Skip to comments.Army chief says US ready to be in Iraq 10 years (retirement time!)
Posted on 05/26/2009 3:57:06 PM PDT by markomalley
The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."
He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."
Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective.
President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What brought that on? General Casey is simply stating that the Army is prepared to do that. What’s wrong with that?
Because it goes against groupthink. It implies that the Army might be there.
Nothing wrong with his statement. Something wrong with his boss who will take retribution upon him for making that statement.
This is exactly the prescription for the destruction of the national guard. The current use of the national guard proves that the 18 division army was the right size.
Who cares about supposed “groupthink”?
See Marine_Uncle’s thoughts below. It would be the height of irresponsibility to automatically plan for a withdrawal because the chosen one stated a date.
We should leave Iraq in an orderly withdrawal commensurate with the ability of the Iraqi government to assume control of their country.
No wonder our nations broke.
Look, FRiend, I'm not arguing with his statement. I'm not arguing with planning to keep troops there for a long time, provided that the government believing we have a strategic interest in maintaining peace and security in the region (and, since the environmentalist wackos won't let us get petroleum within our own borders, then it's pretty much going to be in our interest)
I'm talking about political reality: Bambi has a habit of throwing people under the bus when no longer convenient. GEN Casey, in implying that Bambi's declaration may not be correct, has just put himself in line to have treadmarks over his back.
You may say politics is irrelevant. Well, in the years I've lived around these parts since I've retired, I have learned one thing more than anything else: it's ALL political.
“GEN Casey, in implying that Bambi’s declaration may not be correct, has just put himself in line to have treadmarks over his back.”
OK. Gotcha. Time will tell I guess. Gates seems to be surviving well, and Casey (and Mullen, for that matter) is at least that tenacious.
It's too strategic, for us to leave.
Casey couldn’t cut it in Iraq so he got pushed upstairs to make room for Petraeus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.