BWAHAHAHAHA!!! We knew it was coming!

[Guaranteed]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060624210309990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001

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.

<snip>

Wasn't this just being called "cutting and running" by the Republicans, not even a few days ago?

PWNZED!!!

[Marr]

1. I assume this is more political posturing.

This entire fiasco has been plagued- no, defined- by politicians dictating military policy to suit their immediate domestic PR neeeds.

[Erika]

2. It's so obvious that even righties will see it.

Well maybe not. They are quite thick with a Pavlov attitude about the W.

[mike_c]

3. so now every time the administration announces a troop cut...

...you're going to rub the "cut and run" jibe in their faces?

[Guaranteed]

4. You're goddamned right. We all should.

Because....we....were....right. Again.

[mike_c]

6. well what about the people whose lives might be saved...

...by troop reductions and rolling back the garrison strength in Iraq? I'd like to think that might even include some Iraqis. Do you really think there is anything to be gained by ridiculing the administration every time they DON'T send more troops to Iraq?

[Guaranteed]

8. What, you think we're going to stop them?

Take credit where it's due.

They use the troops as a weapon against us. Now the war is unpopular, and they don't have a choice about whether we should withdraw, so it's time to get ours back.

[Cybergata]

24. We should first celebrate our children coming home,

but not forget just how manipulative all politicians are. I'm all for our troops coming home no matter what the reason behind it is.

[Guaranteed]

25. You should send Bush a thank you card. nt

[Guaranteed]

5. In fact, I think Kerry should come out and say that he's glad that

Bush has finally come around to taking on Kerry's proposed policy.

[bklyncowgirl]

16. Absolutely. Kerry, Murtha & Feingold should take credit--Loudly

Hmmm, phased withdrawal, timetable based on contingencies, sounds familiar.

[bluestateguy]

7. This is a pretty slippery "plan"

There's all kinds of loopholes and escape hatches for them here:

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.

A projection is just that, a contingent plan. In 2004 the Pentagon drafted a plan that would reduce US forces in Iraq to 110,000 by the end of the year. Still waiting for that one.

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.

Guess who gets to interpret what these flexible, spongy phases mean? Certainly not us. Bush! The decider!

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 air strikes.

So more troops could still be sent right back in. And more troops could be sent in who are not (on paper, anyway) "combat troops".

Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday that no final decisions would come on troop withdrawals until General Casey consulted with the new Iraqi government.

That "sovereign" Iraqi government. :eyes:

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.

In other words, we can scrap the whole thing at a moments notice, for any reason we want. This statement might as well be a yellow "Slippery When Wet" sign.

[Guaranteed]

11. Yeah, it's up to Chimpy.

We have to turn the screw, though. We've got them stuck between increasing their unpopularity and doing what we SAID should happen. Use it. Twist that shit.

[rucky]

9. Cut and Gradually Back Away When Nobody's Looking n/t

[neoblues]

15. As long as it's not on the Democrats's Timetable, the same

plan (especially when nobody's looking, such as several months in the future at any given moment and it isn't formally documented) isn't "cutting and running", it's "phased withdrawal". Go figure.

[JI7]

10. don't get too excited , they did this in 2004 also

but we saw that nothing happened. not even the soldiers they brought in just for the elections were taken out afterwards.

[Guaranteed]

12. Politically, it doesn't matter. This is their public policy that

they're setting out, because they have to for 2006.

We need to let people know that we were there first.

[JI7]

13. i agree, and no matter what happens with the elections

make sure they do start withdrawing. and if not, call them out on it.

and of course remind people they are following US in this. Dems are the true leaders on the issue.

[Guaranteed]

14. We have the votes to prove it, too. nt

[Vinca]

17. Is there an echo in here?

Didn't we hear this on the Senate floor recently? Wouldn't it be prudent for the administration to wait a few more weeks before blatantly stealing the plans put forward by the DEMOCRATS???????? I hope Senator Feingold points this small technicality out on MTP today.

[dogday]

18. Who of thought we they voted it down here

it would be put up for consideration in Iraq?

[annabanana]

19. sigh

It's "the proof of the pudding" time kids..

Nixon et.al. had "plans" for withdrawal for a long long time. I fear this is just the flip side of the same coin: leak troop reduction plans to assuage the alert and alarmed, keep pounding the "stay the course" rhetoric for the knuckledraggers.

I will believe it when the kids get home. Not before.

[genie_weenie]

20. They are NOT going to phase out any troops

for a long time. How many times since MISSION ACCOMPLISHED have we heard this lie from the Admin about pulling back the troops or draw down or we'll leave as the Iraqis stand up. We went in with 130,000 and we still have (3 years later) 130,000 forces in Iraq.

Yeeesh!

[laruemtt]

21. just wondering -

what are they going to do with the 14 permanent bases they're building in iraq. w et al have no plan to leave - ever.

[Guaranteed]

22. Kick for Russ. nt

[shadowknows69]

23. I think this is just rotations mostly

We have 6000 coming back this month to our base but 5000 going back out in July and August

[leftchick]

26. but wait! This sounds so familiar!

<snip>


Here's an interesting news story from the New York Times this evening:

In a classified briefing to senior Pentagon officials last month, the top American commander in the Middle East outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq by perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 troops by next spring if conditions on the ground permitted, three senior military officers and Defense Department officials said this week.

Oh, ooops ... sorry, I don't know how that happened. That story isn't from tonight's Times -- it's from August 2005. Here's the story for this Sunday's NYT:

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.

. . . A reduction of eight combat brigades would equal about 28,000 troops.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3081?PHPSESSID=3eb941a11c1eca80a6421848744746b4