Bill Ayers, this one's for you. 
.
Posted on 02/26/2009 9:36:39 PM PST by smoothsailing
CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – DEFENSE
Feb. 25, 2009 – 7:41 p.m.
President’s Plan for Withdrawal From Iraq Is Attacked From Both Fronts
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
Senior lawmakers from both parties criticized President Obama’s soon-to-be announced Iraq withdrawal plan from different directions Wednesday, setting the stage for a contentious debate over one of the president’s top campaign promises.
Obama’s new withdrawal schedule, which reportedly will be unveiled this week, is expected to call for removing most major combat forces from Iraq by August 2010. The strategy would also leave up to 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for various non-combat missions as a residual force until the end of 2011, according to news reports.
Some leading Democrats are opposed to such a large residual force, arguing that only a full withdrawal can satisfy the Iraqi public’s desire for sovereignty and ameliorate what Democrats see as continuing damage to America’s reputation abroad.
Top defense-minded Republicans oppose Obama’s plan for the opposite reason. They fear that the withdrawal risks upsetting recent security gains and worry that a smaller residual force would be placed in greater danger should violence resume.
Regardless, both sides acknowledge that, as president, Obama has the prerogative to set military policy. And both sides are calling on Obama to detail a strategy to govern the U.S. role in Iraq.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., suggested a smaller contingent of 15,000 to 20,000 troops, and said she wanted to study Obama’s proposal. “I don’t know what the justification is for the presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq,” Pelosi told MSNBC on Wednesday.
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha , D-Pa., said only a complete withdrawal would suffice. “I don’t think we need to leave anybody there,” he said. “They have got to be on their own. Their presence alone makes them vulnerable.”
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin , D-Mich., said his previous calculations had led him to believe that “a limited force, following the removal of all combat forces, of a size in the low tens of thousands would be adequate to meet the mission.”
Not all anti-war Democrats were ready to criticize Obama’s proposal. Appropriator James P. Moran , D-Va., said Obama’s plan, as reported, meets the test of a gradual withdrawal.
“I don’t think anybody knows necessarily the right number,” said Moran. “Some Republicans will try to position themselves so they can say ‘I told you so’ if it doesn’t work out.”
Republicans Wary Many senior Republicans reacted to the reports of Obama’s plan with concern and skepticism about the pace of withdrawal and the vulnerability of remaining troops.
Rep. John M. McHugh of New York, ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said that committing to a withdrawal timeline now, before the next round of Iraqi elections, was unwise.
“It’s a decision before its time,” McHugh said. “It’s a question of not just losing the gains you’ve made and leaving a vacuum, it’s also a question of troops’ security.”
McHugh also suggested that Pelosi was taking a position to the left of Obama in order to make the president’s views seem more moderate.
“I suspect she’s posturing so she can disarm any debate about us being there any longer,” he said.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview that he wanted a chance to study the plan. But in a speech Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, McCain warned, “We must avoid drawing down troop levels there too quickly or risk jeopardizing the hard-won security gains.”
Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the committee’s second-ranking Republican, called on Obama to explain the strategic rationale for the withdrawal, the logistical details for how it will be carried off, the risk of failure, and the impact on global operations.
“These are important questions that the president should address with his commanders on the ground, and truthfully explain to the American people, before he undertakes the complete drawdown of troops in Iraq,” Inhofe said.
Despite their concerns, Republicans will likely be wary of battling the president over the issue.
“If Iraq wants us to leave, violence is down, the American public is ready to be finished, and the Joint Chiefs need those troops in Afghanistan. . . . I’m not sure there will be a fight here,” said one Senate Republican staff member.
Nothing’s Final Obama’s new Iraq withdrawal timeline could be released this week. Administration officials are warning that the plan is not set in stone.
“The president has not made a final decision on our Iraq force structure going forward. . . . I anticipate the president to make a decision very soon,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday.
The new plan would complement the recently signed U.S.-Iraqi status of forces agreement, which mandates that the U.S. withdraw troops from all major Iraqi cities by June and withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
At a news conference Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell reiterated previous administration explanations about what “non-combat” missions a residual force would have. They include training Iraqi Security Forces, counterterrorism operations, and protecting U.S. personnel and installations.
The United States currently has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, including 14 combat brigades, as well as about 190,000 contractors.
Matthew M. Johnson and John M. Donnelly contributed to this story.
CQ © 2007 All Rights Reserved | Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1255 22nd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202-419-8500
WE don’t have a president.
Bill Ayers, this one's for you.
.
I pray the Generals tell him to take a hike.
August 2010, don’t commit yourself to anything too drastic there, Zero.
It would be insane to leave support troops...up to 50,000 of them...in Iraq without combat troops present.
Let’s see: we’ll pull out all the tanks, tubes, and attack aircraft, but we’ll leave the cooks and drivers.
Smart. Real smart.
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.