

We can't stay there forever and the longer it takes to turn the country back over to them 100%, the worse it will be for our troops.

This will turn the heat up on them and they will be faced with the decision to fight for themselves or allow oppression to set back in and we end up fighting Iraq again in the future, depending on the regime that takes over.

We have done and are doing all we can for them, but we are powerless to finish the job on our own.
They have to fight for it or no government we find acceptable will stand.

DrMaddVibe
07-12-2005, 11:10 PM
I guess its not a secret now, huh?

Serling
07-13-2005, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Serling's trying to be the new playa around here.

We don't need more wiseguy liberals around here.

FORD, Nick and Lounge do just fine on their own.

Just steppin' up to the plate WARHAM. Logical thinking isn't monopolized by either political party.

Nice to see a Neo-Con has already branned me a "Liberal".

Pretty big brush you have there.

Warham
07-13-2005, 09:05 AM
We all have big brushes around here. You'll learn soon enough, pal.

And if you are so concerned about labels, why call me a Neo-con?

Serling
07-13-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We all have big brushes around here. You'll learn soon enough, pal.

And if you are so concerned about labels, why call me a Neo-con?

Because many who post in "The Front Line" have a large body of post. Their stance on any number of issues are well documented. My views, however, are not. I thought it quite telling to be branned a "liberal" by someone with so little prior knowledge of the views I hold.

So, when faced with simple "stereotyping, it is always best to return the favor. At the very least it lets the individual know that they are aware of the attempt to paint them into a philosophical corner right from the get go. And, to reject that pigeon-holing of my opinions.

Warham
07-13-2005, 07:01 PM
I can sniff 'em out pretty easy, even if they are like Nick and call themselves Republicans.

It's of no use to hide behind any facade.

You are using run of the mill formations out of the playbook.

Nickdfresh
07-13-2005, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I can sniff 'em out pretty easy, even if they are like Nick and call themselves Republicans.

It's of no use to hide behind any facade.

You are using run of the mill formations out of the playbook.

The only thing you sniff is BUSH butt!

Warham
07-13-2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The only thing you sniff is BUSH butt!

But when I'm referring to you, Nick, it's done with a slap on the back.

:D

Serling
07-13-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I can sniff 'em out pretty easy, even if they are like Nick and call themselves Republicans.

It's of no use to hide behind any facade.

You are using run of the mill formations out of the playbook.

And it is stereotypical of a Neo-Con to feel the need to pigeonhole all opposing political views as "Liberal" and anti-conservative. It's a big tent, the Republican party.

BigBadBrian
07-13-2005, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Serling
Just steppin' up to the plate WARHAM. Logical thinking isn't monopolized by either political party.

Nice to see a Neo-Con has already branned me a "Liberal".

Pretty big brush you have there.

OK Serling, after reading your post carefully twice now, I still don't know what the word "branned" means.

Care to elaborate, you Socialist? :D

Serling
07-13-2005, 10:21 PM
Right. Should have been "branded".

How's the goose-stepping coming along?

BigBadBrian
07-13-2005, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Serling
Right. Should have been "branded".

How's the goose-stepping coming along?

You'll have to ask our resident jackbooted Nazi that question.

Yes, we have one of those on this board also.

His username is kentuckyklira

We all affectionately call him Adolf. :cool:

Serling
07-13-2005, 10:46 PM
Neo-Con fascism isn't far removed.

Shine up those boots.

Warham
07-14-2005, 07:10 AM
....boring....