RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,148977,00.html

Just going back to pre-surge levels. What a cut!

Oh Boy, he's going to bring home 30,000 troops that we didn't want sent in the first place. At least that many are do to come home anyway.

Ted Koppel said on NPR:

Petraeus Is Selling; Is America Buying?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14330122&sc=emaf&sc=emaf

What a crock! These troops were Scheduled to come home anyway. The BS is so deep in Washington DC that I wonder how people are getting around. Must be using boats....

What bothers me about the entire thing is between both wars it's costing 12 billion a month. But the president said he would try to veto any increase in the VA budget unless other programs were cut to make up for the increase.

These politicians want us to fight wars but they don't want to deal with us after we've been used up and we can no longer serve their interests. If they can spend 12 billion a month, why would they worry about what it costs to take care of injured veterans?

Of course, if they changed veteran status to illegal immigrants, they would take care of the vets right away without complaint. Doesn't make sense.

I wish we had something interesting to discuss on this site - same thing day in and day out and we are played for dupes because the packaging is slightly different. Don't expect any changes till either the new Republican or Democrat President takes over - remember, we are and have been dealing with stay the course. Personally, I'm tired of all the cliches that are written daily.

quote:

Originally posted by OneThreeMarine:
What bothers me about the entire thing is between both wars it's costing 12 billion a month. But the president said he would try to veto any increase in the VA budget unless other programs were cut to make up for the increase.

These politicians want us to fight wars but they don't want to deal with us after we've been used up and we can no longer serve their interests. If they can spend 12 billion a month, why would they worry about what it costs to take care of injured veterans?

Of course, if they changed veteran status to illegal immigrants, they would take care of the vets right away without complaint. Doesn't make sense.

Don't worry CHINA has backed all that money..
We'll be giving them plenty of oil to help pay them off and in the mean time(which will be about 100 years) we can get more of that Lead based merchandise to patronize them.

Man, I thought "3-Card Monty" was bad in New Orleans...The D.C. version is even worse.

I know its had at times to get the whole story, but if people listened to all the testimony( most of the media left before the end), people would have heard that the troop levels would drop to "presurge" levels by April/May '08. Then below that level after that time frame. Basically the biggest contention is the pace of the reductions, not whether to reduce forces. Both sides of this fight in Congress are trying to beat the other to the punch, so they can be perceived as the "side" that initiates bringing the troops home. Nothing like being a political football!

No meaningful change in policy or strategy that I can see. Now if these troop withdrawals were tied in some way to negotiations with all the parties involved, not just the Iraqi Government on Iraq's political future, that might take us further down the road toward a settlement and a peaceful occupation. As it is, a return to pre-surge levels will just encourage the opposition and put more lives at risk. It will take a new President and new thinking at the top before this mess even begins to start to be cleaned up. Afternoon boys, Greetings from a bright and sunny UK.

quote:

Originally posted by StrykerSSGD:
I know its had at times to get the whole story, but if people listened to all the testimony( most of the media left before the end), people would have heard that the troop levels would drop to "presurge" levels by April/May '08. Then below that level after that time frame. Basically the biggest contention is the pace of the reductions, not whether to reduce forces. Both sides of this fight in Congress are trying to beat the other to the punch, so they can be perceived as the "side" that initiates bringing the troops home. Nothing like being a political football!

Actually, Petraeus said troop levels would would then drop further (after the initial drop which we have to do unless you'd like 18-month tours) "based on security conditions on the ground". They've been saying that since '03 when I was first there.

quote:

Originally posted by StrykerSSGD:
I know its had at times to get the whole story, but if people listened to all the testimony( most of the media left before the end), people would have heard that the troop levels would drop to "presurge" levels by April/May '08. Then below that level after that time frame. Basically the biggest contention is the pace of the reductions, not whether to reduce forces. Both sides of this fight in Congress are trying to beat the other to the punch, so they can be perceived as the "side" that initiates bringing the troops home. Nothing like being a political football!

Damn I hate it when you propaganda guys get on here and try to spin with BS.

All this is is a delaying action, what needs to happen is to begin bringing the troops home now not waiting another 6 months before starting the withdrawal.

SAME OLD MISGUIDED COURSE.

PLEASE !...Mr. President, try to set a new course before you leave office. PLEEEEESE !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Mechanix1:

quote:

Originally posted by StrykerSSGD:
I know its had at times to get the whole story, but if people listened to all the testimony( most of the media left before the end), people would have heard that the troop levels would drop to "presurge" levels by April/May '08. Then below that level after that time frame. Basically the biggest contention is the pace of the reductions, not whether to reduce forces. Both sides of this fight in Congress are trying to beat the other to the punch, so they can be perceived as the "side" that initiates bringing the troops home. Nothing like being a political football!

Actually, Petraeus said troop levels would would then drop further (after the initial drop which we have to do unless you'd like 18-month tours) "based on security conditions on the ground". They've been saying that since '03 when I was first there.

Yep, exactly true !! I am wondering how many will be saying now: "See, Bush is reducing troop levels, we just had to give it time", not understanding, that those are just the extra 30.000 that have been sent down there for the surge. I feel really dumb-founded by this President and his advisors sometimes.

I am completely disgusted with how this war is being run! America has two great blessings: (1) our military leadership is outstanding, and (2) the American people support our soldiers 100%. My disgust is with *both* American political parties.

My disgust starts with the Republican Party whose senior leaders IMHO privately see the Iraq War as a disastrous failure of Republican ideology. And that is why, when push comes to shove, the top Republican leaders are so exceedingly tepid in their support for the war.

For Rove-type conservatives (who until recently controlled the Republican Party), the Iraq War represents the colossal failure of two their two most prized ideologies: neoconservative goals achieved by Reaganite means.

These Rove-type conservatives have no love for the Petraeus/Crocker Strategy, which is effectively is "ruthlessly learn and adapt, and do what it takes to win."

In particular, Rove-type conservatives *hate* the new strategic emphasis on nation-building and peace-making. Even now, senior Republican leaders (John McCain excepted), are IMHO quietly doing their best to suffocate the Petraeus/Crocker strategy, using the most powerful weapon that any political party can wield: tepid support in public, while behind the scenes, no effective action is taken.

The plain fact is, senior Republicans and senior Democrats are working together. The political game plan is, each party blames the other for the disaster in Iraq, then everyone goes home to their "safe" red and blue districts, and gets re-elected.

This "me first, and to h*ll with winning the war" is great for the politicians, but it is a disaster for our soldiers. All politicians who follow this strategy are IMHO inexcusably derelict in their duty to our country and our soldiers.

I am completely disgusted with both parties, with Congress, and with the White House. Nowhere--except within the military---do I see the foresight, the intelligence, and the commitment that it will take to win this war.

quote:

PLEASE !...Mr. President, try to set a new course before you leave office. PLEEEEESE !!!

Helez, if we're going to get a "new course" this President won't set it. It will be up to the next one. This one will just keep on keeping on and try to keep enough spin on it to disguise the fact that it's the same old course . . .

quote:

I am completely disgusted with both parties, with Congress, and with the White House. Nowhere--except within the military---do I see the foresight, the intelligence, and the commitment that it will take to win this war.

And what else is new today? You're dead right, except the object is not to "win" but to make Iraq a safe place to occupy . . .Have to guard all that oil and make sure our other interests are protected. . .

quote:

Originally posted by StrykerSSGD:
I know its had at times to get the whole story, but if people listened to all the testimony( most of the media left before the end), people would have heard that the troop levels would drop to "presurge" levels by April/May '08. Then below that level after that time frame. Basically the biggest contention is the pace of the reductions, not whether to reduce forces. Both sides of this fight in Congress are trying to beat the other to the punch, so they can be perceived as the "side" that initiates bringing the troops home. Nothing like being a political football!

I heard it. I also heard what the Secretary of Defense said in January 2007 in his confirmation hearings. He layed everything out in a roadmap until mid-2008 in his testimony and so far they are following the roadmap.

The next benchmark is in a little over 3 months. People really should watch CSPAN. There is a wealth of information on that channel.

What is conveniently being overlooked here is that a drawdown of any sort, including a reduction in forces that brings us back to the pre-surge levels is a success. That is several additional brigades that will not have to rotate back to Iraq to fill the gaps left by these departing units. If this can be accomplished, quite possibly the next step could be to lift the 3 month involuntary extension of units that are there or that will be rotated into Iraq in the future. If/when other volatile area of Iraq become more "pacified", additional units can continue to be withdrawn and be replaced with units from the Iraqi forces. On a personal level, I believe that withdrawing US forces is going to force the Iraqis to realize that our presence there will not remain a static issue and that they must assume control on the ground.

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT: Helez, if we're going to get a "new course" this President won't set it. It will be up to the next one. This one will just keep on keeping on and try to keep enough spin on it to disguise the fact that it's the same old course . . .

With respect, Helez and TPCAT, what my family hears from Anbar is that the "new surge" *is* working. This is not spin, but the on-the-ground truth.

The "new surge" has a huge nation-building and peace-making component. That is why the Rove-type conservative politicians are quietly trying to suffocate it.

And the "new surge" has a good chance to win. That is why the Kucinich-type liberal politicians are quietly trying to suffocate it.

That is why, should America be defeated in this war, the blame will IMHO lie *equally* upon the die-hard ideologues of the left and the right.

The leaders of *both* parties have IMHO been inexcusably derelict in their patriotic duty, to put the good of the nation ahead of ideological politics.