US to cut Iraq force 'by September'

Herald Sun ^ | 26 June 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

THE top US commander in Iraq foresees a major reduction in US forces there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts in September, the US media has reported overnight.

General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, gave a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week to outline a plan to reduce the number of US combat brigades from 14 to five or six by December 2007, the New York Times reported, citing unnamed US officials.

The first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced, the report said.

Combat brigades, which generally have about 3500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the US force in Iraq.

NBC television, citing government officials, reported that Casey has submitted a draft plan to withdraw roughly 28,000 combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, conditions on the ground permitting.

The reports came only days after the US Senate defeated two Democratic proposed measures setting a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

The Senate's number two Republican, Mitch McConnell, who said Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress were briefed last week by Casey, insisted that decisions about troop reductions must be left to US military officials and Iraqi leaders.

"The whole point of defeating the withdrawal resolutions by overwhelming majorities is that the Congress ought not to be dictating to the generals what the tactics are," Senator McConnell said on ABC TV's This Week program.

"We want the conditions on the ground and the decisions of our commanders in conjunction with the new Iraqi democratic government to dictate the process, not the Congress trying to act like armchair generals dictating every nuance of the policy in Iraq," Senator McConnell said.

Leading Democrats however, said the reports of a reduction in the American military presence in Iraq were vindication of their opposition to an open-ended US stay there.

"This national unity plan calls for the beginning of withdrawal of American troops with a timetable," said Senator Richard Durbin, deputy leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

"That's a position now taken by the Iraqi government, by the Iraqi people, by the American people and by the Democrats, 39 out of 45 in the United States Senate.

"The only ones who disagree apparently are the Republican senators, who believe that we have to stay with no plan and no end in sight," Senator Durbin said.

Speaking on the Fox News Sunday program, Senator Carl Levin accused the administration of timing the reduction to coincide with November's midterm election and boost the Republican party's chances.

With the Iraq war increasingly unpopular with the US public, Democrats hope to take control of the Senate or House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.

"Let me tell you something, it will be the greatest shock in this town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election," said Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Joseph Biden, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN television the likely troop reductions were "predictable."

"The reality is you cannot sustain 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely unless you break the volunteer army by having people go back four and five and six times," he said. "It's inevitable."

US officials underscored that "any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces," the New York Times said.

In the past week, more than a dozen US troops have been killed around Iraq.

More than 2,500 US troops have now been killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion by a US led force.

[Aussie Dasher]

Is it possible for the Dems to get any more pathetic?

[leadpenny]

Don't know what you mean by "the Dems," but I can tell you this - troop morale is going to suffer.

[loboinok]

Is it possible for the Dems to get any more pathetic?

Yes, its another NYT leak. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005434.htm (I don't know why it isn't posting links)

[new yorker 77]

More FAKE NEWS from the MSM.

All troop reduction are ground condition dependent.

The LIBS consider our troop a bunch of DEAD FAILURES.

They want to withdraw the troops as failures.

The MSM once again needs to lie in order to help anti-American/anti-military liberals.

They will fail again.

[ShandaLear]

Yes

[JennysCool]

I believe on another thread this story was characterized as disinformation designed to ferret out a leaker.

[new yorker 77]

The liberals are also enraged that this news, which was likely dumped by the White House, was done after their failed votes.

It renders liberals impotent on all sides and a lying MSM that tries to skew it will only fail them even more.

Now liberals are in a position of complaining about potential troop reductions because the reductions will not come with our troops portrayed as failures but rather as victors.

[Jet Jaguar]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005434.htm

[spikeytx86]

Are they really that full of themselves that they think military leaders are basing there plans around the opinions of howard dean and co.? And the plan is a withdrawal (ceteras peribus)of mainly combat brigades from Iraq as Iraqi forces take the lead in there domestic security. Is this not the plan the president has been stating repeatedly? (we will draw down our forces when the Iraqi's step up) What pathetic creatures the dimwits are.

[loboinok]

Thank you.

I tried it three times and then said to heck with it.

[Jet Jaguar]

LOL! My pleasure!

[Mr_Moonlight]

Now liberals are in a position of complaining about potential troop reductions because the reductions will not come with our troops portrayed as failures but rather as victors.

Liberals in a QUAGMIRE !

[Tennessean4Bush]

Sure. Stick around.

[tanknetter]

They want to withdraw the troops as failures.

I completely disagree (at least as far as a political first step).

What they want to do is set expectations that troop withdrawls are coming before the election. If they happen, they can just claim that the Administration is following its plan and/or doing what the Dems have been demanding be done.

But let's say that conditions over in Iraq don't improve to the point where the "expected" troop reductions** can happen. Then, right before the mid-term elections they get to blast the Administration for "yet more" incompetant management/mismanagement of the war.

I have VERY serious concerns that the Dems are leaking misrepresentations of what they are being told by the Administration and military. Actually, I'm convinced that they are, and seriously concerned that they'll manage to get away with creating a Fall election environment that's decidedly to their favor.

** also remember that the Dems like to play math games where they get to call a slower than expected increase a "cut". In this case it may happen in reverse - if they set expectations of a 30-40% withdrawl by November 06 and it only turns out to be a 20-25% withdrawl they can play the "Bush lied, people died" card ...

[new yorker 77]

Please reference the 2002 and the 2004 elections for Democrat success along the lines you just outlined.

The Democrats are imploding.

They control nothing but their empty rhetoric.

Murtha's comments sunk them to a new level of incompetence.

The BIG-MO is with the GOP and the DEM-MSM are drowning in their hatred for this country.

[tanknetter]

Please reference the 2002 and the 2004 elections for Democrat success along the lines you just outlined.

Please understand that each election cycle is unique and past events/behaviors/outcomes aren't necessarily indicative of future outcomes.

2002 was too close to 9-11 for the Dems to succeed. They stood a better shot in 2004 than they did in 2002, but environmental factors (not only the "recentness" of the Iraq war, but also the successful actions of the SwiftVets in undercutting Kerry and the Dem's anti-war message) were still against them.

2006 is yet another unique environment, and needs to be treated as such. Don't mistake my comments for pessimism/defeatism - all I'm doing is pointing out the tactics the other side is employing (or, rather, laying the groundwork for deploying) so that OUR side can be better prepped to challenge and defeat them.

The most important thing to do right now to help achieve electoral victory in the Fall is to recognize what is happening and attack the Dems for attempting to lock the Administration and military into some sort of a fixed withdrawl commitment.

[Enchante]

What the loathsome Demagogues like Durbin and Levin cannot grasp is that there is a world of difference between allowing professional military officers to plan quietly for appropriate reductions when and how they see fit based upon their expertise and conditions in-country, vs. having raving Demagogues write their own timetable into legislation for the whole world to see, so that the terrorists can celebrate that their soft-on-jihad friends at the NY Slimes and the Demagogic Party have given them an unearned propaganda 'victory'.....