Pentagon Plan Calls for Scale Down of U.S. Troops in Iraq to 80,000 by Mid-2006

Prnewswire ^

[Brian Mosely]

NEW YORK, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The Pentagon has developed a detailed plan in recent months to scale down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to about 80,000 by mid-2006 and down to 40,000 to 60,000 troops by the end of that year, according to two Pentagon officials involved in the planning who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work. Their account squares with a British memo leaked in mid-July, report Senior Editor Michael Hirsh and National Security Correspondent John Barry in the current issue of Newsweek. "Emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall [U.S. and coalition forces] from 176,000 down to 66,000," says the Ministry of Defense memo.

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20050731/NYSU004 )

Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, hinted at those numbers last week. Casey told reporters that the United States will be "still able to take some fairly substantial reductions" if Iraq can keep to the timeline set out in the U.S.-sponsored interim constitution, which calls for elections for a permanent Iraqi government by December 15, 2005. After that, U.S. officials believe, the main task of the U.S. occupation will have been completed, according to the report in the August 8 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, August 1).

http://www.newsweek.msnbc.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8770418/site/newsweek

[bnelson44]

Looks like that's the plan.

[bray]

Funny how all the armchair Generals are saying we still have too few troops, yet the real Generals say we are about done. Does this mean we have won??

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...according to two Pentagon officials involved in the planning who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work...

So these two Pentagon paper-pushers recognize their work is "sensitive", but go ahead and leak it to the press. Pathetic.

[McGavin999]

I think this is more to let the Iraqi people know that we are planning on moving out as soon as they get their act together. It takes the "occupier" theory and tosses it right out the window.

It also puts pressure on the Constitution committee to come up with something that will be acceptable to all the Iraqi people.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Despite the fact that this is precisely what the loony left has been whining about, the bringing home of about 50% of our troops will be spun as a "defeat" because we have "cut and run" according to them. They will further pounce on every terrorist attack after the withdrawal as proof of another Bush failure because if he left the troops there a bit longer the attack(s) would not have occurred.

[Williams]

The liberals are just pointless and let's hope to God they can be properly ignored by our decision makers. Sadly, I think the liberals' greatest accomplishment is no one is talking about taking out Syria or Iran.

[HitmanLV]

Just in time for the election! Sheesh - anyone who doesnt think there is a political component to this isn't paying attention.

And it stinks.

[ex-snook]

"Does this mean we have won?"

Nah, it just means the election season has arrived and it's time to show an exit plan.

[Eagles Talon IV]

So if we did it now or a month after the election, that would be ok?

[HitmanLV]

Do it when the time is right. Could be 5 years after the election for all I care.

[Eagles Talon IV]

If 14 of 18 provinces are secure and the Iraqi military and police can take these over with minimal coalition help, then what is the problem with bringing home half the troops and allowing the other half to be concentrated in the 4 remaining provinces yet to be secured?

You see to be saying that that if the troops come home that it is for political purposes and yet you want them to stay longer then next year for those same political purposes, i.e. to bring them home during an election year "looks bad" even if is warranted by the reality of the situation in the country (Iraq)

[HitmanLV]

I am saying I want them to come back when the time is right - I'm no expert on that, I'll defer to the experts.

But I'm no dummy, either. Bringing back a lot of troops in a year, just before the 2006 elections, minimizes a political mileage the dems might get from that issue.

I was just as critical when Clinton's movements and decisions appeared to be very political. This looks similar to me, sorry if that bothers you.

[leadpenny]

Don't want anyone to think I'm cynical because this is how the system is supposed to work. I believe the White House is feeling some heat from Senate and House leaders who are concerned about losing control of one or both houses.

[Eagles Talon IV]

It doesn't bother me at all. It just makes no sense to claim that if they come back before the election it IS politically motivated and for that reason it would be better to keep them there longer then perhaps is necessary.

It also makes no sense to compare this president or any president to Bill Clinton.

[HitmanLV]

It also makes no sense to compare this president or any president to Bill Clinton

Going through life with blinders on makes it tough to see.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Agreed. Best you take them off.

[HitmanLV]

I've heard a blind man shall lead them, after all... ;-)

[MinorityRepublican]

allowing the other half to be concentrated in the 4 remaining provinces yet to be secured?

I guess the remaining coalition troops will be battling terrorists in Abnar Province in the Sunni Triangle.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Ok then, have you got your dark glasses and cane at the ready? :-)