salim Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 هناك دعوات متزايده لسحب القوات الامريكيه من العراق التي تتزامن مع ازدياد ملحوظ في شعبيه امريكيه لمطالب رؤيه ستراتيجيه انسحاب امريكي في الاسبوع الماضي استضاف الحزب الشيوعي الامريكي بعض الاشخاص العراقيين ممن يديرون اتحادا عماليا ضعيف الاهميه في البصره وقد اهتمت بعض وسائل الاعلام وغطت مطالبهم بالانسحاب الفوري من العراق داخل العراق فان الدعوه لانسحاب القوات تعاضمت وخصوصا من قبل بعض الجماعات الراديكاليه الشيعيه الصدريه وكدلك فان بعض رموز الحكومه العراقيه كان قد المح الى امكانيه انسحاب امريكي جزئي في السنه القادمه السؤال هو لمادا تصر الاداره الامريكيه والحكومه العراقيه على تجنب وضع جدول زمني للانسحاب لمادا يطالب الصدريون الشيعه بشده بالانسحاب لمادا خفت حده الدعوات للانسحاب من قبل الجماعات السنيه الراديكاليه مثل هيئه علماء المسلمبن لمادا بدأت الحكومه العراقيه بالتلميح لبدايه للانسحاب هل فعلا ان مطالب الديمقراطيين ستكون محرجه لبوش كما يعتقدون اطرح هده التساؤلات للنقاش There are increasing calls by political figures in US for the troops withdraw from Iraq. This is acompanied by increasing popular demands to see an exit plan. Last week , the American communist party hosted some Iraqis who ran some new unpopular labor union in Basrah, the media put a lot of attention on their unmatured demands of immediat withdraw from Iraq. Inside Iraq , the call for the trrop withdraw is intensified specially by some Shia radical groups, Alsadrees. Also some key figures in the Iraqi government members had put some hits that next year, we might see some withdraw. The question is Why Bush administration and Iraqi governement are not willing to set a time a table..? Why Alsadrees are very keen to have this withdraw as soon as possible? Why Sunni Arab radical figures "Muslim Scholars" had recently cool down their demands for withdraw? Why Iraqi goverment started talking about some withdraw? Is it really the demands of setting a time table now is working against Bush administration, as the Democrats might thought? More and more about , I would like to open a discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCHFleetguy Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 The MSM in the United States, by focusing only on car bombings and US troop deaths, have made any appearence of progress disappear. It is beginning to "look like Vietnam all over". Juan Butthead has said the insurgency has won - even breaks in the fighting are explained by the "normal ebb and flow of guerrilla warfare" Second, a majority American people believe the Bush administration, and President Bush, lied to the American people about the reasons to enter Iraq. Next, the years and years of anti-terrorist (and really anti-Arab) propaganda leave this feeling that these are hopeless century-old religious and political conflicts; and that Arabs would rather kill each other (and us) over them than have peace and democracy. Racism is a horrible thing. The Democratic Party hates President Bush and wants his failure; and while they would not say it - really does not want a good result to come out of his "bad actions" in Iraq - they will be happier if Iraq degenerates into open civil war and the US is forced to leave as in Lebanon and Somalia. They can make miles of political hay out of the midterm elections in 2006 and the Presidentals in 2008 if they can show we "destabilized" Iraq due to our aggressive actions. The Constitution must get written soon; and the elections occur in December; and the Sunni take part. Further, the Iraqi's should ask for control of all Iraqi prisoners (demand it from the US if need be to show independence and non-puppet status) from the US. It would help immensely if the Sunni would declare a cease-fire for their part while the constitutional process plays out. If it became obvious that the fighting was all by foreign jihadists that would be good. Obvious, and impossible to ignore, politcal progress is needed soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCHFleetguy Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 If this is true (is it?) then there is no problem: The War is Over, and We Won Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airedale Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 In the US it's about politics. The democrats want to get back into power. That is, they want their party to control the office of president. Some of the democratic leadership have said some things that appear to drive a wedgs in public opinion. If they can win enough votes by saying; " We want to get out of Iraq" and they take a poll that finds people like what they are saying.... they will continue to say it and talk about it they will promote the talking points that win votes. Actually, Iraqi's are low on their list as they can't give them money to get elected. They want to gain power and will say whatever to promote them into power. Democrats can't be in favor of the US presence in Iraq if George Bush is also in favor of staying in Iraq Thats politics. They have to find points that will anger people into votes for democratic politicians. The question is Why Bush administration and Iraqi governement are not willing to set a time a table..? Is it because the Sadamese and batthist and outside "freedom fighters" will know what day they can start to overthrow the Shia dominated government? Would the insurgency continue to battle knowing soldiers will be leaving on a certain day ? If the insurgency goes underground, stops fighting, does that mean the insurgency will never return ? Would the lack of resistance give a false sense of security to the majority ? Maybe it is better that the majority relize, daily, that freedom is not free. Why Alsadrees are very keen to have this withdraw as soon as possible? Maybe they sense the chance for holding real power is very close as the constitution is almost finished. They learned that if they say; " America out" ! can win votes among Iraqi voters, they will say it!. ( politics ) Why Sunni Arab radical figures "Muslim Scholars" had recently cool down their demands for withdraw? This "Muslim Scholars" demand hasn't been well covered at all in the west. The mainstream media hasn't reported that they have stopped calling for the US to leave. The media does not want to give the impression that George Bush is acomplishing the task of bringing democracy to Iraq controversy is what "sells papers" in the west. Democrats do not want people to hear such news reports released as it would win them fewer votes and make it hard to get elected, Why Iraqi goverment started talking about some withdraw? Maybe it is a good thing to get people in Iraq to think the future belongs to Iraqi's not the US or the insurgents. Iraq needs to stand on their own feet and deserve independance. They can't be independant with their enemies saying ; "160,000 troops from various nations patrolling the cities of Iraq doesn't look like a free nation." Is it really the demands of setting a time table now by democrate is working against Bush administration? The democrats want Bush to obey them and what they say and tell him ! They do it through weekly public opinion polls An American Republican president, Abe Lincoln once said; "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" I think he also said something along this line; Weekly public opinion polls is not the way to govern the people hey Actually, the Iraqi's need to tell the Democrats,Republican and Independants in America what will or will not be done after their next set of elections and constitution are in place and decided. The democrats are not the only group that wants a lower US profile in Iraq. But even the Iraqi's know the presence of US troops needs to be lessened in the cities.We will listen to the Iraqi's. They ( you ) must demand the US withdraws from the high profiles in cities before the demand to leave the country is made. Even the Alsadrees worry about the return of Sadamese if the US fully withdraws without a good legal and judicial system in place to protect Iraqi ( the Alsadrees ) rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Moron99 Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Salim, don't worry. It's politics. Are you a mathematician or have mathematical training? Do you know the bell curve? I will assume so, if not it can be easily explained. People's opinions follow a bell curve with most people falling in the middle and being called moderate. There will also be those who do not fall within a standard deviation or two of the middle and they are called extremists, radicals, hard-liners. etc. The people in these groups will never have sufficient numbers to elect the main powers, but they will have sufficient numbers to swing a close election or award a few representative chairs. For this reason, there will always be politicians who try to appeal to them and there will always be extremeist politicians who try to appeal to the middle. Generally speaking there will be equal and opposite extremists. For example, there will be those who want The Mosques to run Iraq and there will be those who want the Mosques to be completely banned from politicals. Now - how this relates - the media loves to find extremist viewpoints and quote them. It makes people watch and larger audiences means larger advertising prices. And so, it swirls about from Rush Limbaigh (extreme right) to Michael Moore (extreme left). But the middle stays in the middle, gets very little attention from the press, and always wins the big election. So don't worry about every little ripple in opinion. What matters is where the middle of the bell curve lies. Right now, no one knows. The middle is sitting around waiting for your country to do something and they're getting impatient. But in reality they are still just waiting. If you guys drop the ball on writing a constitution, then their impatience will turn to frustration and meaningful opinion will take a turn for the worse. If Iraq puts out a constitution by mid-October then they will look at the constitution and decide. John Q. Public is smart enough to figure out if your constitution is meant to empower the people or the government and they will form their opinions in accordance. So don't worry about political posturing by american politicians. In the first place, it is exaggerated by the press, and in the second place - it's a natural part of democracy that those with marginal power will try to gain media exposure and votes by saying stuff that has strong appeal to extremists (those whose opinions are more than one standard deviation from the middle). One of our greatest presidents said - "Politicians are the second oldest profession. I have come to learn that it has much in common with the first." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted June 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 في الحقيقه فان سبب اشارتي لهده التساؤلات لم يكن بسبب اي قلق حول مستقبل العمليه السياسيه في العراق نحو الديمقراطيه دعني اشرح ما اقصد, انا اعتقد ان ما يفعله الديمقراطيون سيصب في مصلحه الجمهوريين في النهايه وهدا هو سبب طرحي للموضوع اداره الرئيس بوش , وانا وجميع العراقيين , واثقون تماما ان العراق الحر الديمقراطي هو حقيقه مؤجله ليس الا. لقد قتلت الانتخابات اي امل لدى المفسدين في سرقه الحلم وانه لا توجد اي فرصه لعوده النضام القدبم لقد كان هناك بعض الشكوك عند تشكيل الحكومه المنتخبه حيث كان هناك بعض التردد لدى البعض من رجال اداره بوش في قبول حكومه يديرها اصدقاء ايران ولكن تلك التحفضات قد تم ازالتها بما اسميه عمليه رفسنجاني والتي حولت الامر لصالح الرجال الحاكمين في بغداد اليوم ما يظنه الحرس القديم في قياده الديمقراطيين هو مجرد استراتيجيه بلهاء اليوم كل هدا الضغط لتشجيع المطالبه الشعبيه بخطه خروج انما سيجعل امر بوش اكثر سهوله عندما يحين موعد دلك الخروج في خلال السنه القادمه وبعد الاطمئنان الى قوه القوات العراقيه وبعد تحقيق النجاح الاكثر اهميه في ايران بوش سيوضف دلك الخروج في حينه بما يخدم الجمهوريين في انتخابات نصف المده نهايه السنه القادمه ان دفع الامريكي العادي نحو المطالبه بالخروج سيحين في موعده المناسب لمادا لايتم الاعلان عن الخطه والتوقيت الان؟ بالتاكيد هو ليس لان مثل هدا الاعلان سيجعل المفسدين يختفون بانتضار الخروج كما يشاع فهدا هو غايه ما نتمناه ولكن لان مثل هدا الاعلان سوف يسرسل رساله خاطئه الى العراقيين الخائفين والمترديين بسبب الدرس الدي تعلموه في حرب الكويت عندما تخلى عنهم بوش الاب خلال الاشهر القادمه فان الاعلان عن مثل هده الخطه سوف يخدم كلا الطرفين العراقي والامريكي من ناحيه الامريكان فان بوش سيستفيد من بلاده الديمقراطييين من الناحيه العراقيه فان مثل هدا الاعلان سوف يشجع بعض الراديكاليين من السنه العرب على الانضمام الى العمليه السياسيه خصوصا بعد انجاز الدستور وانقطاع الامل بالعوده للوراء وهنا يجب التركيز على نقطه مهمه وهي ما يمكن ان يفعله الخاسرون عندما بفقدون الامل في الجانب الامريكي سوف يشتد ضغط الديمقراطيين على بوش بالرغم مما قد يسببه دلك من ارسال رسائل تشجيع للمفسدين ومن ناحيه الصداميين والقاعديين فانهم سيجعلون مساله الدستور الخط الاحمر الدي يجب عدم خسارته لقد طالب بعض الاعضاء السنه العرب بان تكون لهم صلاحيه الفيتو , انهم يعملون من الان على المراهنه على التمديد كي يتيحو فرصه "لاصدقائهم" في واشنطن فرصه اكبر في اجبار بوش على الانسحاب او اعلانه قبل الدستور انني ارهن مع كل دلك على الشعب العراقي البطل وعناد الرئيس العظيم جورج بوش الابن تلك المراهنه التي اثبتت نجاحها لحد الان Indeed the reason for bringing these questions wasn't of any doubts on the future of Iraq political process toward democracy.. Let me explain, I think what Democrats are doing will come to the Republican benefits at the end of the game, that is why I posted these questions. Bush administration are very confident , me too and most Iraqis, that the new democratic Iraq is a delayed fact. The election had killed that last hope of stealing the dream, and there is no way the old mechanism could have any chance.. There was some doubt when the new government get established that some in the Bush administration might be reluctant in seeing some Iranian friends role, but that was resolved with what I call the Rafsanjani deal, this made it to the benefit of those rolling in Baghdad today. What these old guard politicians in Democrat party thought of, is a stupid strategy.. Today the increasing pressure by the American public to put an exit plan will make Bush life much easier next year. As he will announce the withdraw plan , after being assure of Iraq future and witnessing the first most important success in Iran. He will put it as a popular move in front of the public demands, something that he could invest well in the mid term election. The bell curve is moving with median toward the exit plan which is the goal of Bush administration, but not now. It will hit the right point at the right time though with help and effort of the rivals! Why not now? It was not good to point to such possibility before Iraqi security forces get their take over. I don't agree that this would let the insurgence hiding out waiting, such thing is all what we need to let the process and constitution go through.. I think the reason is the possibility of the wrong message to hestant Iraqis who already had a bad lesson in 1991. After the new government , it might be possible in the next three months, such declaration of broad plan will serve both Bush and Iraqis. For Bush, he can invest the Democrat stupidity. On Iraqi side , the Sunni Arab radicals, having no chance of any possible future take over , will move faster toward joining after the constitution approval. There will be one scenario that we need to watch carefully.. The plans of the losers.. They might commit any possible stupid action even suicide.. On American side, Democrat might try whatever possible to put more pressure on Bush though this might send an indirect evil message to the terrorists encouraging them of do all possible to stop the process, relying on non proven policy that more pressure might make Bush retreat.. On the Iraqi side, the Qaeda and Sadamist will consider the stopping of constitution referendum as their last chance . Some of the sunni Arab representatives will try their best to benefit the extending period of six month , hoping that such delay might give their "friends" in USA some time to make the magic change in the Bell Curve before the constitution! They already asked for a veto power as condition of participation. Let us wait and see.. I bet on the will of Iraqi people and the stubborn great president Bush! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mustefser Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Watch the hearing about Iraq , Look to the level of confidence the three generals had put in Iraqis and Iraq future.. http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=...&ArchiveDays=30 Rumsfeld rejects setting timeline to leave Iraq Defense chief tells lawmakers such a move would aid terrorists Friday, June 24, 2005; Posted: 2:42 a.m. EDT (06:42 GMT) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says setting a deadline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq would throw "a lifeline to terrorists." WATCH Browse/Search Senate hearing on Iraq turns contentious.(2:50) Iraq an effective training ground for Islamists(1:58) U.S.-led troops battle insurgents in Iraq (3:34) SPECIAL REPORT • Timeline: A new government • Flash: Government structure • Chart: Iraq's National Assembly • Interactive: Iraq's population • Coalition Casualties • Special ReportYOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Iraq Senate or Create Your Own Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- During a sometimes contentious hearing Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that it would be a mistake to set deadlines for pulling U.S.-led coalition forces out of Iraq. He said that such a timetable would "throw a lifeline to terrorists who in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support." With the deaths of more than 1,700 U.S. troops in Iraq, public support for the war has been falling in recent surveys. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday found that nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the war in Iraq. (Full story) A bipartisan group from the House of Representatives has sponsored legislation calling on the Bush administration to announce a plan for a U.S. withdrawal. (Full story) Rumsfeld told the Senate panel Thursday that the Iraqi government and security forces have made great strides, but he said it was impossible to know when they would reach the goal of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iraq. "Iraq was a violent place before its liberation, and there will undoubtedly be some violence in Iraq after the coalition forces depart. But success in this effort cannot be defined by domestic tranquillity," Rumsfeld said. "Rather, success will be when there is a free Iraq where Iraqis are the guarantor of their own security with minimal coalition involvement, and that will be a historic accomplishment." Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, accused Rumsfeld of "mismanaging the war" and of putting U.S. troops and national security in danger. "Our troops deserve better, Mr. Secretary. I think the American people deserve better," Kennedy said. "They deserve competency, and they deserve the facts. In baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. What is it for the secretary of defense?" Rumsfeld replied that he had offered President Bush his resignation twice and that the president did not accept it. Sen. Carl Levin, the panel's ranking member, agreed that setting a timetable would be counterproductive and would "give an incentive to insurgents and jihadists to simply outlast us and would also increase the chances of civil war on our departure." But the Michigan Democrat said that Iraqi leaders must be encouraged to meet deadlines for creating a new constitution. The Iraqis face an August 15 deadline to draft a constitution to be put before voters in October. Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander in the Persian Gulf region as head of U.S. Central Command, said the insurgency did not appear to have lost strength. "In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," Abizaid said. "In terms of overall strength of the insurgency, I would say it is the same as it was." Levin pointed out that Abizaid's testimony did not match Vice President Dick Cheney's recent assessment that the insurgency was in its "last throes." (Full story) "I don't know if I would make any comment about that other than to say that there is a lot of work against the insurgency," Abizaid said. He testified that he was encouraged by the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan and said that his troops supported the war. "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me, and they're starting to do that," he said. "When the people we are training, Iraqis and Afghans, ask me whether we have the staying power -- that worries me, too." Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, expressed concern about falling support for the war in his state. "People are beginning to question. And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen. We have a chronic problem on our hands," Graham said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Moron99 Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Salim, if you include all groups from sadrists to sunni to kurd ... do you think Iraqi opinion has any unified bell curves? Perhaps it is too early in the process for there to be much national unification. ... also, I have my doubts that most sunni have any way to let their opinions be known without risking death. The middle opinion is probably the single most important thing in democracy but nobody ever tells us Americans what the Iraqi middle is. I would be thankful if you or some of the other posters living in Iraq could describe what they think is the middle of Iraqi opinions. By the way, the cspan hearings are being treated by too many of the senators as an opportunity to be on TV and make themselves noticed. Nationally televised senate hearings on big issues is a guaranteed way to make the peacocks strut about and compete for media attention. Too many of the questions are asked in order to attract attention and too few are asked to gain understanding. There will be good information and it will be an interesting show. But remember that it is also a beauty contest for senators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCHFleetguy Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Moron_99 Peacocks strutting and beauty contest. Very good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted June 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 if you include all groups from sadrists to sunni to kurd ... do you think Iraqi opinion has any unified bell curves? The curve is uniformily distributed around the average of "Strong will to establish democracy" with standard deviation that is shirking with each step the political process advances and with the more brutal ruthless violance by the terrorists.. The problem is with the range, we still have same range of diversity.. The Qaeda extremists are going even farther away as we proceed, while some of the Sadamists and Sunni radicals are trying to find out a way to get out of the gangs. Today the brave a strong statements by Pres. Bush is the one the terrorist hate most and would send a very strong message to those Sunni Arab radicals that there is realy no chance on relying on an American retreat.. I hope these messages would repair some of damages that might be caused by some politicians in Washington by giving these radicals some hope that the wheel might be possibly return back using the violent ways.. As for Alsadrees, this would not change any dynamics, in any case they already participated in the political process and chose to go the political opposition way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airedale Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 salim, I'm not sure what you are talking about with these two points from your post; .. ...There was some doubt when the new government get established that some in the Bush administration might be reluctant in seeing some Iranian friends role, but that was resolved with what I call the Rafsanjani deal, this made it to the benefit of those rolling in Baghdad today. What these old guard politicians in Democrat party thought of, is a stupid strategy.. Today the increasing pressure by the American public to put an exit plan will make Bush life much easier next year. As he will announce the withdraw plan , after being assure of Iraq future and witnessing the first most important success in Iran. Could you explain further your Rafsanjani deal ? Things may not be settled in Iran as I saw articles that Rafsanjani was furious with the election vote count, yet, he is willing to accept the outcome....at least for now. If there is a future "Rose" revolution, "orange" revolution or "Cedar"revolution in Iran, is Rafsanjani a man to lead it ? ...As long as the ruling Gaurdian Council Mullah's accept it as permissable under the laws of Islam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Airdale, I was reffering to some reports that Rafsanjanee was leading some negotiation for an exit plan to the Iranian religious political sytem crisis. Having friends to the Iranian leadership in Iraq would make the transformation much easier , having in mind that any success for the political process would have it's impact too. Howver, looks like Rafsanjanee couldn't get the deal through. I am not an Iranian affair expert, but I think that Najad's win is not very bad too. It highlight the real problem in Iran. I think this win reflects a very sensative point, the domestic issue and the economic reforms becomes the prime motive in Iranian politics. No more big slogans and words.. people want to live .. That is very good sign and I think that ,again, the success in Iraq would help expidating any Iranian domestic reforms or revolution.Name it the way you like but it is comming and it would soon.I watched the Iran Shah fall , poor had their say at that time, today poor might do same.. What the democrats missing, in my opinion, is that the success in Iraq political process is interacting with two very important dimentions.. The fight against global terrorism and the Iran exit strategy.. Today both of these files are in a critical phase.. Any cut and run by US policy maker would had it's severe damages on both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 U.S. May Begin Iraq Troop Drawdown in '06 By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 36 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Major reductions in U.S. troop levels in Iraq next year appear increasingly likely, although Pentagon officials said Monday it is too early to predict the specific size and timing. ADVERTISEMENT The Pentagon is eager to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006, partly because the counterinsurgency is stretching the Army and Marine Corps perilously thin as casualties mount and partly because officials believe the presence of a large U.S. force is generating tacit support for anti-American violence. It appears highly unlikely that any significant numbers will be withdrawn before the end of the year. U.S. commanders expect the insurgency to remain at or near its current strength at least until after a scheduled October referendum on a new Iraqi constitution, followed by December elections for a new government. Attempts by U.S. officials to predict the course of the insurgency have been off the mark, and officials have been forced more than once to scrap plans to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq. The force peaked at about 160,000 in January, when extra troops were needed to bolster security for the elections. Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst who closely follows progress in Iraq and visited the country last month, said in an interview that he agrees with U.S. commanders that troop reductions next year are a reasonable goal. "The probabilities are reasonable," Cordesman said. "Is there a reasonable chance that you can begin a systematic reduction of coalition forces toward the end of the year and watch it move forward in 2006? The answer is yes. But we just don't as yet know" how political and economic progress will unfold. Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment directly on a leaked British military assessment that raises the possibility of drastically cutting British troop strength in Iraq by the end of next year as well as sharply cutting the overall number of U.S. and allied troops by the middle of next year to 66,000. "It's not for me to speculate on when there might be a reduction in U.S. forces," he said, adding that U.S. officials have said repeatedly for months that their goal is to begin reductions in 2006 if conditions permit. "We look at the conditions as being the determining factor as to what the U.S. presence there needs to be, and we have contingencies for an increased presence, a steady state, and also a decreased presence," Whitman said. The Pentagon missed a Monday deadline for submitting a report to Congress on progress in shifting security responsibilities to the Iraqis and projecting how many U.S. troops would be needed there next year. Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Congress was informed that the report is still in the works. At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that President Bush is relying on commanders in Iraq to judge when the time is right to adjust the level of U.S. forces, based in part on an assessment of how capable the U.S.-trained Iraqi government forces are of fighting the insurgency on their own. Michael O'Hanlon, a defense specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the training of Iraqi forces has progressed to the point when they will be capable of taking on a greater part of the responsibility. "If you think in terms of simple tasks and hard tasks, and tougher and easier parts of the country, I think you can see a much greater role for the Iraqis starting next year, even if they also will have a long ways to go then," he said. O'Hanlon said he is hopeful that the 135,000-strong U.S. force could be cut by as much as 50 percent by mid-2006. Bush administration officials and U.S. commanders are eager to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq as soon as possible — not least because of the psychological burden imposed by the presence of an occupation force. Lt. Gen. John Vines, the commander in charge of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, told reporters last month there is a "certain element of tacit support" for anti-U.S. feeling among Iraqis that is derived from the presence of foreign forces. He suggested the U.S. might reduce by 20,00-25,000 troops sometime in 2006. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has made the point recently that ultimately it will fall to the Iraqis themselves to defeat the insurgency. "Insurgencies by their nature need to be defeated by the country, the people of the country," he said in a radio interview July 5. "A foreign occupying force really can't do that as effectively." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mustafser Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/21EA60C...C7F980AB827.htm In Arabic Aljezera ellectronic poll showed that 85% of it's viewers considered the calls for US troops as a good sign of fail of US in fighting terrorists Aljazera is considered as number one chaneel of Arab and moslim radicals.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.