WP: U.S. to Pull 15,000 Troops Out of Iraq

Friday, February 4, 2005; Page A01

Buoyed by a higher turnout and less violence than expected in Sunday's Iraqi elections, Pentagon authorities have decided to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq next month by about 15,000 troops, down to about 135,000, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said yesterday.

The reduction involves about three brigades of Army soldiers and Marines whose tours were extended last month to bolster security ahead of the elections, and an additional 1,500 airborne soldiers who were rushed to Iraq for a four-month stint.

"I think we'll be able to come down to the level that was projected before this election," Wolfowitz said.

But testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wolfowitz also warned of "a very difficult road ahead" in defeating Iraqi insurgents and indicated that no further drop in U.S. troops was planned this year. Another senior Pentagon official said after the hearing that the initial decrease did not reflect an improved security situation in Iraq but was simply a recognition that the forces kept specifically for the election were no longer needed and could leave as previously scheduled.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61910-2005Feb3.html

But when a President Bush does this, it's spun as enlightened foreign policy statesmanship.

It was 140,000 before the election, now it is 135,000. They are pretty close.

The U.S. cannot leave, because the insurgency is plenty capable of toppling the new government without the U.S. there.

Then there was going to be a temporary increase to around 150,000, but it wasn't to be permanent. So now the troop level will be reduced to 135,000.

Are we to call that a reduction?

If a retail store sells an item for $90, then raises the price to $100, and has a 10% off sale, did we receive a bargain?

Our State Media has given us so much information, but has anyone told us what this was all about?

It was about, and ONLY about, choosing a constitutional convention to constuct a constitution to be voted on later.

This is when the civil war will begin. The shias want the power they never had, and the sunnis want the power back. And most of those chosen for the convention are shias. Anyone giving odds on how long the shia reps will live?

bunch (can't remember now) were being redeployed soon? Are 15,000 leaving and 10,000 returning?

The troops in Iraq serve rotations. Although at any given time there are 150,000 troops, There are probably 300-400k that served so far since it began.

So we're not actually reducing the number of troops at all; we'll still have 5000 more than we did prior to the sham.

By the way, Wolfie, the "number projected" was down to 30,000 US troops...going on 3 summers ago. OOPS huh. Kinda like your "cakewalk" and "roses and choccie" and "won't cost US taxpayers" bullshit.

that the chocolate rations were cut down from an even higher level...

Down the memory hole...

It sends the message that we are accomplishing something over there. The American public will hear that and assume that we are starting to bring troups home, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The troups will be there for a long, long time.

I'm getting very sick of this and lately I've been seeing even DUers who are fooled by obvious propaganda. ENOUGH ALREADY.

and our troops will be facing less and less danger. They said after we turned over "control" that there would be less danger to our troops, and then that after the Iraqi elections, there would be less danger. I don't believe anything this administration says.

I do check www.icasualties.org daily.

but have you checked the "Operation Enduring Freedom Fatalities" (Afghanistan,link near bottom of page)?

The numbers (though much smaller)are still going up.:cry:

Our troops in Afghanistan need to be cared about also. To hear Bush talk , Afghanistan has been liberated and all Afghanis are now happy. He fails to acknowledge that opium is still the #1 crop/industry and that all relief agencies have pulled out because of safety purposes nor has he revealed that the country remains at the bottom of the list for care of women and infants.

Someone aught to write a Very angry letter to the editor of the Washington Post for this BS SPIN

"...Pentagon authorities have decided:freak: to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq next month by about 15,000 troops, down to about 135,000..."

That was ALWAYS the plan! At least, that's what they said before the recent "re-selection."

his doo looked like doo. My lie-o-meter was pegging out at times as he talked about the future costs in Iraq, and he also reiterated that Iraq was indeed linked to terrorism prior to the war.

Iraq was indeed NOT linked to terrorism and he knows it.

Lie lie lie. Oh well, the talebornagain freepo-fascist bushbots will keep on believing whatever lies Wolfie and the bushCabal spit out, and that's all Wolfie & the bushCabal care about.

Your minions might buy your load of crap but the rest of use aren't. Do these guys ever have "actual" evidence for their spins?? I am sick of these guys throwing out false statements with nothing to back them up, and then expecting the rest of us to just believe they are true.

I wish the MSM had some balls and made these guys prove what they say. I don't see that happening in the near future.

but I'll stll be happy for those 15,000 that get to come home that are there, and hopefully for the 15,000 that won't have to replace them.

Hate the leader, don't hate the soldier.

Olaf

heading back soon to march into Iran.

maybe they just have to rest them up and position them for the Iran invasion . . .

Time for a remake of The Great Dictator. Channeling Charlie Chaplin . . .

---snip---

But testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wolfowitz also warned of "a very difficult road ahead" in defeating Iraqi insurgents and indicated that no further drop in U.S. troops was planned this year. Another senior Pentagon official said after the hearing that the initial decrease did not reflect an improved security situation in Iraq but was simply a recognition that the forces kept specifically for the election were no longer needed and could leave as previously scheduled.

-----------

meanwhile -- new toon http://radfringe.tripod.com/

Exactly as the other two posters have noted.

That's what the troop levels were two months ago before we started stationing extra troops in the country in preparation for the elections. This is like raising taxes, then cutting them two months later and calling it a "tax cut". There's no withdrawal here, just a return to the status quo.

The fact is the electoral commissioner predicted a 57% turnout before the election, and, suprise, suprise!, he claimed an "up to" 57% turnout after the election, but then backtracked and said he had no idea of the real turnout!

Now it seems the real turnout was way below 50% of acual voting -age Iraqis.

What a crock of shit.

US to pull out 15,000 from Iraq

Last Updated: Friday, 4 February, 2005, 11:24 GMT

US troops are training Iraqi forces
The US is to withdraw about 15,000 troops from Iraq from next month, the deputy defence secretary has announced.
Paul Wolfowitz told a senate committee the troops were those whose tour of duty was extended last month to bolster security for the 30 January election.

But Mr Wolfowitz said Iraq had a "very difficult road ahead" and the US would keep 135,000 troops there during 2005.

The high turnout and limited violence during Sunday's election may have prompted the move, correspondents say.

But violence has flared up again and two US marines were killed on Wednesday in al-Anbar province, the US military said on Friday.


Rest at..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4235787.stm

nevermind...they'll be there soon enough.