U.S. will not cut troops for two years.
The Pentagon moved yesterday to quash speculation about a swift pullout of American troops after the election in Iraq as a first step towards complete withdrawal.
Lt-Gen James Lovelace, the deputy chief of staff responsible for operations, said there was no plan to reduce troop numbers for at least two years. The army thought it "most probable" that it would need about 120,000 men in Iraq at least until the end of 2006, he said.
Weren't we supposed to have elections, settle things down, and reduce boots on the ground to about 40,000? Yeah, that was the parades and flowers plan. So, the plan now is to stay indefinetely.
Yesterday the White House predicted that the United States budget deficit for 2005, including the money for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, will total $427 billion.
Didn't bin Laden suggest his primary strategy was bankrupting us, bleeding us financially? Nice to see we're calling his bluff.
Anticipating that the Iraqi election will provoke calls for withdrawal in America and elsewhere, the two men (former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz) set out the risks in the Washington Post. A botched departure would, they wrote, "usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs".
Our presence is such a stabilizing force in the region. It apparently doesn't matter if the new Iraqi government wants us to leave. So much for sovereignty.
--Zap
It's always a trap to make plans based on what comes out of the administration, particularly the White House and the Pentagon. We could get a handshake and a kick in the ass on Monday. I sincerely doubt it, but events are growing outside US control, and that control continues to ebb. Assuming either honest or thoughtful motive in their decisionmaking process is foolhardy, my good friend. You're using the 120,000 figure to call lie on the 40,000--tells you how dumb we were to believe 40,000 when he said it.
Bremer set up US-led directorates in Iraq for 5-year terms, so we knew this was coming, yes? $1.2bil for the US embassy in Baghdad (about how much we'll pay for the new WTC and memorial). And they said Saddam knew how to do shameless, gaudy opulence! We'll show him!
You've seen how drunk on power the Republicans have been the last two months. Imagine the shia, led by Sistani who's waited for his moment, having forced the moment to come without delay. The Democrats just humiliated Republicans for 40 years--they didn't kill them. So I imagine there's going to be some people feeling all "New Sharif in Town." (get it? Sheriff? heh.)
Posted by: Torrid | January 26, 2005 at 22:41
Zap:
Are you surprised that they've been lying to you again?
And two years? Not likely. Try 20.
Posted by: Carla | January 27, 2005 at 18:53
No, not surprised, but I do like to post the reminders to get it all on the record.
Posted by: Zap | January 27, 2005 at 21:07
Also Carla and Torrid, don't be too defeatist. We do have a change of power every four years, and Torrid and I have both agree that the coming four years are nothing more than a long rope from which they will most likely hang. Additionally, Churchill has a great quote (I'm too lazy to look up) about the inability to plan for the mess of war. Keep the faith and don't let up on them.
Posted by: Zap | January 27, 2005 at 21:25