Is A Partial US Troop Withdrawl From Iraq Acceptable To DU'ers?

Junior will be withdrawing a significant number of troops from Iraq next Spring/Summer to help GOP public relations in 06 elections.

Of course, there will still be troops in Iraq and they'll be even more at risk due to lowered troop levels.

So the questions are:

Is a partial troop withdrawl acceptable to DU'ers.

Can't this be used as a wedge issue against the Left or Right, depending on who gets in front first?

I'd rather send MORE troops than just take home a bunch, painting even larger targets on the backs of those who stay.

Unless we withdraw all troops, I can't agree. All or nothing.

the stage is being set.

Personally I would like to see either more troops, in order to actually ensure security, or a complete pull out. I can't see how a partial pullout helps anybody.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Total, immediate withdrawal, followed by war crimes tribunals. I know it will never happen, but you asked. That's the only resolution I would find "acceptable."

IOW, he uses that excuse?

...in Poland?

let Halliburton do it, using their executives as trainers. Think Cheney might want to go help out?

What's going on is that there aren't enough troops to bolt the thing down properly. Fewer troops would make it worse. It needs to be either massively many more or zero.

massacre of the troops left over ther starts, it'll be more than a wedge issue. We can't control them with 135,000 warm bodies fighting as hard as they can. How we gonna fight them with less?

A troop withdrawl would be welcome from my perspective. But what sickens me is that it is being done solely for domestic political reasons.

Everything the Bush Administration does is politically timed. As the DSM revealed, the announcement of action against Iraq in 2002 was timed to strategically coincide with the November midterm. The aim was to rachet up patriotic feeling to rally around the Prez and his boys on the eve of military action.

Now, again, with the war being lost and Iraq descending into chaos, Bush would have us forget all his statements about "we'll stay as long as it takes" and "we have to fight the terrorists there rather than here at home". And again, to coincide with another midterm, he'll declare "victory" and bring as many as he can home.

Its cynical, evil, and disgusting. But yeah, I want the troops home. I can't see the need to expose them to any further danger in a stupid and hopeless war whose ridiculous aim is to "democratize" the Middle East.

I just hope we can remind the American people of all of this -- everything that he's done -- and remove his cronies from office in the mid-terms and in 2008.

because the insurgents will wait it out, but he has a general say we will start a withdrawl next spring if the violence lessens. Flip- Flop

"Why would you say to the enemy, 'Here's a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?' It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable," president Bush said. "You know, if you give a timetable, you are conceding too much to the enemy. And this is an enemy that will be defeated."

http://www.voanews.com/tibetan/2005-06-24-voa2.cfm

"Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve," he said. "And it would send the wrong message to the enemy who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer," said the president.

http://p124.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050629/ts_alt_afp/usiraqbushtimetable_050629002414

NO! (and no).

No it's NOT acceptable. It will not diminish Iraqi anger and frustration. Besides it might lead to more dangers for the remaining troops.

people say?
Just because Rumsfeld sounded like he agreed to something quite vague in the first place doesn't mean that they are going to do it.

Second, troops have to all come home, no exceptions. Which means that all foreign workers, for Halliburton and Co have to come home as well, otherwise they will be massacred.
So you see that the chances that troops will be withdrawn are slim, because it would have to mean the withdrawal of Bechtel, and Halliburton and co.

However, this is the crux of the matter. More than 65% unemployment in Iraq = more insurgents, Halliburton & co = war profiteering without any real reconstruction.

What we need? Pull out the troops, pull out the profiteers, give reconstruction $$ to the Iraqis, and let them do it just like they did in 1991. The present state of affairs is one of colonisation, an antiquated, absurd, and always failed form of oppression.

Nixon played this game. He'd make it seem as if some troop withdrawals were a sign that the war was being won, that the South Vietnamese were becoming more self-sufficient.

For god's sake, people, look at the schedule! The idea is to talk up some troop withdrawals after the next round of Iraq elections in spring/summer 2006.

Well, how conveeeeenient! So they can say, right around the time of our own mid-terms, that we're bringing the boys home!

It won't matter that it's bullshit, they'll use this to make it seem as if it's all according to their double-secret plan.

When you have no troops ilegally occupying a country you can't have a wedge issue over it because there's no troops there.

The clever Spin Doc of the Bush Regime have spun the new slogan, "Struggle Against Violent Extremists" in the place of "War On Terror". You see, no War. No War Crimes if there is no War. How can there be an anti-War movement when there is no War to protest against? These folk know how to frame the issue.

Now that Iran and Iraq are going to be Allies in Military matters because the dominant party in Iraq are Shia, as is the case in Iran, the U.S. is going to have a little problem with their agenda of attacking Iran. Iran will help the Shi'ites fight the Sunnis as the U.S. has been doing. It gets a bit complicated, doesn't it?

Iraq Signs Military Pact with Iran
Headlines : International
Iraq Signs Military Pact with Iran
Thu, 7 Jul 2005

Former foes Iraq and Iran announced “a new chapter” in their relations on Thursday, including cross-border military co-operation, dismissing US concerns about Iranian regional meddling.

On his first official visit to Tehran, Iraqi minister of defence Saadoun al-Dulaimi asserted his country’s sovereign right to seek help from wherever it sees fit in rebuilding its defence capabilities.

“Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries,” Mr Dulaimi said in a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart, Admiral Ali Shamkhani.

The two ministers said that a military co-operation agreement, now in the preparation, would include Iranian help with training and upgrading Iraq’s reconstituted armed forces, a process so far overseen by US and coalition advisers.

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/3670/Iraq_Signs_Military_Pa...

I think it was his tenth trip. I bet (and I hope) it's one of his last.

I think not.

Cause I still think that an attack or invasion of Iran is in play.

Free up some troops for Iran.......

withdraw all other troops and leave behind the Bushista generals, prison torturers, and any Halliburton executives. Also send to Iraq Rummy, Wolfowitz, and other 'architects' of the U.S. Iraq invasion and occupation. Withdraw the troops within the next month. Leave the protection of those left behind in the hands of those excellent Iraqi troops and police we have trained. And most important: ignore the screams of those we have left behind in Iraq.

An alternative scenario for Rummy: send both Saddam and Rummy to stand trial together at the Hague.

IF we are going to leave the troops--we need to send more. There IS safety in numbers. Our troops are in harm's way.

IF we are going to bring them home...bring them ALL home.

This is a situation of either/or OR neither/nor.

We can't have it both ways.

the Iraq quagmire issue in 06. But those remaining will be in even more danger.

And I am sure, just after the election, unanticipated changed conditions will bring an end to withdrawal and force a troop buildup.

It's either all or I continue to protest the war.

Is the only way I can see them pulling out and not having a full blown civil war in its place which could futher destabilize the region.Bush still wont let the Europeans train the Iraqis.So far the overwhelming majority of soldiers they have trained cant function without being babysat by US forces.

Just another example of this administration willingness to drive a policy over a cliff rather than admit it was wrong and change course.How many more Americans have to die because of their stubborness? If Europe chipped in we could greatly accelerate the training process and forge closer ties with our allies which they have alienated.

I believe from what Ive read that the US is building something on the order of 15 permanent military bases in Iraq.They arent doing it out of the goodness of their heart.Just as quickly as they pull them out,they could be put back in again as a staging point for another war or to seize control of the country again if Iraq is too radical or anti-American for their tastes.

They could declare "mission accomplished" again 06' and go for Iran after our elections if they still have control of congress.They would get alot of resistance if they were in the minority(I hope)

Sorry if I got off topic but to answer your question a partial troop withdrawal makes sense only if its because the replacements are good enough to take the reins so to speak.If not as has been mentioned,it will only make matters worse for those Americans left behind.