Meanwhile, in the Real World, Bush to Keep Troop Levels the Same
By John Amato Monday Sep 08, 2008 11:00am
Did you think it would be any different?
The Associated Press has learned that President Bush plans to keep the number of U.S. troops in Iraq near the current level through the end of the year, then bring home up to 8,000 combat and support troops by mid-January.
In a speech on Tuesday, Bush is expected to announce that he will maintain the current U.S. forces - that's roughly 145,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades and thousands of support forces - through the final full year of his administration.
So while Bush bragged this morning, and much of the mainstream media lapped it up, that returning troop numbers to pre-surge levels constitutes a "withdrawal," the math...and the consequences...don't add up. From The Guardian (UK):
But a reduction of 8,000 troops over the next few months will still leave US troop levels in Iraq at about 140,000, posing a big problem for Bush's successor.
In fact, the pace of the reduction in combat troops is both slower and smaller than had been anticipated. US commanders see little alternative to keeping a big troop presence in Iraq for now because the situation remains fragile, although Baghdad has made it clear it would like all US combat forces to leave by 2011 in current talks on a security pact.
He went on to argue that the US needed to maintain current levels through the Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and that consideration of force reductions makes sense only after those elections and until the incoming commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, has assessed the new situation.
Toby Dodge, an analyst at Queen Mary, University of London, said Bush's decision was a compromise between Petraeus and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
He said: "Petraeus wanted a slower withdrawal because the thinks the gains are reversible, while the other commanders wanted to shift troops to Afghanistan and to save the army from being broken, so Bush compromised between the two camps."
Although the violence has dropped largely because of the surge, Dodge also believes the progress that has been achieved is clearly reversible.
"The Iraqi army is a work in progress and the police is still completely divided along sectarian lines."...
Current US deployments to Afghanistan include 14,000 troops that are part of a Nato force and an additional 19,000 under separate US command. As Bush shuffles American troops around, one thing remains certain: American forces are fully stretched and are likely to remain so well into next year.
Login or Register to post comments.
EPIC FAIL
not to mention just as many if not more private mercinaries in iraq... swell...
barkin @ 2:
Gee, I wonder why that isn't reported on...
Thanks media for the bang-up job....
Fortunately this election isn't about issues.
Bu$h and the republicans in "charge" = lyin' effin' liars!
Blah, blah, war... BO-RING!!
But did you hear Sarah Palin and John McCain had a blast on their second date?!
http://www.nationalwatercooler.com/nationalwatercooler/NationalWaterCooler/Entries/2008/9/8_McCain_and_Palin’s_Second_Date.html
Please remember that the old USSR was crushed in a backwards, primative country called Afghanistan. Bush is killing our military...what a vain prick!
Is the Coast Clear?--- @ 3:
has obama addressed this private mercinary issue? i bet not, but i could be wrong...
stevo @ 7:
let´s not forget obama has pledged to escalate in afganistan... were gonna be there for the next 20 years for what? to kill civilians in retrobution for 911?
This way if we "win" Iraq it'll be to their credit, but if we "lose Iraq," it'll be the fault of their successors.
Do boosh and dick run around the Oval Office yelling, "SURGE!", like Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble yell, "CHARGE it..." ?
Bush needs those forces there when we or isreal attack Iran...its coming..get ready for it..and don't anyone be surprised...THIS IS ALL BEING DONE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT...AND NO ONE IS PICKING IT UP...WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
stevo @ 7:
Also, it was crushed under the weight of it's own military expenditures.Sound familiar?
I can not think of a better end for America than for it to be choked and smothered in its own vanity.
Even if we manage to ditch the bible this century, we wont get past the rancid greed before humanity kills itself.
I gotta go with Carlin on this one. Fuck Hope.
Idiot Shrubs will continue as much damage as he can before he leaves office.
Here's an interesting article about Palin.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080909/us_time/sarahpalinsalaskonomics;_y...
Lies, lies, lies.
Zenrage @ 13:
speaking of carlin, i love the name of his country song,"i shoulda fucked old whats-her-name... i miss him...
Serious question: What is the difference between a Surge and escalation? Is it that the surge goes to a specific area with a specific goal? Fine. Now when every member of the Surge doesn't come back immediately after the "victory" isn't it just an escalation?
If that's all there is, then don't the McSames lose talking points? Seriously asking so I don't go out saying wrong things. Thanks.
stevo @ 7:
Please remember that the old USSR was crushed in a backwards, primative country called Afghanistan. Bush is killing our military…what a vain prick!
____________________________________________________
Simply surging with vanity.
Bush compromised between Patraues and Mullen?
More like Cheney told Bush to do it his way.
Don @ 11:
That may be true, but where will the troops come from? They want to avoid the draft so that dead soldiers will continue to be a non issue.
How many more innocent Muslim civilians in far away countries not associated with the 9-11 perpetrators (Saudi Arabia), will we have to kill before we finally feel vindicated for 9-11 ?
Whenever I see Bush kissing/holding/fondling the hand of the Saudi tyranical dictator, I want to scream !
If Iran attacks America, I fear Mcsame and Bush will invite Ahmadinjahd over for BBQ !
Insanity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
"No way, no how, no McCain, no Palin".
Hillary Clinton.
just a few short weeks ago, when the repubic spin machine was in full tilt whirl, and the campaign of maverick john was faultering, everything was wine and roses. or to quote traiter droopy dog joe lieberman "the troops are coming home". the media was all abuzz and touting the success that was allowing the troops to be coming out of iraq.
so, once again, our "decider" has gotten all the praise and credit without the actual follow through. "all the sizzle without the steak" one more time.
and now that sarah the savior from alaska has taken over the mccain campaign press, well it is a good time to bury this change of plans story in the fog of the alaskan blizzard.
the repubic party is the party of change after all, and it is proven that not all change is good, or actual.
make sure all your friends are registered to vote, talk to them about the issues and deliver them to the voting stations if you have to. we need to end this madness in november.
Any mention of how long we will continue to pay the warlords not to attack our troops? Those payments, more than anything, are the real reason for the reduction in violence.
Will these payments be stopped as we start to draw down troops to show that pulling the troops will increase the violence.
barkin @ 8:
It was a mixed message: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/8/breaking_with_convention_part_i_hig...
JEREMY SCAHILL: Senator Kerry, should Blackwater be banned? Senator Kerry, you’ve been aggressive on Blackwater recently. Do you think they should be banned?
SEN. JOHN KERRY: I’m not having a press conference right now. I’ve got to get to an airport, because I have to go to a funeral.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Just answer the one question. I know you know about this.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: I need to—I need—I’m not doing this right know. That’s all.
JEREMY SCAHILL: It’s a simple yes or no. Do you think they should be banned—Blackwater, the mercenary company—from operating in Iraq?
SEN. JOHN KERRY: No, I don’t think they should be banned. I think they need to operate under rules that apply to the military and everybody else.
JEREMY SCAHILL: But it’s OK if Senator Obama continues to use them, if he wins the presidency?
SEN. JOHN KERRY: You guys, I’m not—this is not the moment.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The Blackwater company is in trouble, because they try to treat their employees as if they’re independent contractors. They have done a job that’s been considered very poor, and they’re under criminal investigation for some of the work that their troops have done. And so, they’re going to be investigated much further by the Congress and people in the administration and good people like you on the outside.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Last question: should Senator Obama win, do you think he should cancel that contract with the WPPS?
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Yes. Yes, I don’t see any reason to have a contract with Blackwater. They haven’t lived up to their contract, and we shouldn’t be having these private military contracts. We should use our own military.
C. Hussein Jr. @ 20:
Will they bring the girls, VP hopeful Sarah Palin and S.C. Senator Linda Graham
lj @ 16:
i think the only difference is the spelling...
lj @ 16:
"Surge" is spelled S-u-r-g-e.
"escalation" is spelled e-s-c-a-l-a-t-i-o-n.
BIG difference!
I am amused by the comment that Bush was heeding the voice of military advisers. Just prior to the surge the senior brass warned the Shrub against it as a move that would stretch our military reserve to the limit. Even the Shrub's favorite general, Petraeus was aware of the stakes, correcting the Shrub when he said we doubling-down in Iraq: the general said no, it was more like "all-in"—talk about going for broke.
darn .. barkin @ 26 beat me to it !!
lj @ 16:
An escalation happens in a southeast Asian country when a Democrat is president.
A surge happens in a middle eastern country when a Republican is president, when the media is compliant and the country is catatonic with jingoism and nationalism.
I think there's more troops there than voted for Palin for Governor. Scary.
So...Does McCain back up Bushes plan? Or does he agree with Obama's? Or Does his new VP Palin have any better ideas? I want to know what McCain's plan would be?
General Jack D. Ripper @ 14:
According to Mark Twain it's, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
According to the Dallas Morning Nudes today, palin is trying to hit Obama over earmarks because he requested $311,000,000.00 to her $280,000,000.00 or so. But even the Morning Nudes pointed out that the difference is in population density. With Obama it's $25.00 in government aid per citizen of Illinois to her $250.00 per citizen in Alaska. Additionally, he doesn't make it a selling point that he's for cutting government, but diverting tax breaks for the wealthy, and hopefully war expenses for domestic spending.
Is it just me, or does earmarking sound like the results of an overzealous earlobe nibbler?
cminca@24
thanks for that, but has obama addressed the issue? waxman, for all the good work he has done, with th exception of backing out of his pledge to investigate Sibel Edmonds claims, is fighting the good fight, but i doubt he speaks for obama or the dem leadership on the issue... this is a huge industry we are talking about here, and the dem leadership loves them some money, now...
MountainMan23 @ 29:
just by seconds though... love the humor kindship...
Mick Angry Leftist Piobr @ 19:
Vote Vets rep was on Olbermann in August and said that a vote for McCain ensures a reinstitution of the draft.
lj @ 16:
Serious question: What is the difference between a Surge and escalation?
to truely understand the difference (none) we would have to pay a consultation fee to the word spin meister repubic nit wit Frank Luntz.
listen to this interview on Fresh Air (warning have your repulsed by repubes puke bag handy). this dork has helped bush co. sell us shit for years now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6761960
Meemers @ 32:
i bet palin´s idea is to ask paris hilton... she liked her energy plan i bet...
barkin @ 34:
No, I don't think he has addressed the issue, but I don't recall anyone asking him about it specifically. Good question. Obviously, if he is listening to Kerry, he will lean one way and if he is listening to Waxman he may lean another. Had Biden weighed in on this?
Here's the problem.
When GW took office the Clinton Economic Boom was ending. It was based on the Dot Com Boom and the hollowing out of South Asian economies - to the benefit of the US economy - brought about by the Globalisation Treaties signed during the Clinton years.
By the time GW took office all the benefits (to the US) of globalisation had played out, and the "hollowing out" had reached the US economy.
What to do?
Obvious solution: start wars, fund those wars through deficit spending to prop up the US economy. All major "American" corporations cash in and the Wall Street economy prospers.
On the other hand, the domestic situation suffers (we all know this).
Now the big question: what happens if the US ends the wars & deficit spending?
Can the US economy survive without massive military-industrial spending?
And if so, explain how it can survive.
If we have 154,000 official US troops stationed in the Middle East wouldn't one have to agree that it benefits the nation of Israel? Israel must be a lot more secure than if our troops were stationed at home or in some other part of the world. Muslim fundamentalists would take up arms if Israeli troops were doing what our soldiers do. So in exchange for the help to Israel perhaps Israel could send us some of their troops to help out in emergencies in this country like Kartrina? Wasn't the Israeli military helping us training the military of Georgia? Why stop there? Perhaps they could assist us in S. Korea or Japan? I'm on a roll here, perhaps the Saudis could replace some of our troops in Germany.
CMINCA @ 36:
I bet $100 Shrubs attacks Iran before he leaves office.
McCain has said things such as:
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"
We will be in Iraq "100 years";
"Cigarettes are one way of killing them (Iranians)"
Told a woman several weeks ago that he agrees with her that we should have a military draft so that we have enough people in the military to catch Bin Laden
McCain has Neocons advising him. Neocon PNAC member Randy Scheunemann is a top foreign policy advisor for him right now. Neocons pushed hard for Clinton to attack Iraq; Clinton didn't. Bush did. If McCain wins, I'd bet serious money that Scheunemann gets a high ranking job, if not in McCain's cabinet.
I heard someone on NPR the other day talking about McCain and his military thoughts. He said that one thing McCain "learned" from Vietnam is that you do not quit in a war. If Bush attacks Iran, McCain will go full bore to bomb the living shit out of that country. If Bush doesn't attack Iran, McCain will do so anyway because he's hell bent on winning the war on terror. War is his answer for all world conflict.
CMINCA @ 39:
obama introduced a bill to the defense spending bill of ´07 trying to get more "accountability" when it comes to blackwater... i don´t know the status of it, but it seems he´s not against them, he is just disturbed by them.
http://blog.thehill.com/2007/09/24/congress-to-address-oversight-for-sec...
willie @ 37:
Thanks to all for the feedback. I will listen to the whole Luntz interview with interest since I have always worried that pols steal or subvert the language at will. I have become more cynical than ever and lies seem more prevalent this time. And when Palin screeches her lies it's even worse.
Afterall Bush and McBush are truely blood brothers.
"...consideration of force reductions makes sense only after... the incoming commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, has assessed the new situation."
GEN Odierno isn't living in a box. He's already inundated with reports, intel, and other assessments about the situation. He's prepared to make a decision on Day One.
"What President Bush and Senator McCain don't understand is that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was - the central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks seven years later." -Sen. Obama today.
Get ready for "Surge Two"...Obama style.
bush and cheney might as well put all our troops
in gitmo since they have made prisoners of them anyway.
these two bastard chickenhawks without one day of real
field service are totally insensitive to the daily stress and
torture our brave troops are being forced to endure.
FUCK BUSH AND CHENEY, they should be put on the
front lines in afganistan and take their chances, since
they so willfully force our troops to do the same.
My neighbour's brother (a Sergeant) and nephew (a Pfc) just shipped out (from the NJ NatGuard) for their 4th and 3rd deployments, respectively.
"Sarge" wasn't supposed to go at all as he's a few months away from 24 years and has a hearing problem from his last tour, but of course he's been stop-lossed. Supposedly he's getting a desk job out there.
Jonathan has the warrior ethos but I have pretty high hopes he'll get back okay. His eagerness is for soldiering but he has his own experience and his father's to keep him as safe as he can be.
Both these guys are just being cycled through to maintain troop levels for reasons that have sod-all to do with 'progress' or any great and noble cause--and I happen to know that both of them know it.
They Bush administartion always claims that after "A" happens, then "B" and "C", etc will follow. Unfortunately, step "A" never happens and steps B, C, etc become moot.
cases in point.
WMD's.
Bush first said that Saddam had WMD's (A), but he did not stop there. He also said taht Saddam intended to give these weapons to terrorists(B) who would in turn, attack America with them(C). We're still waiting for step "A", we've forgotten about step B and C loooong ago.
"The Surge"
Bush claimed the surge would lead to less violence which would lead to Sunni/Shia reconciliation which would lead to democracy in Iraq which would lead to dicatorships toppling across the Middle East which would lead to the end of terrorism as we know it here on Earth. Muqtada al Sadr's cease fire and America's "hush money" are the main reasons for the decline in violence, Those other steps I mentioned above ... fuggedabouddit.
“The Iraqi army is a work in progress and the police is still completely divided along sectarian lines."
Iraq has hundreds of thousands of trained troops that pervented other nations from invading. It seems like the focus should be on creating the bureaucracy of a military and then simply filling the positions.
However, if the police are divided along sectarian lines, isn't the military, also? If not, then use the Iraqi military as a police force: CIDs, MPs, etc.
I realize the reality is more complicated, but the current administration is either uninterested or unwilling to share clear objectives with us.
Surging into a quagmire. But the surge is working. Surging to kill every Iraq citizen, or at least run them off. All this takes time. Women and children first. Beyond that just keep shoveling money into an illegal war. Where the hell is Bin Laden? God bless America.
Britisher @ 49:
What they (we?) are doing to an entire generation of servicemen and women is unconscionable. I can't describe it, even.
I watch cable news in the morning and the Republican slant to the news was evident as usual...
We saw ALL of Bush's speech lauding the success of the surge and attacks on "those who opposed the surge" (read that traitor Obama).
Then a short hop to a speech Obama was giving...this lasted all of a couple of minutes...
Then on to a live long segment showing Palin and McKrusty giving stump speeches...
The very idea that the "librul" media will ever challenge all of the lies coming from Bush, McKrusty and Palin is laughable!
And I'm not laughing, I'm crying...the nevousness and alarm on all of the ProgBlogs that this race might be a repeat of the Dukakis, Gore, Kerry campaigns is very evident this morning.
And the lips of the "librul" media are still fastened tightly to the arse of McCain, when the entire head is not shoved up his ass!
Johnny2BadObamaBuysTheWarOnTerrorLie @ 47:
what a douche. he´s being framed by the repugs... the guys who hit us on 911 are dead... there is no proof it was cia asset OBL... 911 was an inside job anyway...
When is a troop reduction not really a troop reduction? When it is announced before the election to help McSame but is not going to happen ,if ever ,until next JANUARY 2009 !
So convenient of him to make this decision now after 8 years of the worse presidency ever. He finally made a decent decision, O WOW!
It's ironic though that he's saying this will take place in February. He tricked the voters into giving him a second term by starting the war, (knowing Americans never vote-out a sitting president during times of war). Will he try to trick us into keeping the Republicans in office by promising to pull out the troops a month after he is out of office. This administration is so tricky. It just shows how little they think of the American people. They truly don't give us much credit for being intelligent people.
8000 does not a reduction make... it is just so he can say he is making a reduction when really levels are still above pre-surge levels...
Johnny2BadObamaBuysTheWarOnTerrorLie @ 47:
I think Surge Two will be the least of our problems if McCain is elected. I see Old Man McCain restoring the draft because I see many wars going on. We got a good chance to see revenge in action from the Oval Office with the Bushes, (father and son). That's what started this war in the first place, unfinished business between George H. Bush and Sadam Hussein.
I am so damned sick of the way the troops are being treated. We just tattooed some members of the 'surge', on their fifth deployment,... they came home for EIGHTEEN days, & then back into the shit. They've been over for 12 months, got a two week break, & then back over for what looks like will be another six months.
We've already lost some of the people we tattooed from the last rotation. Let them tell you how the surge is working.
Will Senator McCain commit to not calling for a draft? Oh, and saying that it is not the President's job to call for a draft or war or administer war is not an answer.
If not, is he willing to committ to a timetable for troop withdrawals? How long? Or will he simply transfer them to the other theatre of war....Afghanistan.
Does Sen. McCain think we're winning in Afghanistan? Will he advocate a surge? How long will we stay in Afghanistan?
JohnnyThief @ 59:
And they are doing a great job protecting freedom.
Thank God George Bush is our President.
stevo @ 7:
bush killed the country
this was bin ladens plan from the get go
get the united states involved in an intractable conflict and bankrupt her
he has won
we are defeated
not by bombs and bullets, but by our own stupidity
Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 62:
Manhattan was purchased from the Indians for the equivalent of $28. I hope we can recoup that much when the country gets sold.
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
The cost of the war in Iraq is real and it's going to leave a mark folks. Stop by and watch the video Soil for Oil.
Do you think Bush will go down as another FDR? Just kidding.
Charles @ 52:
That's a tough question. Pfc Jonathon got into college to study Poli-Sci after his 2nd tour. That's been interrupted now. I've only met him a couple of times, only post-Iraq. Very polite. I just welcomed him back. I've known his aunt for 13 years now (I see her every day at the local store so that''s how I get the info. She tells me he loves the military but he's not an unthinking gung-ho adrenalin-junkie.
My hope is that guys like him will survive and pass their experience onto the next generation. I also hope that the present vet6erans get a chance to tell their cautionary tales to the near-future military and politicians so the experience isn;t wasted as INHO was the case with Vietnam. It's not professional soldiers who screw things up, it's professional politicians.
The surge in Iraq will SOLVE the problems in Iraq just like the surge in Police have solved the gang wars and killing in the Watts/Compton area.
Until the warring factions agree to end their hostilities, no amount of police or soldiers will fix the problems, end the violence or bring about peace.
Liberal AND Proud @ 63:
Actually the irony of the exchange is lost in modern-day translation, if my information is correct. As I understand it the local Indian's "sold" something they didn't value and didn't own in exchange for items that the purchasers didn't particularly value either. At the time both sides thought they'd gotten the better deal.
This just in .... the media has learned that math is commutative.
So while the national media focused on the meme that Bush is reducing troop levels in Iraq, the Wisconsin press was reporting that around 50% of the state's National Guard force is being called up and sent over there. It's one more huge shuffle.
The surge has worked beyond our wildest dreams, but we can't withdraw troops because the surge will stop working. The temporary increase in troop deployments only works if it lasts forever.
Login or Register to post comments.