NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Petraeus outlines troop withdrawal plans
WASHINGTON - The top U.S. general in Iraq outlined plans Monday for the withdrawal of as many as 30,000 troops by next summer, drawing praise from the White House but a chilly reception from anti-war Democrats.

Gen. David Petraeus said a 2,000-member Marine unit would return home this month without replacement in the first sizable cut since a 2003 U.S-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein and unleashed sectarian violence.

Further "force reductions will continue," he told a nationally televised congressional hearing that was frequently interrupted by anti-war protesters.
Well, it seems it's starting, or rather ending. Discuss.

**And since I don't want this to be like Bush's "Victory" speech, I'm lacing everything with "it seems".**

A "surge" is by definition a temporary increase, so this is not a new development.

Petreus said that the troop levels would return to pre-"surge" numbers, which is not an addition of any new information.

They presented the evidence of what is happening now. The current situation in Iraq, with the much lower level of violence, a means to withdraw some troops.
Whether troops will be withdrawn in the future depends on 3 factors:
1. How well we do against Al Qaeda which all Iraqis are now opposing, as General Pet. stated in his speech and as the Iraqi Prime Minister and many tribal cheiftains in Iraq have stated before the general's speech.
2. Whether Iran continues its attempts to grab land and or power inside Iraq. Remember that Iranians are not Arabs and the only thing Iraq has in common with Iran is Shiite Islam. If you note the history of the west, having the same religion does not make you close and amiable.
Iran needs to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs. All Iraq's neighbors have recognized the new democratic government of Iraq (these include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey). Only two are holding out. Those two, Syria and Iran have long histories of supporting Islamic terrorism to force Islamic states on other nations. Iran is also interfering in Afghanistan and does not want either country to be democratic.
3. On whether the US politicians will stop their attempts to Americanize Iraq. Just Iranian political interference is causing problems so is the interference by the US Congress. The Congress needs to stop dictating to Iraqis how to run their country. A Congressman's job is to make laws for the United States, his job is not to make laws for foreign countries like Iraq. And all their rhetoric and resolutions stating that Iraq must do this and Iraq must do that, only result in three things:
1. It makes US look like a bully.
2. It damages the Iraqi multicultural government by undermining it.
3. It helps Iran in its attempts in its support for terrorists seeking to seize both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think the important words may be "by next summer". Let's see, election year, could that be an incentive?

Brachiosaurus, so you think Iran is helping the Taliban do you?

I wouldn't put it past those fuckers in Iran.

I wouldn't put it past those fuckers in Iran.
Who of course fought the Taliban when they were in power, and now have lost more than 2000 soldiers in the border regions trying to stop the drug running and attempts by the Taliban to retreat into Iranian territory. Not to mention the ideological and religious differences, and the legitimate Iranian interest in a stable Afghanistan across that difficult to police border (which would allow Western troops to leave).

You're a bit too eager to split the world in good and bad today.

As for the long-awaited report...how boring. He didn't say much (no doubt because the politicians from all sides were watching him closely and weren't going to listen anyways) and the little he did say is not enough to resolve any sort of debate on a withdrawal.

Which is a pity, because he's a smart man.

Who of course fought the Taliban when they were in power, and now have lost more than 2000 soldiers in the border regions trying to stop the drug running and attempts by the Taliban to retreat into Iranian territory. Not to mention the ideological and religious differences, and the legitimate Iranian interest in a stable Afghanistan across that difficult to police border (which would allow Western troops to leave).

You're a bit too eager to split the world in good and bad today.

As for the long-awaited report...how boring. He didn't say much (no doubt because the politicians from all sides were watching him closely and weren't going to listen anyways) and the little he did say is not enough to resolve any sort of debate on a withdrawal.

Which is a pity, because he's a smart man.

That's what I meant, it's an uninformed individual who tries to link the Taliban to Iran, when it was the Taliban in the 90's who butchered Iranian diplomats for 'being the wrong kind of Muslims', and the same al-Qaeda who declared war on Iran a while ago.

Don't count on it skippy.

A troop reduction to the level of last year, when the US military was still barely present in Iraq….

What we've learned today:
The troop surge really is a troop surge, rather than it being a troop increase spun as a troop surge.