Rumsfeld: Bush to cut back U.S. troops in Iraq

[Guest Moneyball]

Rumsfeld: Bush to cut back U.S. troops in Iraq

 

Friday, December 23, 2005; Posted: 7:24 a.m. EST (12:24 GMT)

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- President Bush has authorized a reduction in U.S. combat troops in Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Friday, talking before troops at Camp Falluja, Iraq.

 

"At the recommendation of our military commanders and in consultation with our coalition partners and with the Iraqi government, President Bush has authorized an adjustment in U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from 17 to 15," Rumsfeld told 400 to 500 U.S. troops.

 

The adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq below the baseline level of 138,000 -- which has provided the guideline for most of the year -- by spring of 2006. There were 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as elections approached, Rumsfeld said.

 

A statement issued by the U.S. military said one brigade -- the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division -- would not be deployed to Iraq, and a second brigade scheduled to deploy to Iraq -- the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division -- would remain in Kuwait as a "call forward" force for support if necessary.

 

About 3,500 soldiers are in each brigade, the statement said.

 

Further reductions will be considered next year when Iraq's new government is in place and prepared to discuss the future, he said.

 

Rumsfeld flew into Iraq from Afghanistan on Thursday, and was met at Baghdad International Airport by Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in the country.

 

He then flew to Amman, Jordan, before returning to Baghdad.

 

On Thursday, gunmen killed four police commandos and wounded six others at an Iraqi police checkpoint in southern Baghdad, police said.

 

About an hour later, gunmen kidnapped three Iraqi women in southwestern Baghdad. The women, who work in the Green Zone, were abducted when the gunmen stopped their vehicle.

 

Insurgents often target people perceived as helping the United States. The heavily fortified Green Zone is home to U.S. military headquarters and government ministries and embassies.

 

Whether you agree with the war or not this is certainly good news.

[Beinfest4Prez]

Yeah, right. I'll believe this as soon as the troops start coming home.

 

 

 

 

But if it is true than it is great news.

[Dodge]

Yeah, right. I'll believe this as soon as the troops start coming home.

 

 

 

 

But if it is true than it is great news.

 

 

For Christ's sake they gave you a timetable. What else is the far left asking for these days?

[Guest Fritz]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

[Dodge]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

 

 

I agree with you there, but disagreeing with the war from the outset is different than naysaying the whole god damn time.

[FutureGM]

Hopefully this will actually happen.

[Guest Fritz]

Hopefully this will actually happen.

 

Nuking the Middle East?

 

 

True.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

 

 

I agree with you there, but disagreeing with the war from the outset is different than naysaying the whole god damn time.

 

Has it really been that distinguished by war supporters? And I thought you were all into helping these poor people of Iraq. Frustration with the people of Iraq from war supporters goes to show how foolish and simplified that aspect of the war motivation was. Especially simplified.

[FutureGM]

Hopefully this will actually happen.

 

Nuking the Middle East?

 

 

True.

I meant a reduction in U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

[Guest Fritz]

Hopefully this will actually happen.

 

Nuking the Middle East?

 

 

True.

I meant a reduction in U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

Too bad.

[Accord]

Thank god it's only the army that had their deployments cancelled.

[Marlin Nation]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

 

 

I agree with you there, but disagreeing with the war from the outset is different than naysaying the whole god damn time.

 

Has it really been that distinguished by war supporters? And I thought you were all into helping these poor people of Iraq. Frustration with the people of Iraq from war supporters goes to show how foolish and simplified that aspect of the war motivation was. Especially simplified.

 

As a conservative and a supporter of this war let me tell you, I could care less about democracy in the Middle East, if you put a gun to my head I would tell you it's not a very good idea as people in that region respect and are drawn toward strong authoritarian types to govern them and ascociate democracy with corruption, exploitation, and an infringement on thier cultural identity.

 

Some people just cant accept the cold reality that this war was about security not some noble crusade to enlighten and free Arabs from dictatorships. If it works for the Iraqis good for them, though it's just a happy residue of a security action.

[Buckeye]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

 

 

I agree with you there, but disagreeing with the war from the outset is different than naysaying the whole god damn time.

 

Has it really been that distinguished by war supporters? And I thought you were all into helping these poor people of Iraq. Frustration with the people of Iraq from war supporters goes to show how foolish and simplified that aspect of the war motivation was. Especially simplified.

 

As a conservative and a supporter of this war let me tell you, I could care less about democracy in the Middle East, if you put a gun to my head I would tell you it's not a very good idea as people in that region respect and are drawn toward strong authoritarian types to govern them and ascociate democracy with corruption, exploitation, and an infringement on thier cultural identity.

 

Some people just cant accept the cold reality that this war was about security not some noble crusade to enlighten and free Arabs from dictatorships. If it works for the Iraqis good for them, though it's just a happy residue of a security action.

 

So, you're saying you support the war, but not it's goals? Um...

 

Philosophical quandry. If you don't think the outcome is a reachable goal why go in--in the first place? Why ruin our families over here with meaningless death if it's not for some reason? Or do you think there's still some connection between Saddham and 9/11 (of which there is no evidence)?

 

Basically what you're saying is "I support the war but the goals that this administration has set for the Middle Easte are unreachable." Which is completely true statement on one hand and completely irrational on the other (I'll lead you to pick which is which). So, I would consider being pro-war but saying we can't reach the goals we've set for the people we're supposedly fighting for, I don't know, stubborn, pig-headed. I mean, if we were never capable of achieving these goals and setting up a democratic society there, IE it was never going to work, then what was the point? That would make George Bush just as guilty of murder as the people our troops freed the Iraqi people from (let's call is willfull ignorance, like the drunk who drives and mows down four people and says he thought he was capable of driving). That amounts to: I'm going to send our people in to do something that can't be done and many lives will be lost doing so. Yeah, that's qualifies.

 

I'd have a big problem with that. Especially if it's just about "security." You don't attack people, lose innocent lives and set up a weak and unstable democratic form of government just to make everyone here "feel safer." That's just wrong.

 

If we we're doing that, why not drop the motherload of nukes on North Korea for those same principles?

[Das Texan]

I have been against the war from day one due to the bulls*** reasons given in the first place by this lame administration.

 

 

Too bad most of America fell for it hook, line and sinker.

 

 

At this point we cant leave due to the amount of harm it would do over the good, which is truly unfortunate.

 

 

And if we arent there for democracy, then what are we there for and what should we be there for? To replace one dictator with another, I mean afterall that was a key Reagan philosophy.

[Guest Moneyball]

Yeah, right. I'll believe this as soon as the troops start coming home.

 

 

 

 

But if it is true than it is great news.

 

 

For Christ's sake they gave you a timetable. What else is the far left asking for these days?

 

More reasons to whine, bitch and complain.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

 

 

I agree with you there, but disagreeing with the war from the outset is different than naysaying the whole god damn time.

 

Has it really been that distinguished by war supporters? And I thought you were all into helping these poor people of Iraq. Frustration with the people of Iraq from war supporters goes to show how foolish and simplified that aspect of the war motivation was. Especially simplified.

 

As a conservative and a supporter of this war let me tell you, I could care less about democracy in the Middle East, if you put a gun to my head I would tell you it's not a very good idea as people in that region respect and are drawn toward strong authoritarian types to govern them and ascociate democracy with corruption, exploitation, and an infringement on thier cultural identity.

 

Some people just cant accept the cold reality that this war was about security not some noble crusade to enlighten and free Arabs from dictatorships. If it works for the Iraqis good for them, though it's just a happy residue of a security action.

THANK YOU! Your honesty is really refreshing. It's good to know some conservatives on this board dont see foreign policy in simple terms like "evil doers" and "spreading good will." That you see that the situation there is complex is a good point.

 

That said, I agree with buckeye. I think security is a very abstract policy approach to Iraq. But I think its the strongest, but still generally weak, argument to be made. Had the administration been honest from the beggining, I dont think most Americans would have signed on.

 

 

Also, dodge and moneyball. How is this a timetable? It spells out an initial action and then says they will consider things down the road. Thats not a timetable.

[Guest Moneyball]

Imagine if we never, y'know, went to this lamehole war. At this point, I'd rather nuke the Middle East and call it a day than even try to prop up some puppet democracy and do good things for people that don't give a damn.

 

 

I agree with you there, but disagreeing with the war from the outset is different than naysaying the whole god damn time.

 

Has it really been that distinguished by war supporters? And I thought you were all into helping these poor people of Iraq. Frustration with the people of Iraq from war supporters goes to show how foolish and simplified that aspect of the war motivation was. Especially simplified.

 

As a conservative and a supporter of this war let me tell you, I could care less about democracy in the Middle East, if you put a gun to my head I would tell you it's not a very good idea as people in that region respect and are drawn toward strong authoritarian types to govern them and ascociate democracy with corruption, exploitation, and an infringement on thier cultural identity.

 

Some people just cant accept the cold reality that this war was about security not some noble crusade to enlighten and free Arabs from dictatorships. If it works for the Iraqis good for them, though it's just a happy residue of a security action.

THANK YOU! Your honesty is really refreshing. It's good to know some conservatives on this board dont see foreign policy in simple terms like "evil doers" and "spreading good will." That you see that the situation there is complex is a good point.

 

That said, I agree with buckeye. I think security is a very abstract policy approach to Iraq. But I think its the strongest, but still generally weak, argument to be made. Had the administration been honest from the beggining, I dont think most Americans would have signed on.

 

 

Also, dodge and moneyball. How is this a timetable? It spells out an initial action and then says they will consider things down the road. Thats not a timetable.

 

The adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq below the baseline level of 138,000 -- which has provided the guideline for most of the year -- by spring of 2006. There were 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as elections approached, Rumsfeld said.

 

 

:o :o :o