Troop levels to be reduced in Iraq

[southsider2k5]

Looks like we are going to drop about 7000 troops in Iraq.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051223/D8ELP508P.html

[FlaSoxxJim]

If the reduction is in the form of cancelling deployments of army brigades that had been scheduled for combat tours as suggested then I am happy to see it. If it represents the beginning of our 'standing down' as more Iraqi security forces 'stand up,' then I consider it to be some welcome news.

[southsider2k5]

If the reduction is in the form of cancelling deployments of  army brigades that had been scheduled for combat tours as suggested then I am happy to see it.  If it represents the beginning of our 'standing down' as more Iraqi security forces 'stand up,' then I consider it to be some welcome news.

 

Sounds like a little of both from what I heard on the radio this morning. Iraqis are taking over jobs that were previously done by Americans, so they need less troops. With the natural attrition of troops rotating home, those who would have been rotating in are staying home instead of coming into Iraq to acheive two less brigades being there.

[Balta1701]

Are you sure about that 2k5? The impression I get from reading things is that the troop levels were boosted solely do provide the extra security forces needed to clamp down during the election, and the numbers are merely falling back to right where they were a few months ago (and to right where they fell after the election before that).

[southsider2k5]

Are you sure about that 2k5?  The impression I get from reading things is that the troop levels were boosted solely do provide the extra security forces needed to clamp down during the election, and the numbers are merely falling back to right where they were a few months ago (and to right where they fell after the election before that).

 

According to what was said on WBBM this morning, this is beyond that. The troop level was going back to the 138,000 it was at, and now they are going to let it go closer to 130,000 by not deploying two brigades that had planned on going over, dropping from 17 to 15 brigades in Iraq.

[FlaSoxxJim]

According to what was said on WBBM this morning, this is beyond that.  The troop level was going back to the 138,000 it was at, and now they are going to let it go closer to 130,000 by not deploying two brigades that had planned on going over, dropping from 17 to 15 brigades in Iraq.

Catching up on this now, this is my understanding of it as well.

[Balta1701]

Hmph, it appears you're right, and the LA Times I finished reading 30 minutes ago was out of date already. Damn print media!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think this is just the beginning of a more substantial withdrawal of troops as the year goes on. I expect to see US troop levels at no more than 80,000 by the end of the year.

[Balta1701]

The U.S. Forces in Iraq have been increased back to 140,000, up from 127,000 a month or so ago.

[jackie hayes]

The U.S. Forces in Iraq have been increased back to 140,000, up from 127,000 a month or so ago.

I see no contradiction. We will reduce troop levels by 7000, we just don't know when. If he had meant that troop levels would be reduced within any given span of time, that would be a deadline. And deadlines mean the terrorists win. Now, this is all very obvious, so while I don't want to question your patriotism, I have to ask, Balta, why do you hate America?

[Texsox]

I see no contradiction. We will reduce troop levels by 7000, we just don't know when. If he had meant that troop levels would be reduced within any given span of time, that would be a deadline. And deadlines mean the terrorists win. Now, this is all very obvious, so while I don't want to question your patriotism, I have to ask, Balta, why do you hate America?

 

Fixed it.

[jackie hayes]

Fixed it.

It isn't easy being green, but sometimes it's too easy to be green.

[Balta1701]

147,000.

[southsider2k5]

The irony is that they think more violence is going to get rid of the troops, instead it is bringing more in. The US wants to get out as many troops as possible because of the PR disaster on this side of the pond, but can't because of the worsening fighting. The easiest way to get rid of the American troops would be to show the world that they aren't needed, and Iraq can survive on its own. Civil war isn't a very convincing arguement for that.

[NorthSideSox72]

I caught a snippet on CNN yesterday about Anbar (some soldiers had started calling it "Alqaedastan"). They were sayings its about the size of new Hampshire, and has only a few hundred troops stationed there.

 

I just can't see why people are arguing for troop reductions. I disagreed with the war, and I disagree with the way it has been conducted. But that all said, to abandon ship now is just assinine.

[Queen Prawn]

I agree 100% with what you posted NorthSide.

[Texsox]

We're there. If removing some Troops from harms' way makes the other more vulnerable, than I'd rather have them there. Bottom line, I want to see zero body bags coming out of the region. If that means 150,000 troops instead of 120,000, so be it.

[Balta1701]

We're there. If removing some Troops from harms' way makes the other more vulnerable, than I'd rather have them there. Bottom line, I want to see zero body bags coming out of the region. If that means 150,000 troops instead of 120,000, so be it.

But what happens if the same number of body bags come out of the region with 150,000 troops in the area instead of 120,000? Or more?

[Texsox]

But what happens if the same number of body bags come out of the region with 150,000 troops in the area instead of 120,000? Or more?

 

If we have the same death with less Troops, I could still accept that. It would allow for more Troops to be deployed elsewhere. But if Troops go down and deaths go up, we haven't gained anything in my accounting.

[Balta1701]

If we have the same death with less Troops, I could still accept that. It would allow for more Troops to be deployed elsewhere. But if Troops go down and deaths go up, we haven't gained anything in my accounting.

Well, then I would point out that the number of troops has increased over the past 3 months or so, and at the same time, the level of violence even just in Baghdad has increased over the same time, let alone the fact that we've pulled troops out of other areas and put them into Baghdad (leaving places like Anbar less secure).

 

If we want to start talking about more troops actually securing that country, we literally need to start finding a few hundred thousand more troops. Because 150k, which is about the limit for our current army, just hasn't been enough to do the job, and the fact that they're there but also not able to do the job makes the entire strategic situation for the United States worse, and probably worsens the violence in Iraq as well.

[Balta1701]

The U.S. military will likely maintain or possibly even increase the current force levels of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top US. commander in the Middle East said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of how quickly American forces can be brought home.

 

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed.

 

"If it's necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we'll do it," he said. "If we have to call in more forces because it's our military judgment that we need more forces, we'll do it."

Link.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, I think this is actually a good thing, in terms of achieving the goals we now have set for Iraq. I think any troop reduction would be a mistake.

 

But that said, one danger lurking on the horizon is that we cannot just keep sending the same troops over and over again, and keep implementing these stop-loss programs. After a while, that system will break down. And with the poor recruiting levels the military is seeing despite all sorts of incentives, the inflow won't be enough. Then it will be time to start discussing the "D" word.

[Balta1701]

Well, I think this is actually a good thing, in terms of achieving the goals we now have set for Iraq. I think any troop reduction would be a mistake.

 

But that said, one danger lurking on the horizon is that we cannot just keep sending the same troops over and over again, and keep implementing these stop-loss programs. After a while, that system will break down. And with the poor recruiting levels the military is seeing despite all sorts of incentives, the inflow won't be enough. Then it will be time to start discussing the "D" word.

The only reason not to start talking about it now, except of course for those all-important elections...is if you think that an additional 15,000 troops (an increase of about 12%) will somehow stem the massive increase in violence we've seen this year.

 

If you don't believe that, which I don't one bit...then it's time to ask the question; more or less. If more, where are they coming from, if less, how are we going to manage the disaster we've created?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, I think this is actually a good thing, in terms of achieving the goals we now have set for Iraq. I think any troop reduction would be a mistake.

 

But that said, one danger lurking on the horizon is that we cannot just keep sending the same troops over and over again, and keep implementing these stop-loss programs. After a while, that system will break down. And with the poor recruiting levels the military is seeing despite all sorts of incentives, the inflow won't be enough. Then it will be time to start discussing the "D" word.

 

 

Poor recruiting levels? Where do you get that from? According to their little tracker thing they print in the Army Times, they are running ahead of plan for this years recruiting and reenlistment is at an all time high despite the war and lots of deployments.

 

There will be no draft......NEVER AGAIN.........NOT EVER. The military doesn't want it, the government doesn't want it, the people dont want it. About the only person that DOES want it is Charles Rangel.

[NorthSideSox72]

Poor recruiting levels? Where do you get that from? According to their little tracker thing they print in the Army Times, they are running ahead of plan for this years recruiting and reenlistment is at an all time high despite the war and lots of deployments.

 

There will be no draft......NEVER AGAIN.........NOT EVER. The military doesn't want it, the government doesn't want it, the people dont want it. About the only person that DOES want it is Charles Rangel.

You may be right about the draft - and I hope you are. But honestly, I am not sure about the Army Times and how it might be spinning the recruiting picture. Honestly, I know nothing about that publication.

 

I'll see if I can dig up the last thing I read on this. The picture painted was fairly bleak - fewer recruits incoming each year since 2003, and the need for more troops growing. But then, if the Army Times is talking about actual versus target, they may be right - maybe the Army has set declining targets. I do not know. I'll see what I can find.