White House considers 50-percent troop reduction in Iraq For the pro-war supporters out there, 50 percent means one-half. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070526154135.2sg9e7ki&show_article=1&catnum=3 White House considers 50-percent troop reduction in Iraq May 26 11:42 AM US/Eastern The White House is reportedly working on what officials describe as several "concepts" for reducing the number of US combat troops in Iraq by as much as 50 percent next year. Citing unnamed senior administration officials, The New York Times said the concepts could lower US troop levels in Iraq to roughly 100,000 by the time the 2008 US presidential election moves into high gear. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President George W. Bush set for the US military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province, the report said. The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al-Qaeda while removing Americans from many of the counter-insurgency efforts inside Baghdad. But there is no indication that Bush is preparing to call an early end to the current troop increase, The Times said. And one reason officials are talking about their long-range strategy may be to blunt pressure from members of Congress, including some Republicans, who are pushing for a more rapid troop reduction, according to the report. Proponents of reducing the troops and scaling back their mission next year appear to include Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, it said. They have been joined by generals at the Pentagon and elsewhere who have long been skeptical that the Iraqi government would use the opportunity created by the troop increase to reach genuine political accommodations. The concepts have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq, General David Petraeus and Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, both of whom have been enthusiastic supporters of the troop increase, the paper said. In an interview in Baghdad on Thursday, General Odierno said any withdrawal of American troops was not advisable until December, "at a minimum," The Times said. Even then, he said, redeployments should be carried out slowly, to avoid jeopardizing security gains. One of the ideas, according to officials cited in the report, would be to reduce the current 20 US combat brigades to about 10, a move which would be completed between the spring of 2008 and the end of the year.
I don't want to break up the SamFisher-basso lovefest but the following is more evidence of how Bush doesn't 'get it' in Iraq along the lines of the original article. It appears that he doesn't understand that our presence there is an irritant inflaming anti-Americanism. If the idea was to get in and get out, it might be possible to have an equation where positive effects > negative effects. But at this point we are creating more terrorists than he is killing. Following the current track, the only way we are going to 'win' in Iraq is by killing every Muslim in the world. Several years after the fall of the Soviet Union, I remember reading of conservative think tank types talking about the need to find a new enemy to take the place of the Soviets in order to focus the American people. I almost wonder if what they are doing here is trying to create that new enemy, because it seems so obvious to me that that is what we are doing. I know the popular perception is that Bush is a simpleton, but I believe that we are really stretching it here to think he is that simple. If you want proof that Iraq is making the US less safe, look up the polls on Arab opinion from before Iraq. We are making people support al Qaeda as the perceived lesser of two evils. [rquoter] Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam Majorities Want US Forces Out of Islamic Countries And Approve of Attacks on US Troops Large Majorities Agree With Many Goals of Al Qaeda But Oppose Attacks on Civilians Most Support Enhancing Role of Islam in Their Society, But Also Favor Globalization and Democracy An in-depth poll of four major Muslim countries has found that in all of them large majorities believe that undermining Islam is a key goal of US foreign policy. Most want US military forces out of the Middle East and many approve of attacks on US troops there. Most respondents have mixed feelings about al Qaeda. Large majorities agree with many of its goals, but believe that terrorist attacks on civilians are contrary to Islam. There is strong support for enhancing the role of Islam in all of the countries polled, through such measures as the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). This does not mean that they want to isolate their societies from outside influences: Most view globalization positively and favor democracy and freedom of religion. These findings are from surveys in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia conducted from December 2006 to February, 2007 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.” “While US leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the US as being at war with Islam,” said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org. Consistent with this concern, large majorities in all countries (average 74%) support the goal of getting the United States to “remove its bases and military forces from all Islamic countries,” ranging from 64 percent in Indonesia to 92 percent in Egypt. Substantial numbers also favor attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Persian Gulf. Across the four countries polled approximately half support such attacks in each location, while three in ten are opposed. But there is substantial variation between countries: Support is strongest in Egypt, where at least eight in ten approve of attacking US troops in the region. A majority of Moroccans also support targeting US forces, whether stationed in the Persian Gulf (52%) or fighting in Iraq (68%). Pakistanis are divided about attacks on the American military—many do not answer or express mixed feelings—while Indonesians oppose them. However, respondents roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries—usually overwhelming majorities—take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all. More than three out of four Indonesians (84%), Pakistanis (81%), and Egyptians (77%) take this position, as well as 57 percent of Moroccans (an additional 19 percent of Moroccans say such attacks can only be “weakly justified”). Attitudes toward Al Qaeda are complex. On average, only three in ten view Osama bin Laden positively. Many respondents express mixed feelings about bin Laden and his followers and many others decline to answer. There is strong disapproval of attacks by “groups that use violence against civilians, such as al Qaeda.” Large majorities in Egypt (88%), Indonesia (65%) and Morocco (66%) agree that such groups “are violating the principles of Islam.” Pakistanis are divided, however, with many not answering. But there is also uncertainty about whether al Qaeda actually conducts such attacks. On average less than one in four believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical—only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it. There is no consensus about who is responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington; the most common answer is “don’t know.” Most significantly, large majorities approve of many of al Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.” Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.” But this does not appear to mean that the publics in these Muslim countries want to isolate themselves from the larger world. Asked how they feel about “the world becoming more connected through greater economic trade and faster communication,” majorities in all countries say it is a good thing (average 75%). While wary of Western values, overall 67 percent agree that “a democratic political system” is a good way to govern their country and 82 percent agree that in their country “people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs.” The surveys were conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007 using in-home interviews. In Morocco (1,000 interviews), Indonesia (1,141 interviews), and Pakistan (1,243 interviews) national probability samples were conducted covering both urban and rural areas. However, Pakistani findings reported here are based only upon urban respondents (611 interviews); rural respondents were unfamiliar with many of the issues in the survey. In Egypt, the sample (1,000 interviews) was an urban sample drawn probabilistically from seven governorates. Sample sizes of 1,000 – 1,141 have confidence intervals of +/- 3 percentage points; a sample size of 611 has a confidence interval of +/-4 percentage points. [/rquoter] source report (pdf)
Far from breaking it up - the article you quoted goes to exactly what I (and Kaplan) were referring to.
Another lie. What have we "delivered" to the Iraqi people other than being the catalyst to thousands of innocent dead people? And why don't we have 150,000 troops in Darfur to protect those children who are raped and slughtered every day? Republican rationalization: "we can only resolve one conflict at a time". Im sure we'll spend billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands in US casualties for Darfur. 1st it's Weapons of Mass Destruction, then it's the terrorists willl come kidnap our Jon Benet, and of course, the ever reliable - "it's for the Iraqis" - who hate our guts and want us out. There's a reason the majority of Americans do noty support this so called war. It's Don Knotts starring as Captain Ahab and Don Quixote.
please, just shut the **** up. you were momentarily moderately amusing, then mildly annoying, but have now crossed the line to genuinely offensive. stop. you're an idiot, but then, i suspect you know that already.
Offensive? Tell that to the 3,500 soldiers who have died. Tell that the to the innocent Iraqi people who have died. What's offensive is your justification for those deaths.
A friend of mine thinks that Bush's behavior is basically that of a "dry drunk" with excess rigidity etc. He says he has many Evangelical family members who are that way even if they have never drank for religious reasons. Alchoholism apparently runs heavily in the family among those who do attempt to drink socially.
So true. It is sort of like the misguided drug war. The supporters of the current drug war actually mean to oppose drug abuse.
Largely true, unfortunately. I think it is perhaps true that you give Bush-Cheney too much credits for smarts. I do think the right wing element in Israel and their neocon buds here have a fall back position, if other goals are not accomplised that at least Arabs are killing each other in Iraq and Iraq has been reduced it to a giant ineffective Lebanon. They would hope to accomplish the same in Iran, though it is not Arab. Syria and the rest as Lebanons fighting among themselves would be cool too.
My favorite, too. I do believe that the majority of the American people are now on to Bush,Cheney and gang. It is sort of like once you discover a friend or acquaintance is a frequent liear, you then watch more carefully, and start all of a sudden seeing their lies as they occur.
At least Basso is still trying to propagandize on this forum as he views this as a key to "Supporting President Bush and the Troops". I think perhaps Hayes and certainly many others have just departed. Hayes may be still content with his DECISION TO support the DECISION to AUTHORIZE the president to use force or however, he would currently carefully phrase it. Hey, give Basso some credit for determination albeit for a misguided cause. After all there are still about 20% of the population that have roughly his view on the Iraqi War.
