Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analysis: Memo raises questions about Iraq pullout
AP ^ | July 31, 2009 | Robert Burns

Posted on 07/31/2009 1:42:16 PM PDT by Cheap_Hessian

WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army colonel's colorfully worded memo arguing for the U.S. to declare victory in Iraq and leave next summer suggests the possibility of an important shift in the debate about U.S. withdrawal plans.

Until now the question has been whether thousands of U.S. troops might need to stay beyond a December 2011 deadline for a complete U.S. pullout, in order to continue training and advising Iraqi forces.

The memo written by Col. Timothy R. Reese, a U.S. adviser to the Iraqi military command, turns that question on its head by asking whether it makes more sense to get out long before the deadline—scrapping President Barack Obama's plan for an extended advisory mission.

For now, Reese's view—"It's time for the U.S. to declare victory and go home"—seems to be in the distinct minority. The conventional wisdom is that in order to avoid an Iraqi collapse that would squander six-plus years of enormous U.S. sacrifices, a residual force of as many as 50,000 U.S. troops should remain to train and advise Iraqis for 16 months after all combat troops depart in August 2010.

Might that change in coming months as Iraqi forces take firmer control and perhaps lose interest in U.S. help?

Might the post-August 2010 advisory mission go forward but with far fewer U.S. troops participating?

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; military; pullout

1 posted on 07/31/2009 1:42:16 PM PDT by Cheap_Hessian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
Funny how the media did a crisp about-face or about Jan 20 '09. I particularly like this line:

"...a residual force of as many as 50,000 U.S. troops should remain..."

About half of the existing troops in Iraq is called "residual"? No, if it was 1 year earlier the headline would be, "Bush Keeps Troops in Iraq Despite Army's Advice".

2 posted on 07/31/2009 1:51:59 PM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

I wouldn’t put it past Obama to leave Iraq early and practically hand it to the Iranians.


3 posted on 07/31/2009 1:59:04 PM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

well, that’s one way to buck for General with a chicken-hearted hippie Commander in Chief....


4 posted on 07/31/2009 2:06:43 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randog
Funny thing... today I saw video of Iraqis complaining about their government running American Military out of the cities too early and allowing terrorists to attack them once again. Once again hussama is ****ing up the world with his every move.

LLS

5 posted on 07/31/2009 2:23:17 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: randog
remember President Bush's end game, “the US will stand down as the Iraqi stand up.” I would say we are on target.
6 posted on 07/31/2009 4:05:09 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson