PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Military Reversing Iraq Troop Surge



red states rule
11-14-2007, 08:32 AM
With all the progress being made, US commanders are now ready to start pulling some of the troops out and bringing them home

It seems the surge has worked


U.S. Military Reversing Iraq Troop Surge

WASHINGTON -- The first big test of security gains linked to the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq is at hand.

The military has started to reverse the 30,000-strong troop increase and commanders are hoping the drop in insurgent and sectarian violence in recent months - achieved at the cost of hundreds of lives - won't prove fleeting.

The current total of 20 combat brigades is shrinking to 19 as the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, operating in volatile Diyala province, leaves. The U.S. command in Baghdad announced on Saturday that the brigade had begun heading home to Fort Hood, Texas, and that its battle space will be taken by another brigade already operating in Iraq.

Between January and July - on a schedule not yet made public - the force is to shrink further to 15 brigades. The total number of U.S. troops will likely go from 167,000 now to 140,000-145,000 by July, six months before President Bush leaves office and a new commander in chief enters the White House.

As the U.S. troop reductions proceed, it should become clear whether the so-called "surge" strategy that increased the U.S. troop presence in and around Baghdad resulted in any lasting gains against sectarianism. Critics note that the divided government in Baghdad has made few, if any, strides toward political reconciliation that the Americans have said is crucial to stabilizing the country.

for the complete article

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/surge_iraq_reverse/2007/11/12/48803.html

darin
11-14-2007, 09:35 AM
This will translate to Liberals as: "GWB spreads troops too thin! Now soldiers and units must cover MORE terrirory!!"

I've concluded liberals and top Democrats are NOT against the War...they are against the President. They've had PLENTY of chances to withhold funding for future operations, yet they haven't. Why? Because THEY know what's necessary; yet won't admit it publicly.

red states rule
11-14-2007, 09:37 AM
This will translate to Liberals as: "GWB spreads troops too thin! Now soldiers and units must cover MORE terrirory!!"

I've concluded liberals and top Democrats are NOT against the War...they are against the President. They've had PLENTY of chances to withhold funding for future operations, yet they haven't. Why? Because THEY know what's necessary; yet won't admit it publicly.

Libs will never join in and fight the war on terror

They are to busy with their war on reality and Pres Bush

PostmodernProphet
11-14-2007, 09:39 AM
what's interesting is I heard about the reduction of troops one day and the next day I heard that the Dems have decided to demand troop reduction in exchange for passing the new military expenditures act......(hold breath, wait for it)....Dems announce "Bush's plan of reduction is a capitulation to our firm stand on Iraq spending!"

truthmatters
11-14-2007, 09:40 AM
This was the plan before the surge. They needed the surge because they were about to have to send large groups of ftroops home who they could not replace. This was a chess move to keep the war going until after the election so they can blame the mess that ensues from draw down on the Democrats who they know will win the election.

Bush made a mess and he needs someone else to clean the mess up , its what he has done his whole life.

red states rule
11-14-2007, 09:42 AM
This was the plan before the surge. They needed the surge because they were about to have to send large groups of ftroops home who they could not replace. This was a chess move to keep the war going until after the election so they can blame the mess that ensues from draw down on the Democrats who they know will win the election.

Bush made a mess and he needs someone else to clean the mess up , its what he has done his whole life.

Did you read the first post TM?

If this is a mess - please - give me more

But remember, Reid and Pelosi hate this good news. It fucks up their attempts to pass their "Surrender At All Costs" bill

PostmodernProphet
11-14-2007, 09:44 AM
he needs someone else to clean the mess up

interesting....from your point of view, does it suck that there is less of a mess than there was six months ago?

Hagbard Celine
11-14-2007, 09:47 AM
This will translate to Liberals as: "GWB spreads troops too thin! Now soldiers and units must cover MORE terrirory!!"

I've concluded liberals and top Democrats are NOT against the War...they are against the President. They've had PLENTY of chances to withhold funding for future operations, yet they haven't. Why? Because THEY know what's necessary; yet won't admit it publicly.

I don't think so. I'm sure they're against the war. I think they don't want to be seen as unsupportive of the troops, which is exactly how it would be spun by 'pubs if they withheld funding for future operations.

red states rule
11-14-2007, 09:49 AM
I don't think so. I'm sure they're against the war. I think they don't want to be seen as unsupportive of the troops, which is exactly how it would be spun by 'pubs if they withheld funding for future operations.

40 times the Dems have tried to push for surredner in Congress

Yes, they are unsupportive of the troops. If the troops win in Iraq, Dems lose here in the eyes of the voters