Decreasing Iraq troops places American soldiers at risk

The Washington Times ^ | September 15 | Henry D'Andrea

[conservativeforpalin]

President Obama's announcement that only 3,000 troops will be left in Iraq by the end of the year heralds a serious and dangerous downgrade from the current 45,000 troops, spelling disaster for our soldiers. According to a FOXNEWS report, President Obama’s military commanders are livid over this recent decision – a decision that Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, allegedly gave signature to.

President Obama may be trying to keep a 2008 campaign promise to remove our troops from Iraq however the problems is that regardless of what some misguided people may say, the war in Iraq is not over, there are current combat operations still occurring there. American troops are still being attacked and dying.

By leaving only 3,000 troops in a combat zone will save billions and billions of dollars. But, what is the real cost? American military lives are the cost.

According to Department of Defense data, there are nearly 10,000 US troops in both England and Italy, which are non-combat zone. The last time there were more than that amount was during World War II. There are over 8,000 troops in Qatar and over 10,000 in Kuwait. Guam has over 2,800 of our troops stationed there.

How does President Obama think that 3,000 troops can control an active combat zone where the current 45,000 troops are still facing death each day?

By leaving only, 3,000 troops behind, President Obama is simply leaving those soldiers stranded in the cross hairs while sending the message that our military are expendable political pawns in the presidential re-election campaign.

And what is the cost to the military men and women stranded in Iraq?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

George Washington was right on the money when he warned of the dangers of foreign entanglements. “Global leadership” was not in the Founders’ plan. Let's lower the number of American troops into Iraq to 0.

[Allegra]

By leaving only 3,000 troops behind, President Obama is simply leaving those soldiers stranded in the cross hairs while sending the message that our military are expendable political pawns in the presidential re-election campaign.

This is absolutely true.

Either pull ALL of the troops out or keep enough to sustain the necessary security levels.

[Da Bilge Troll]

our military are expendable political pawns in the presidential re-election campaign.

I never thought they were anything else for our Communist-In-Chief!

[Grunthor]

“Decreasing Iraq troops places American soldiers at risk”

So bring them home.

[Elucide]

I think the opposite. It wouldn’t actually change much. US does not lead major attacks as before. There have been little progress with regards to the Iraqi army and police though both still remain sectarian. In addition, the community protectors, an idea of McCrystal partially worked in Iraq contrary to Afghanistan.
The remaining will be working on training and will be mostly in the US bases.
At the end, it’s not that US troop left the region. US troops are in several countries of the region notably Saudi Arabia, Turkey (NATO base), Bahrain, UAE, Afghanistan ... and navy is present in Persian Gulf, Oman Sea, and Indian Ocean. They can intervene any time if the situation gets critical.

[Allegra]

I think the opposite. It wouldn’t actually change much. <

I've been working in Iraq for the past seven years and have seen things ebb and flow.

Muqtada al Sadr's Iran-proxy boys would love to see a dangerous troop reduction such as the one Barry is trying to impose.

I've dodged enough of their mortars and rockets to be confident of this.

As I said before, either bring 'em ALL home or maintain enough there to satisfy the security requirements.