Odierno: May not be possible to declare victory in Iraq

[spanone]

duh.......



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It isn't clear whether the United States will ever be able to declare victory in Iraq, the top U.S. commander there said Thursday.

"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I'm not sure we'll know for 10 years or five years," Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon.

About 123,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now, and President Obama says all combat forces will be gone by the end of August 2010, leaving as many as 50,000 noncombat troops to advise and train Iraqi forces before leaving by the end of 2011.

Odierno has said he wants to draw down the U.S. forces at a faster rate than planned if the security situation allows it. On Thursday, he said he expected the number of U.S. troops to drop to 120,000 by the end of October, and to as few as 110,000 by the end of 2009.

"What we've done here is we're giving Iraq an opportunity in the long term to be a strategic partner of the United States, but more importantly, be a partner in providing regional stability inside of the Middle East," Odierno said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/01/us.iraq.odierno/index.html

[msongs]

1. leaving is victory. claim victory now. how difficult is that? nt

[spanone]

2. apologize and leave

[bigtree]

3. yet

. . . he'll recommend a 'residual force' remaining there for decades to continue the folly into perpetuity.

[msongs]

4. welfare for the military religion industrial complex lol nt

[Thor_MN]

5. The only victory was not to play the game.

Declaring war because of an "If" is a bad idea.

[Lasher]

7. A strange game.

At the end of February this year we had 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. (scroll to the bottom of page 23). If 50,000 of them are to remain until the end of 2012, that leaves 90,000 combat soldiers that are to be out in 19 months (by August 31, 2010) according to Obama's most recent commitment. That's an average overall troop reduction requirement of 4,737 per month.

At the end of August we still had 130,000 troops in Iraq. That's a reduction of only 10,000 in 6 months when there should have been at least 28,000 to have been on schedule.

I don't have the troop level for September but if Odierno was correct in saying on October 1 that there were 123,000 that would mean we sal a reduction of 7,000 soldiers last month. I'll assume this is so until I have a reason to believe otherwise. That would make it 17,000 in 7 months. If we withdraw another 3,000 this month as Odierno projects, that would be 20,000 in 8 months. That's just a little bit more than half the 38,896 required to be on schedule.

To be fair, senior administration officials said in February that they would delay a dramatic force reduction until after the country's national elections expected at the end of this year. So their schedule and the one I have cobbled together are not going to be the same. But Obama said during the campaign they would be out in 16 months. Then, 5 weeks into his presidency, he changed that to 19 months. Color me hopeful but skeptical.

At best 50,000 will stay in Iraq at least until the end of 2012 - the timeframe The Decider decided upon. That leaves plenty of time for neocons to orchestrate 'changing conditions on the ground' to keep them there forever. Then there's the 2012 election, when they hope to install another pliable stooge in the White House.

[kenny blankenship]

6. 50,000 troops is the # Rumsfeld and McGregor initially estimated needed for INVASION of Iraq

So we'll be leaving the initial invasion force behind basically forever.

I didn't vote for this bullshit.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Sure you did. We still haven't got out of Germany my man

Getting out means cutting back and stop getting killed.