Posted on 11/29/2004 1:28:08 PM PST by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The Bush administration has been quietly laying the groundwork for the start of a military withdrawal from Iraq.
Those close to the administration said the White House envisions the start of a troop pullout in late 2005. They said the administration would begin discussions on the feasibility of a significant reduction in U.S. troops following Iraqi national elections, scheduled on Jan. 30, 2005.
"I think elections in Iraq are going to be one more step on the path towards a stable and secure and a democratic Iraq," Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Nov. 23. "It won't be the final step, but it will allow us to start then looking at, if events dictate, how we can rearrange ourselves, the coalition, and Iraqi forces, for that matter."
The administration has been quietly urged to consider a withdrawal of the more than 140,000 troops as a priority for the second Bush term. These advocates have included Defense Department officials and consultants who supported the war to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, but who have concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq has become counterproductive.
Until I hear it officially from the Bush Administration, I wouldn't put much faith in this story. Bush probably won't make his timetable known until after the Iraqi elections anyway.
"Re-arranging" and "pulling out" are two vastly different things. I think the main premise of the article is BS.
You are probably right.
Bush is about to re-instate the draft. The quagmire in Iraq will make Vietnam look like a picnic.
(sarcasm intended)
Or playing politics with Middle Eastern countries -- "see we don't plan to stay in Iraq forever."
The sad thing is that many of the DU trolls won't understand you're mocking them.
The "no exit plan" was just a DNC-ism (a lie in other words)
The article is supposition and propaganda, with a tiny grain of fact to give it believability.
"These advocates have included Defense Department officials and consultants who supported the war to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, but who have concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq has become counterproductive."
THAT is an outright lie. The 2006 idea is only one of many. Sounds like the Islamist world (and their buddies in the DNC) are setting up the usual script for making everyone believe the Bush administration was "forced" to do something which it planned all along.
As an incumbent president, Bush was not able to articulate a timetable concerning troop withdrawals. Dean, Kerry and the rest of the Dems could take advantage in the Press to charactarize Iraq any way they wished.
Not to mention as a president in the middle of prosecuting a global war on terror. The administration would be negligent if it let slip definite dates for the media to pin them down by while their al Qaeda allies guarantee the schedule cannot be met.
2006 was no secret though: it was a good case guess based on the middle ground between best case scenario and Murphy's law. It doesn't mean anything, except that we never had any intention of taking over Iraq. It's just a target...or better yet, a virtual goal. Being virtual gives the flexibility necessary for success. It can be changed depending on circumstances...meaning the Ba'athists had better start actively fighting the likes of Zarqawi, 'cause the longer he saws heads off, the longer the presence of 150,000 troops will be necessary.
"Dean, Kerry and the rest of the Dems could take advantage in the Press to charactarize Iraq any way they wished."
LOL, they didn't need a date to do that anyway...though if Kerry had SHOWN UP FOR WORK once in a while, he'd have known 2006 was floated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.