Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Shifting Sands: Iraq Troop Drawdown Imminent
Share:
by phrolen | August 24, 2007 at 07:07 am
483 views | 2 Recommendations | 4 comments
Photos
Freedom and Joint Taskforce Katrina. His commentary is based on actual
experience.
Just yesterday, Shifting Sands reported yesterday (here) that indications seeping through tight lipped administration war policy seemed to indicate that a troop withdraw of sizeable proportions may be on the horizon. Sources from the LA Times are now reporting that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace is preparing a private memo for President Bush recomending just that. The private message for the president is expected to reccomend that a sizeable portion of American forces in Iraq could begin withdrawing from the combat theatre next year. Sources say that the size of the withdraw Pace is considering could be as large as half of the U.S. combat forces in Iraq. It is unclear yet as to any consensus within the administration, however, Pace marks the second top U.S. military commander in as many weeks to indicate such a withdraw may be in the cards. U.S. Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus indicated earlier this month that he expected U.S. forces to have a window for significant withdraws as soon as early next summer.
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 12:19 on August 24th, 2007
phrolen, do you think the withdrawal is a result of
decreased risk from insurgents or an attempt to spur the Iraqis into action?
at 20:51 on August 24th, 2007
I think it is because of two reasons. That includes the lack of Oil in the South of Iraq, and the recent revalation that Kuwait is out of Oil. The US troops will neeed to redeploy to the north around Kirkuk, and begin constructing an Oil pipeline into Turkey. This will require a different kind of Soldier that specilizes in security. I believe that the US has this type of troop, they have training in more weapons and tactics, I cant recall off the top of my head what they are called by the US forces though. There is a contingent of these guys in Rota Spain at the moment waiting to deploy.
at 21:31 on August 24th, 2007
Thank you ryan and Sth Pacific for your comments, both were constructive and bring interesting questions and perspectives into the equations. Ryan the true reason for the withdraw is 2 part, the 1st is manpower, unless we want to lengthen army deployments to 18 month, increase AF deployments to a year and augment their manpower for non job specific duty, shorten brigade time off requirements which are currently at 1 year between deployments, call up segments of untouchable guard reserve units like the Individual ready reserve or start the draft again, this time frame will simply have to be met there is no other way, you are in the most extreme sense of the word seeing the operational limitations of the U.S. military. This leads into my second part which is politics, there is 0 flexibility left for any of the preceding options and furthurmore the time for furthur adaptive stratagies, politically speaking, has come and gone the nations soured. The real mistake in the endeavor, I believe lies with the administrations standing by the George Casey Iraq strategy for so long. But you can see how it happened, remember at the wars onset all the color commentary about Vietnam and not fighting the war politically, letting the generals fight it. Bush responded to such commentary several times saying that he would not micromanage, and Rumsfeld as unconventional as he was, as abrasive and seemingly as control oriented seriously did let the generals do just that. I intimately know the Rumsfeld process, have met him personally, and served at the top of the third largest military endeavor of the Bush years Katrina. While Rumsfeld would snowflake you to death, he was a big picture kind of guy and I mean REALLY big picture, the operational guys did not feel his hand pulling the strings. With the pressure to let the warfighters fight the war so high thats exactly what happened, casey had the reigns for the better part of four years and was a failed general. The ultimate fault lies in Bushs' lap for not replacing Him sooner, 3 years under a Petraeus reign.... dont even get me started. Historically it happens, Lincoln with Mclellean, Johnson with Westmoreland. All Generals are great in their own right but there are very few great generals. I know I served under a couple I thought I would never want to be in a foxhole with. As for the oil aspect Pacific, private companies run the oil industry in America a lot of the oil drilling is done by companies youve never even heard of, and I know Bush was an oil man and Cheney ran Halliburton, I have heard it all, but hey why debate this late on a Saturday night, I sure you have plenty of reading to do about the magic bullet, sasquatch, and CIA mind control. I am just joshing you my friend :) have a great weekend look forward to next week
at 22:28 on August 24th, 2007
phrolen LOL "Bush was an oil man and Cheney ran Halliburton, I have heard it all,
but hey why debate this late on a Saturday night, I sure you have
plenty of reading to do about the magic bullet, sasquatch, and CIA mind
control."
And, that is bang on. It's exactly what it feels like trying to unravell these oily trails. I know that it is a Turkish Company that is handling the oil from Kirkuk, and the use Sth African security forces. I must admitt I cant be bothered trying to decipher who really owns them today :) But, recently the the US has been building up troop numbers in Dyiala and Kirkuk to bolster security here.
This must be due to the recent fuel rationing in Iran, which would have stopped the flow of Black market Petrol gushing accross the border into Iraq, the one thing keeping Iraq on the road as there is very little oil coming out of Kirkuk since the Pipelines to Haifa were blown in 2004. This will have to be the main focus of US forces in Iraq now
Your analysis of Rumsfeld is good thanks for that. Great to see your experience being used to inform us :)
Have a good weekend too phrolen.