US halts 3500 Iraq troop deployment

[cal04]

PENTAGON officials said today 3,500 fresh US troops will not be deployed to Iraq as had been planned for early this month, as commanders monitor security on the ground. "The Second Brigade, First Infantry Division, based in Schweinfurt, Germany, will not begin its deployment to Iraq in early May as scheduled," the Defence Department said in a statement.

The statement said the decision would "not affect the current number of US troops in Iraq, which is numbering approximately 133,000". Commander of the coalition forces, General George Casey, recommended last year substantial troop reductions for 2006.

Late last month, he said selection of new Iraqi Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki was an important milestone in that respect. The Pentagon statement said more than 254,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and equipped.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19074764-1702,00.html

[Julius Civitatus]

1. They'll be needed in Iran...

:(

[daleo]

3. And a million more just like them

And that probably still wouldn't be enough. Which doesn't mean the insanity won't be attempted.

[PATRICK]

22. That was my thought

Perhaps the tactical thinking is that with the recent spate of attacks, they don't want any MORE forces to get bogged down in any way considering they could be reached by Shiites sympathetic to Iran. They might have loved to deploy to Turkey or somewhere else but I don't know how this effects rapid access to Iran.

Or hopefully, all planning may be getting bogged down. They certainly don't want to stop with a mere airstrike against Iran no matter how massive.

[MercutioATC]

2. My cousin's division! Yessssss!

:party:

[Bush_MUST_Go]

4. Just getting ready for mid-term elections.

Keeping Iraq from completely imploding has never been one of the goals anyway.

bush always adds troops to Iraq (and Afghanistan) right before THEY have elections & I guess he pulls them out when WE have elections so those pesky body counts don't scare off any potential republican voters.

It's all a balancing game.

[MercutioATC]

6. Yeah, I know, but it's at least a temporary reprieve...

I'd kinda like to see him stay alive as long as possible...

[Bush_MUST_Go]

7. Oh, I certainly understand & agree.

My reaction was just anger at the way this admin. treats war & troops as if this is some kind of game.

They never had any plan to win & they refuse to make a plan to win & they refuse to pull out.

As long as death or economic hardship doesn't touch THEM personally... they don't give a shit about the well being of Iraqis or Americans.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Good news then

I hope.

It all depends on why they held them back.

[Roland99]

5. 254,000 trained Iraqis. Ok, why is there even *1* US soldier still there??

:mad:

[superconnected]

8. one can only wonder what they plan to do with those troops.

Iran?

And I wonder if it will be a worse fate if they are walking around there when we pull out nukes. Whether it's radiation or revolt of the people, I don't think those guys will be safer if they are sent to iran.

Hopefully they will be sent back to the US, but judging from this warlord and his administration, I expect him to not just start sending people home.

[truthisfreedom]

10. of course they're saving them for Iran. it's all part of the plan.

bush's little mafia.

[cal04]

11. some updated information on this

Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, cautions against interpreting the decision as a harbinger of larger force cuts. "This is a very narrow decision to hold one brigade and to give the commanders on the ground additional time to continue their assessments," Mr Whitman said.

"Obviously, there's been a degree of political progress that's been made in the last couple of weeks." The combat brigade had been slated this week to start loading its equipment for transport to Iraq. The soldiers had been scheduled to arrive in Iraq in June and assume their operational responsibilities in July. The US has about 133,000 troops in Iraq.
The decision to hold back this brigade does not immediately cut the US force, but a reduction would come in July if this unit does not arrive to replace another one scheduled to rotate home at that time.

Officials say it is possible this brigade will not deploy or might simply deploy later than planned. "This unit is very much ready to go, obviously," a defence official said. "I don't know that I would make the assumption that they're not going to go. "In fact, they may go in lieu of somebody else, later on."

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said the United States should be able to reduce its troop presence in Iraq - there are about 30,000 fewer now than in December - as US-trained Iraqi Government security forces assume responsibility for more territory.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1633815.htm

[Judi Lynn]

12. Pentagon holds back troops due for Iraq

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Pentagon holds back troops due for Iraq
By Ann Scott Tyson

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon announced Monday that it will delay sending a brigade of several thousand U.S. ground troops to Iraq, as American commanders weigh the possibility of a further drawdown of U.S. forces there.

The military notified about 3,500 soldiers with the Army's 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, based in Schweinfurt, Germany, that they will not begin deploying in early May as scheduled, and defense officials said they will hold off on shipping the brigade's vehicles and other equipment. The troops were to begin operating in Iraq in late June or early July.

Defense officials stressed that the delay does not signal the start of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and will have no immediate impact on U.S. troop strength, which now stands at about 133,000.

"It's a very narrow decision just to hold this unit for now," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, adding that it is likely the brigade will still deploy "somewhere down the road."
(snip/...)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002981412_troops09.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Iran is somewhere down the road from Iraq.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. How much you wanna bet the drawdown will continue

as we get closer to election time?

[babylonsister]

15. Oh, yes, as predicted months ago. Surprise. They say one thing

and do another. Regardless, this is good news. I hope they don't send one more body over there.

[Selatius]

16. You suspect it will go up again after the elections? n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. depends on the election results n/t

[ShortnFiery]

17. As I understand it, they could still DEPLOY at a few days notice ...

So when they have to deploy "close to schedule" - note - they ship equipment FIRST, troops LAST - they won't have all their gear that they will need to operate effectively. Yes, they will have to tough it out while they wait for the shipments. But perhaps they can break up these units so the Corporate Media will not totally catch on? Just perhaps?

But that's cool!

Anything to improve PR for our Dear Leader and help Republicans keep the Congress, aye?

[Dunvegan]

18. Sounds like it's Iran in August.

"The troops were to begin operating in Iraq in late June or early July."

Sounds like a hold for re-deployment somewhere other than Iraq after early July.

"Defense officials stressed that the delay does not signal the start of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and will have no immediate impact on U.S. troop strength, which now stands at about 133,000."

Non-deployment will not effect (i.e., lower) troop strength. Those troops are not part of a withdrawal, yet they are being held back from Iraq re-deployment.

"It's a very narrow decision just to hold this unit for now," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, adding that it is likely the brigade will still deploy "somewhere down the road."

They're going to re-deploy, "somewhere down the road" from early July.

Somewhere = Iran.

[ShortnFiery]

19. No, methinks our Chimperor is ONLY going to bomb the hell out

of Iran. Then hold onto Iraq with everything we've got.

This is truly the worst of times for our once great country.

Madmen are in charge. :cry: :(

[HuffleClaw]

20. "254,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and equipped." ??

bullshit.


they've been caught lying about half a dozen times about the state of the iraqi forces/police, so why should we believe them now?

[ShortnFiery]

21. And Iran is too huge of a country to "take on" even before this

invasion into Iraq. Those troops are NOT for want of skill and equipment. It would be a bloodbath on all sides to invade Iran.

Knowing what a chicken-shit planner * is from Tora Bora, he'll choose to bomb the hell out of Iran and then threaten NUKES if they retaliate in any way, shape or form.

However, I wonder how Pooty Putin may play into this - if he backs Iran, then we are in a World Class Stand off. :scared:

On edit: No worries for we have Rootin' Toutin' "Yosemite Sam" Bolton to handle all the diplomacy. :nuke:

[Selatius]

24. There's a big question on "how well trained" those Iraqi troops are.

Most of them are not ready to fight the battles without US support. Until most of them are capable of operating alone, we're stuck in Iraq until that time or until the war becomes so unpopular we leave before then.

[saigon68]

25. It will End this Way

[Selatius]

26. Yeah, except instead of the US Embassy, it's the Green Zone offices

It's going to be a bad ending no matter what happens at this point. My mother and father left Vietnam when Saigon fell and became one of the many boat people, coincidently.

[saigon68]

27. I have a lot of respect for the people of that country.

For those who fought the aggressor. and those who for whatever reason left. (other than those who left to protect their loot)