Petraeus talks of troop withdrawal

Source: ap



Petraeus talks of troop withdrawal

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. troops by next summer, beginning with a Marine contingent later this month.


In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter's buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives "in large measure."

As a result, he told a congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, "I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level ... by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=Ak2iR6yNPyLNwHwzfhIfG22s0NUE

heres biscuit.

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number stationed there last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

I mean honestly how fucking blatantly political can u get?

...to summer '08 - Not September '07 - Not November '07 - Not Spring '08 - but now, Summer '08

Despite the administration's efforts, fresh polls reflected significant public opposition to the war.

An AP-Ipsos survey found that only 36 percent of those questioned believe the troop increase has helped stabilize Iraq. That was up only marginally from 32 percent in February, as the buildup was beginning.

A USA Today-Gallup poll taken in the past few days found that 60 percent of those surveyed favor setting a timetable for removing troops. Only 35 percent favor keeping the troops in Iraq until the situation improves.

Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were the only witnesses at a nationally televised hearing punctuated by numerous protests by anti-war demonstrators. Cindy Sheehan, a prominent critic of the war, was among those hustled from the room by police.

The Surge has ALWAYS been understood to be a temporary tactic, made possible by extending troop deployments/ postponing rotations. After one extension that is ALL the extension that can be had. The Surge HAS to unwind by late Spring 2008, as a matter of necessity. It ALWAYS had to as even Surge proponents acknowledged at the outset when arguing that it should go forward. Regardless of success or failure the Surge has to unwind in 2008 and it must unwind by the same amount of troops, at least, as went into its escalation over the normal levels of Iraq based deployment.

When they say there may be troop withdrawals next year, they are lying. There MUST BE troop withdrawals unless a draft starts sometime very soon to provide new troops to be rotated in.

The Spin is in: they are portraying obligatory troop reductions as something else, as if they were voluntary troop level reductions because, you know, things are going so swell in Iraq we can afford to bring some soldiers home.

to see your bread cost $2.09 a loaf and then it becomes artificially raised to $3.09 to save the company's image? Now they in turn say to us that we can lower the bread price back to the original price by next summer without telling you that they are forced to lower the price anyway. GEE, WHAT A SALE they announced!!! The trouble is that this is needless human bloodshed from the shananagons of greedy failed exbusinessmen placed in charge of a country that they never served properly. I used the analogy for the benefit of those that need it 'splained' in a different way. I hope the analogy holds good enough to parallel this bs.

Every time these idiots fart the media writes a story about it. Nothing new is HAPPENING. The talk is bullshit - eye wash.

Not.

Can this be considered a real withdrawal if it only reduces the troops to the level they were at before the surge? I am not sure it can really be called a troop reduction. In addition, was this a stragety of the Bush Administration to raise the level of troops in Iraq so that they could later say they had reduced levels when in reality they only put troops back at the level they were before the surge?