PDA

View Full Version : U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts



frets5150
06-25-2006, 01:47 AM
U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts
WASHINGTON (June 24) - The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq.

American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.

Estimating the number of American troops that may be deployed in Iraq at the end of 2007 is difficult, one officer said. A reduction of eight combat brigades would equal about 28,000 troops. But that does not mean that the reduction in the remainder of the force would be proportional: troops would still be needed to help with logistics, intelligence, training and airstrikes.

General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the briefing comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.

The commander met this week with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Friday, General Casey and Mr. Rumsfeld met with President Bush at the White House. A senior White House official said that General Casey did not present a formal plan for Mr. Bush's approval but rather a concept of how the United States might move forward after consulting with Iraqi authorities, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

"The recent conversations that have taken place are all designed to formulate our thinking in concert with the new Iraqi government," said the White House official, who declined to discuss specific cuts. "What this process allows is for General Casey to engage with the new Maliki government so it can go from a notional concept to a practical plan of security implementation over the next two years."
Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday that no final decisions would come on troop withdrawals until General Casey consulted with the new Iraqi government. "We expect that General Casey will come back and make a recommendation after he's had those discussions, which he has not yet had," he said.

Proponents of General Casey's approach described it as a carefully synchronized plan to turn over authority for security to the new Iraqi government. The administration has repeatedly said that American troops will begin to stand down as Iraqi forces stand up and begin to assert control. Although the planning for 2006 is advanced, officials say the projected withdrawals for 2007 are more of a forecast of what may be possible given current trends than a hard timeline.

But critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war question whether the ambitious goals for withdrawing troops are realistic given the difficulties in maintaining order there. The insurgency has proven resilient despite several big military operations over the years, and previous forecasts of significant troop withdrawals have yet to materialize.

Now, after criticizing Democratic lawmakers for trying to legislate a timeline for withdrawing troops, skeptics say, the Bush administration seems to have its own private schedule, albeit one that can be adjusted as events unfold.

If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance. The first reductions would take place before this fall's Congressional elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008 presidential election.

According to accounts by American officials, General Casey's briefing identifies four main threats in Iraq: Al Qaeda, criminal groups, Iranian support for violent Shiite organizations, and ethnic and sectarian strife over the distribution of power.

In the general's briefing, the future American role in Iraq is divided into three phases.
The next 12 months was described as a period of stabilization. The period from the summer of 2007 through the summer of 2008 was described as a time when the emphasis would be on the restoration of the Iraqi government's authority. The period from the summer of 2008 though the summer of 2009 was cast as one in which the Iraqi government would be increasingly self-reliant.

In line with this vision, some cuts would begin soon. The United States has 14 combat brigades in Iraq, plus many other support troops. Under the plan, the United States would shrink this force to 12 combat brigades in September. This would be done by not replacing 2 brigades that are scheduled to be withdrawn.

A combat brigade would be kept on alert in Kuwait or elsewhere in case American commanders needed to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade would be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere in the world, but still prepared to deploy quickly. As a result of these arrangements, the plan to bring the combat force down to 12 active brigades in Iraq is being called 12-1-1.

Further reductions might be made by the end of the year. By December, the number of American combat brigades in Iraq would be 10 to 12. As with the September reduction, a brigade would be kept on alert and another brigade would be ready to deploy.

According to the projections in General Casey's briefing, the number of combat brigades would shrink to seven to eight by June 2007 and finally to five to six by December 2007.

At the same time, the number of bases in Iraq would decline as American forces consolidated. By the end of the year the number of bases would shrink to 57 from the current 69. By June 2007, there would be 30 bases, and by December 2007 there would be only 11. By the end of 2007, the United States would have three principal regional military commands: in Baghdad and the surrounding area, in Anbar Province and the west, and in northern Iraq.

The reduction and consolidation of the American force is contingent on the growth and expansion of the Iraqi forces. According to the plan, the Iraqis are to have five army divisions that will control their own swaths of territory by September. By December, that number is to grow to nine. A 10th Iraqi Division is to take on an operational role in the dangerous Anbar Province in western Iraq next spring.

The reduction in American combat brigades would have an importance beyond troop numbers. The strategy is to gradually shift the responsibility for fighting the insurgency to the new Iraqi military and to encourage the Iraqi forces to secure the nation's territory. Arranging for the Iraqis to take on an increasing combat role is the key to reducing the American military presence in Iraq.

As American forces draw down, a growing number of provinces are also scheduled to revert to Iraqi control. Prime Minister Maliki has said that his government will take over responsibility for security in Muthanna Province this summer. Located in southern Iraq near Kuwait, Muthanna is the most peaceful of the southern provinces.

Officials said General Casey's briefing did address the long-term American presence beyond 2007. At the end of that year, the United States would still have responsibility for the Iraq capital and the area west of Baghdad, two of the most violent areas in the country.

Asked for comment on the general's meeting with Mr. Bush, a White House spokesman said: "The president has clearly stated he will listen to the commanders on the ground. We are constantly evaluating our posture and the growing capability of the Iraqi security forces.

"As we move forward, we will closely work with the new Iraqi government as they develop plans to take more and more responsibility for securing their country and providing for the Iraqi people. The president appreciates the opportunity to meet with Secretary Rumsfeld and General Casey to forge a way forward with the new Iraqi government."



GET EM OUT NOW!!!

BITEYOASS
06-25-2006, 04:29 PM
They'll drag ass on saying something, then change there minds. You know how these repugs work.

LoungeMachine
06-26-2006, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by frets5150
U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts
WASHINGTON (June 24) - The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.





So us Libs have been right all along.



:cool:

Warham
06-26-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
So us Libs have been right all along.



:cool:

What, about you guys wanting to cut and run?

We knew that.

Guitar Shark
06-26-2006, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by frets5150
U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts
WASHINGTON (June 24) - The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
So us Libs have been right all along.



I think it's less about the liberals being "right," and more about the fact that there is an election in November.

Warham
06-26-2006, 05:28 PM
It has more to do with the fact that the Iraqi army is far more capable than it was two or three years ago. They are doing things only American troops were doing recently, like guard the Syrian border.

LoungeMachine
06-26-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Warham
It has more to do with the fact that the Iraqi army is far more capable than it was two or three years ago. They are doing things only American troops were doing recently, like guard the Syrian border.



And the difference between this plan, and the Democratic plans is................:rolleyes:



The Flip Floppers are cutting and running.


You're so used to hypocrisy, you can't even see it when it smacks you in the face anymore.

DEMON CUNT
06-26-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Warham
What, about you guys wanting to cut and run?

We knew that.

As opposed to the Lie and Die policy of the Bush Administration?

http://www.kevinsites.net/images/11-05-2003/SufayaOilFields.JPG

Nickdfresh
06-26-2006, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
It has more to do with the fact that the Iraqi army is far more capable than it was two or three years ago. They are doing things only American troops were doing recently, like guard the Syrian border.

Yeah, those Shiite, Iranian-aligned, militiamen are really good at summarily executing unarmed prisoners...

BTW, what are you basing this brilliant assessment on?

DEMON CUNT
06-26-2006, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

BTW, what are you basing this brilliant assessment on?

Sean Hannity's butthole!

http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/srm7.jpg

Warham
06-27-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The Flip Floppers are cutting and running.


Kerry's the president?

FORD
06-27-2006, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Kerry's the president?

Actually, he probably is, given all the documented fraud in Ohio.

But that's beside the point. It's funny that republicans are suddenly FOR troop reductions. And there's the flip flop..

Warham
06-27-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Actually, he probably is, given all the documented fraud in Ohio.

But that's beside the point. It's funny that republicans are suddenly FOR troop reductions. And there's the flip flop..

We've always been for troop reductions...when it's time for reductions.

Democrats have been for troop reductions since WWII ended.

DEMON CUNT
06-27-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Democrats have been for troop reductions since WWII ended.

Especially when it comes to illegal invasions.

Nickdfresh
06-27-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We've always been for troop reductions...when it's time for reductions.

Democrats have been for troop reductions since WWII ended.

Then why did FDR and Harry Truman both reinstitute the draft?

Jesus, what did the high school you went to teach anyways? The Bible is literally true?

And it was Bush Sr. that began the post-Cold War draw down (not that I'm complaining)...

FORD
06-27-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We've always been for troop reductions...when it's time for reductions.

Democrats have been for troop reductions since WWII ended.

Maybe because there hasn't been any war worth their participation since then?

LoungeMachine
06-27-2006, 09:45 PM
Warham getting owned by the entire board.


LMMFAO

Warham
06-28-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Warham getting owned by the entire board.


LMMFAO

Yeah, three of the biggest anti-war libs here.

Wow!

:rolleyes:

Warham
06-28-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Maybe because there hasn't been any war worth their participation since then?

No, there have been, but that's not the point.