Reason.com
Out of Iraq?
One of the day's top stories:
The first visible move toward reducing the American military force in Iraq could come as soon as March. That's when thousands of soldiers and Marines whose tours were extended before the Iraqi election are due to go home.
If they do, that would shrink the overall force to about 138,000, the level that prevailed for much of last year before U.S. commanders decided they needed extra troops for election security.
Whole bit here.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remains pretty adamant that any reductions will be based on conditions on the ground, not a timetable, but it's clear that the political pressure to show at least a token withdrawal is building (both within the U.S. and in the Middle East).
Will be interesting to see if the reductions do happen...
Especially given the expressed wishes of some of the Iraqi government:
Iraqi President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer said yesterday that it would be "complete nonsense" to ask foreign troops to leave the country now.
That AP report here.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|2.2.05 @ 8:34AM|#
As Election Draws Near, U.S. Will Boost Troop Level in Iraq to About 150,000
December 2, 2004
"WASHINGTON - U.S. military commanders Wednesday announced that they would increase the number of troops in Iraq to 150,000 - the highest level since the March 2003 American-led invasion - in an effort to meet an expected increase in insurgent violence as next month's Iraqi national election draws near.
The buildup will be achieved by extending the stay of about 10,400 troops already in Iraq and dispatching 1,500 more from the United States."
...
"The U.S. force in Iraq has never exceeded 148,000, the total at the time President Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1, 2003. After rising to 150,000 before the election, the troop count is expected to return to its current level of about 138,000 in March, Rodriguez said. But he cautioned that the plan was flexible.
To boost current troop levels, commanders are extending the tours of three Army units and one Marine unit until March."
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_120204_Election,00.html
|2.2.05 @ 8:37AM|#
That fact that what was announced in December, and is now becoming the case, wouldn't seem to be particularly newsworthy. Noteworthy maybe.
|2.2.05 @ 10:16AM|#
Yeah, the elections were such an obvious success. That's why Allawi is terrified of US troops leaving a model democracy like Iraq.
|2.2.05 @ 10:48AM|#
"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remains pretty adamant that any reductions will be based on conditions on the ground, not a timetable."
Our troop movements should be defining conditions on the ground, not responding to them. Announcing a date, lowering troop levels, and shifting them out of populated areas into bases should be used as tools to enhance the legitimacy of the proto-government and reduce anti-Americanism and support for insurgency among the population.
|2.2.05 @ 11:17AM|#
Yeah, the elections were such an obvious success. That's why Allawi is terrified of US troops leaving a model democracy like Iraq.
Obviously. And after they spend their last couple billion on Democracy Powder, too. You're supposed to just add water, and *poof* instant democracy, right?
He's not terrified, he has a brain. To the south is a country Iraq tried to annex. To the east a country Iraq tried to annihilate. To the west a country that begged us to station troops to protect them from Iraq. We didn't have any money for Army Powder...just add water, *poof* instant army...so they have to go through this thing called a "process". This "process" takes something called "time".
|2.2.05 @ 12:28PM|#
I can certainly sympathize with al-Yawer's concern. "Gee fellas, leaving so soon? Why not shoot me in the head on your way out and save my enemies the trouble?"
|2.2.05 @ 1:47PM|#
joe
you are forever recommending the US to take consequential decisions with the purpose of imprssing someone - variously the UN and "world opinion", our "allies" and continental european opinion, and Arab "opinion" insofar as it can be detected in controlled societies...and now Iraqi "opinion" determined in some other fashion than waitng on the oucome of elections held, ah yesterday.
Why not wait on the expressed will of those Iraqis willing to vote this week?
Of course WE can leave any time we choose to...but withdrawing US troops from cities immediately following an election that couldn't have been held at all in their absence seems a poor way to reward the courage of Iraqi voters. You WANT a bloodbath?
|2.2.05 @ 2:21PM|#
"Why not wait on the expressed will of those Iraqis willing to vote this week?"'
If it will make you feel better, I don't suppose there's any harm (you can't just spray Troops-be-gone and have it all over in an afternoon, anway), but seriously, every slate in the election made ending the occupation a central plank of their platform. They did this because they knew they could not win if they were seen as supporting the occupation. This odd agnosticism you feign as to whether the Iraqi people are pleased to have foreign troops occupying their towns strikes me as somewhat forced.
Anyway, what I wrote was "Announcing a date, lowering troop levels, and shifting them out of populated areas..." I am well aware of the dangers of a power vacuum; but I'm aware of the dangers of a growing insurgency as well.
Let's agree on one thing: NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS.
|2.2.05 @ 2:22PM|#
In short, Andrew, I'm arguing the Kerry/Kennedy/Dean/Alawi position, not the ANSWER/Kucinich position.
|2.2.05 @ 3:27PM|#
All Iraqis want the troops to be gone in the same sense that I want the troops to be gone.
I am not agnostic at all about the probable outcome of these elections, and I don't believe for a second that the sovreign Iraqi government is going to ask us to leave. You are arguing the position of Mass.'s addled Senator-For-Life...that we should leave when the Iraqis want us to stay.