Posted on 03/26/2008 6:08:18 PM PDT by Syncro
The top U.S. military commander and top diplomat in Iraq have presented plans to President Bush that would not include further troop cutbacks after "surge" brigades are brought home this summer, according to news reports published Tuesday.
The New York Times reported that -- in a secure videoconference with the Bush and the National Security Council -- Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker recommended putting off troop-level decisions for several months after the departure of five extra brigades.
That timeline would leave decisions on major reductions of American troops from Iraq to the next president, the Times reported.
Bush announced no decision on the matter after the briefing. The Times, along with the Washington Post and other news agencies, quoted unnamed participants of the meeting in their reports.
Officials told the Times that during the briefing to the president Petraeus laid out a number of potential options, but avoided using the term "pause," a phrase administration officials view as having negative connotations.
Instead, he described the weeks after the departure of the "surge"’ brigades as a period of "consolidation and evaluation," wording used by Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a visit to Iraq in February.
The briefing occurred just after the fifth anniversary of the invasion and on the same day that the 4,000th U.S. death in Iraq was reported.
Officials also told the Times once the "surge" troops are out of Iraq, planners would conduct more frequent reviews to see when withdrawals might be allowed to resume.
Both Bush and Petraeus recognized the public and Congressional weariness about the toll of the war, the paper reported, but reiterated that the possibly of withdrawing more troops depended on if conditions allowed it.
Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill on April 8 and 9.
Copyright 2008 Stars and Stripes. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill on April 8 and 9.
Sounds good to me.
I have an amigo who is w the 101st in Iraq right now and they are all sweating who the next CIC is going to be.
Say thanks for your friend for us. I have a son in the Marines at Camp Horno right now thinking he will be headed to Afganistan come about August and another son in the US Air Force headed for flight school; wants to fly A10 Thunder Bolts.
Well if The New York Times and the Washington Compost say this is true, then, by-golly, it probably is. ;)
Let’s call Slick up to The Hill and ask him why we still have troops in Kosovo and Bosnia. I mean, those wars are LONG over, right? ;)
Maybe Hillary! can work on bringing those troops home first? I mean, she’s made a career out of cleaning up after Slick, so maybe she IS the right person for the job? LOL!
Say hello and grateful thanks to your amigo from a Vietnam 101st trooper.
I can see enlistments and re-enlistments dropping way down under Hitlery or Obama and these idiot peace niks had better realize their 12-13 year olds could face the draft.
Probably anticipating the little ‘Tet offensive’ from the Islamofascists timed with our presidential election.
I believe in the draft. It’s a way for the general public to learn something about the armed forces, and it makes them take some responsiblity for fighting our wars. Why should only pay-for-hire soldiers do all our fighting for us? I remember during the Vietnam war, people from all walks of life, rich and poor alike, went to do the fighting. Which is how it should be.
I was in combat in Viet Nam and sometimes it wasn’t pretty with a drafted army. There are pro’s and con’s. I do know the all volunteer army of today would have kicked our butts.
I’ve been looking but I can’t find it—how many troops do we still have in Bosnia and Kosovo?
The military isn’t for social engineering. If you want to teach the general public something about the armed forces, write a book.
Exactly right. See my post 2 above.
Maybe it is better to have an “all-volunteer” army, though I wouldn’t say that exactly applies to all the people fighting in Iraq. I think of volunteer as meaning wanting to go serve (in Iraq). I think most were happy to do one tour or even two, but from what I’ve read, many, especially the reservists, are not happy about all that is being demanded of them.
Right now, we have professional corporations doing many of the things that our military used to do: cooking meals, driving trucks, repairing equipment, providing security....If we had a draft, many of the draftees could do those kinds of jobs, or free up real soldiers to do them. The draftees would learn a lot from their service, and they’d be doing something for their country, instead of just sitting at home bitching.
Hey, who reads books anymore? And if you read the comments about the Second Amendment, you’d realize that many of the civilian population consider it a duty of a citizen to be prepared to defend the US at all times. They’d make better soldiers than you think.
We won World War 2 with a draftee army. Hitler thought it was nothing to fear. He was wrong.
We need a larger professional military and that could be accomplished with higher pay and incentives. We need a Kick Ass military, not someone putting in their time in the mess hall. Let the civilians do civilian things for the military..
“We need a larger professional military and that could be accomplished with higher pay and incentives.”
So we need to pay people more than we’re paying them now to defend our country for us? Do we just keep increasing the pay until we have enough “volunteers”? Then our country can fight wars while we sit on the sidelines and put stickers on the back of our cars saying we support our soldiers while they do the fighting and dying. And it’s all fine, so long as the government doesn’t raise our taxes to make us pay for it.
I talked to a fellow who is serving in Iraq by working for Halliburton driving a truck. He’s making $150,000 a year, which is fair pay when you consider where he’s working. But why couldn’t we use draftees to do that? We’ve got more people serving in Iraq now, as civilians supporting the military, than we have military in Iraq.
I’d tell you where that info comes from, but then, I’d have to kill ya, LOL!
Here’s an ‘Oldie But A Goodie.’ Remember ALL the flack Clinton took for NOT withdrawing troops from “his” war?
Yeah...I didn’t think so.
Clinton Postpones Troop Withdrawl from Bosnia
By Art Pine
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON
(1996)
The Clinton administration said Thursday that it has scrapped plans to withdraw the bulk of the 18,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia by Dec. 20, as initially promised, and now is not likely to have most of the American force out until late January or February.
The change was announced by Kenneth H. Bacon, the Pentagon’s spokesman, following a plea by NATO’s top military commander, U.S. Army Gen. George A. Joulwan, that U.S. and other NATO forces remain on duty until after the Bosnian elections, now scheduled for September.
Although the administration had cautioned previously that it might keep some U.S. troops in Bosnia for a month or so beyond Dec. 20, when the NATO mission comes to an end, it had planned to begin the pullout in June, leaving a relatively small contingent of U.S. soldiers through mid-December.
But Bacon said Thursday that while some U.S. troops may begin leaving in late September - and the NATO mission in Bosnia still will end officially on Dec. 20 - the United States now plans to keep a “significant force” in the country through January or “maybe longer.”
Administration officials also said the United States is likely to continue providing air and logistical support after Dec. 20 - if NATO decides to station troops near Bosnia - to prevent a resumption of fighting in the region.
While officials would not say so publicly, analysts said the slippage reflected the difficulty that civilian authorities in Bosnia have been experiencing in rebuilding the country’s governmental and economic structure - including scheduling the first elections.
Although the delay announced Thursday was not an appreciable one, it was expected to draw sharp criticism from Republicans, who have been predicting for months that the administration’s initial schedule for bringing the troops back was likely to slide.
Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned Thursday that “if the administration intends to keep U.S. forces in Bosnia longer than previously indicated, it must come back and consult with Congress.”
Thursday’s announcement marked the administration’s most visible acknowledgment so far that the civilian side of the allied peacemaking effort in Bosnia is slipping behind schedule.
Defense Secretary William J. Perry told Congress in March that U.S. troops would “come out of Bosnia no later than Dec. 20,” although he cautioned that some could remain there for a few weeks longer because of the time needed for a full withdrawal. Clinton separately made a similar pledge.
When the Bosnian peace accord was signed in Dayton, Ohio, last November, all sides hoped to have a new government in place by now - and an economic reconstruction program under way - with plans for an election sometime in late spring or summer.
But the lack of any formal organization to shepherd the effort, and seemingly intractable delays by the warring factions themselves, have kept the process at a snail’s pace. As a result, the elections have been postponed to September, and even that schedule may not be met.
In recent weeks, the allies have tried to help speed the process by permitting U.S. and other NATO military forces to help with some tasks that were supposed to have been reserved for civilian authorities, such as providing security for the inspection of mass grave sites.
However, U.S. Army Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Brussels earlier this week that there would be no reductions in U.S. troop strength in Bosnia until after the country’s September elections.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N21/clinton.21w.html
I disagree. I joined the Corps straight out of high school and I learned so many things that would have taken me decades to learn if it weren't for the military. The Marines taught me the difference between being a boy to being a man and a leader. You don't see that too much outside of the military.
They cleared the Sunnis. Now they need to beat down the Sadrists (already underway).
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.