Posted on 11/12/2008 12:54:06 PM PST by gondramB
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military in Iraq is abandoning — deliberately and with little public notice — a centerpiece of the widely acclaimed strategy it adopted nearly two years ago to turn the tide against the insurgency. It is moving American troops farther from the people they are trying to protect.
Starting in early 2007, with Iraq on the brink of all-out civil war, the troops were pushed into the cities and villages as part of a change in strategy that included President Bush's decision to send more combat forces.
The bigger U.S. presence on the streets was credited by many with allowing the Americans and their Iraqi security partners to build trust among the populace, thus undermining the extremists' tactics of intimidation, reducing levels of violence and giving new hope to resolving the country's underlying political conflicts.
Now the Americans are reversing direction, consolidating in larger bases outside the cities and leaving security in the hands of the Iraqis while remaining within reach to respond as the Iraqi forces require.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
So how does the AP put it? "US military to abandon Iraqi cities" This is just really, really sad.
“This is just really, really sad.”
Not sad. Criminal.
Or maybe treasonous.
The DU media is never happy.
If anyone abandons Iraq it will be Hussein Obamah!
One does get the impression, reading this article, that Mr. Burns is at great pains not to talk of success.
Isn’t the “abandonment” of the Iraqi cities a result of the turning over of the security responsible to the Iraqi Security Force that has been completed in 12 provinces so far. Oh wait...I forgot that AP hasn’t reported any of the successes in Iraq, so good news is portrayed as bad news; success as failure. AP=APos!
Can brutal oppressors actually “abandon” their victims by leaving them alone?
"abandoning" - Give them credit for creative writing - They're a pathetic bunch -
They’re not abandoning cities; they’re returning the security to the Iraqis when the situation is under relative control.
Can't win with these media types....
And they give the credit to f’in Obama. No mention of the surge!
I wish the Bush admin would do more in the PR dept.
Bush let’s the media beat up on him with not a care in the world trying to look presidential.
Congrats Bush... you look Presidential while the Republicans have lost EVERYTHING!
AP:Get out of Iraq!
AP:US abandoning Iraq!
Can't imagine how protect and American troops in the same sentence got past the AP editors. I have fixed it...
dead,my boy, you are going to have people believe you have a cynical view of the Associated Press.
Next thing you know you are going to be observing that all the guys standing behind the Change You Can Believe In phantom are all Clinton retreads.
That was and is the plan. Put Iraqis in charge of their own security as they are able to handle the job. Most of the incidents now apparently involve foreign fighters not Iraqis and they are well within the capability of Iraqi security in these regions now.
That is because we won the war and the Iraqi army is now capable of protecting Iraq.
This article tells of when we turned Faluja over to the Iraqi Army.
The article in the original post is disingenuous at best.
but wait, isn’t troop withdrawl what they wanted - and sooner than later if I remember correctly. I think that “cut and run” were the words used to discribe their policy. Oh, but now we need to be there to “protect”
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.