[Broly]

We have heard recently in the State of the Union Address and in the media that there may be some small reduction of troops in Iraq. Well we know that all troops aren't home bound because we are building a 700 million dollar US Embasy in Baghdad as some of u know. But the question for this thread is

"Do we need to get out of the war. Do we exit Iraq, or do we stay? We were promised in the State of the Union Address that we would be bringing about 20,000 troops home but according to this source that may not be the case. Another Bush lie?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...tml?ESRC=eb.nl

[Wino]

We're stuck there, like it or not. Bush has obligated this country to wet nursing Iraq for eons. Otherwise, it just tumbles into chaos. Iraq is his legacy for generations.

[bill.aam]

Maybe my calculator is not working properly, but from the article you posted, it seems like 20,000 is correct... Gen Petraeus seems to be saying, it would be a wait and see until after the July reductions to make any more recommendations about troop withdrawal. . Although Gates stated if conditions in Iraq permit he hopes to bring home an additional five brigades by the end of the year….. So I don't see "Another Bush lie?"

One of those extra brigades left in December and the other four are due to come out by July, leaving 15 brigades, or roughly 130,000 to 135,000 troops - the same number as before Bush sent the reinforcements.

Gates has stated publicly several times in recent weeks that he hopes conditions in Iraq will permit the withdrawal of an additional five brigades by the end of the year. That would leave a total of 10 brigades in combat, numbering about 100,000 troops. That compares with today's total of 157,000.

In remarks on CNN on Jan. 27, Petraeus said he is still analyzing conditions in Iraq and may want to wait until after this current series of troop reductions is completed in July before setting a new course.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by Broly

We have heard recently in the State of the Union Address and in the media that there may be some small reduction of troops in Iraq. Well we know that all troops aren't home bound because we are building a 700 million dollar US Embasy in Baghdad as some of u know. But the question for this thread is

"Do we need to get out of the war. Do we exit Iraq, or do we stay? We were promised in the State of the Union Address that we would be bringing about 20,000 troops home but according to this source that may not be the case. Another Bush lie?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...tml?ESRC=eb.nl

The latest......

U.S. Commanders in Iraq Favor Pause in Troop Cuts
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 31, 2008; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Jan. 30 -- Senior U.S. military commanders here say they want to freeze troop reductions starting this summer for at least a month, making it more likely that the next administration will inherit as many troops in Iraq as there were before President Bush announced a "surge" of forces a year ago.

There are about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, with about 5,000 leaving every month; the proposed freeze would go into effect in July, when troops levels reach around 130,000. Although violence is dropping in Iraq, commanders say they want to halt withdrawals to assess whether they can control the situation with fewer troops.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will probably argue for what the military calls an operational "pause" at his next round of congressional testimony, expected in early April, another senior U.S. military official here said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top military officers have said they would like to see continued withdrawals throughout this year, but Bush has indicated he is likely to be guided by Petraeus's views.

Excerpt from: www.washingtonpost.com

[WarC]

The reduction/withdrawal card is one thrown by politicians as a potentially profitable soundbite. The same card is held by military leadership very close to the vest, as he is more keen on affecting the enemy's mentality than he is affecting yours...An aspect that the 20th century has forced upon him; a mental battle of civilian perception that the military is not well equipped to fight. The soldier has one play; "As long as it takes", which is why its what you'll always hear out of a publication like military.com.

Petraeus would have you believe we could stay there with that amount of troops indefinitely. Decades! In truth the military ought not want to have you believe anything other than that they could, or should, do that. To do otherwise is essentially to admit defeat. Remember the Iraqi Minister of (dis)Information? "They have not stepped foot in Baghdad!"