• 
• 
• 
• 
by Aamer Madhani
Defense Secretary Roberts Gates indicated today there could be as few as 10 brigades, or about 100,000 troops, in Iraq by the time the Bush administration closes shop next January.
General David Petraeus, the top commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, told Congress in September that he would like to reduce troop levels by about one brigade per month over the first half of the year. The U.S. presence in Iraq would be reduced from 20 brigades to 15 by July, according to the general’s desired plan.
The first of those brigades is coming out of Iraq now, and will not be replaced. If U.S. troops are able to sustain gains that have already been made in recent months, Petraeus would likely be able to continue a troop drawdown at the same pace in the second half of 2008, Gates said.
“We obviously want to sustain the gains that we have already made,” Gates said. “If we were to continue the withdrawals at the level of the first half of the year, if the conditions permitted that, then that would bring us down by the end of the administration to about 10 brigade combat teams.”
There are currently about 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and getting troop levels near the 100,000 mark shortly before voters go to the polls next November would presumably be helpful to the Republican’s presidential nominee.
Gates also criticized the Democratic-controlled Congress for being slow to pass war funding. The Democratic leadership had hoped to attach strings to new money in this last appropriations cycle that would have required a timeline for troop withdrawal.
But President Bush threatened to veto any spending bill that came with such strings. Without the votes to override Bush, the Democrats eventually capitulated.
Congress passed $70 billion for combat operations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, only half of what Bush requested.
Gates said that military may run out of money by spring, and the level of funding hamstrings the Defense Department.
“It requires us to make short term plans and short term solutions,” Gates said.
“I hope we don’t have to have a replay this spring,” he added.
Comments
"Gates sees steady withdrawal in Iraq through the end of Bush administration"
That's because the W administration HAS TO START WITHDRAWING TROOPS, they've broken the miltary with their obscenely long 15 month tours of duty.
Violence may be down but other than that there hasn't been squat accomplished in Iraq.
This whole "surge" strategy has been and always was a way for Bu$hCo to pass off their self-made blunder in Iraq to the next Democratic President in Jan 09.
Mission Accomplished, my arse!
Posted by: John E | December 21, 2007 2:09 PM
Okay Fox News and all the other Republicans out there. Start calling Gates a traitor and defeatocrat and terrorist for suggesting we should withdraw some troops from Iraq.
Posted by: Paul | December 21, 2007 2:11 PM
Time table? This is a time table. Aaaargh, we can't have time tables! We can't telegraph to the enemy when we are living by having time tables. The enemy will just sit back and wait till we leave if we have a time table. The troops will be out by the time Bush leaves office so that the war will be declared over, the U.S. is the winner, and Bush will claim the legacy of overthrowing a dictator and giving Iraq back to the people. Meanwhile the Sunni and Shia continue their battle for power, and Turkey is destabilized by the fighting with the Kurds in the North. But that's their problem isn't it? We did what we weren't asked to do didn't we.
Posted by: GW | December 21, 2007 2:41 PM
Cheney and Bush NEVER had an exit stategy to remove the troops from the Iraq invasion and occupation. As a nation, we MOST DEFINITELY need benchmarks to make up for the lack of care that Cheney and Bush have shown for the troops. At this point, I think Congress shares in the neglect of the American men and women--who are forced to substitute a US military answer for the needed Iraqi political and Iraqi police solution.
Congress, you are responsible for enabling Iraq's lack of action by not implementing benchmarks. Shame on you. All incumbents who oppose benchmarks need to be voted out of their responsible and comfortable jobs--to make way for others who really give a damn about the lost lives, the lost limbs and brain injuries, and the trillions of dollars put on a credit card controlled by China.
Posted by: Vivian | December 21, 2007 2:55 PM
Will this REALLY happen or is just a way to shore up the Bush legacy? I'll believe it when I see it.
As far as the funding, Mr. Gates should understand we are well aware of the enormous waste in the government on purchasing and on no bid contracts. I think they could find the funding if they really tried.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | December 21, 2007 3:28 PM
I had hoped Gates might represent an improvement to the civilian leadership at the Pentagon following the fiascoes of Rumsfeld's tenure. Too bad. Anyone who comes into contact with Bush et al. turns bad quickly.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | December 21, 2007 4:13 PM
Hey Paul,
Did you read the part where Gates said "We obviously want to sustain the gains that we have already made" and "if the conditions permitted..." Why would we call him a defeatocrat if he's working for success?
And John, what source did you use to determine that the Military is broken? Every military person I've spoken to or read about sees it differently. Are you in the Military?
GW is right about a time table being a bad idea but I doubt a country as powerful as Turkey is at all destabilized by the Kurdish Rebels. They're probably pissed at them for bombing towns in their country but the country itself is in no trouble.
Finally, why do you think Fox News is the most watched cable news? Because they treat people like they have a brain maybe and don't just let fly with unsubstantiated commentary.
Can you all please post something objective with some sources cited so I can follow up and see if you are actually making a valid point.
Posted by: Bobert | December 21, 2007 4:38 PM
Finally, why do you think Fox News is the most watched cable news? Because they treat people like they have a brain maybe and don't just let fly with unsubstantiated commentary.
Can you all please post something objective with some sources cited so I can follow up and see if you are actually making a valid point.
Posted by: Bobert | December 21, 2007 4:38 PM
Gee Bobby,
No wonder your blind to reality, afterall that's what Fixed News Channel does to pea brains like you, isn't it?
GALLUP POLL = Iraq still sucks:
In spite of what the Wingnut (Fox Noise Channel talking heads, Rush etc) punditocracy would have you believe, American opinions on almost all aspects of the Iraq situation have remained largely unchanged. There has been some moderating improvement in attitudes, but the shifts are very small, and nowhere near what has been advertised. And, interestingly, most shifts appear to be in the Republican-leaning independents, who have a natural tendency to cluelessness.
-Who will do a better job with Iraq?
"Thinking now about the political parties: Do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party would do a better job of dealing with each of the following issues and problems? How about the situation in Iraq?"
11/30-12/2 Results:
Republicans - 38%
Democrats - 48%
-Was the war a mistake?
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"
War a mistake - 58%
War not a mistake - 39%
-Is "the surge" working?
"Based on what you have heard or read about the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq that began earlier this year, do you think the increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is making the situation there better, not making much difference, or is it making the situation there worse?"
Better - 40%
Not Much Difference - 39%
Worse - 20%
-How is the US doing in Iraq?
"In general, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, or very badly?"
Very Well - 8%
Moderately Well - 35%
Moderately Badly - 43%
Very Badly - 21%
-Will the US "win" in Iraq? (whatever that means).
"Which comes closer to your view about the war in Iraq? You think the U.S. will definitely win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. will probably win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq, but you don't think it will win. OR, You do not think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq."
Definitely Win - 15%
Probably Win - 22%
Can Win,But Won't - 20%
Cannot Win - 37%
-How long do we stay in Iraq?
"If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S.: to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?"
Stay Until Situation Gets Better: 38%
Stick to a Withdrawal Timetable: 59%
- How much confidence do you have in the current Iraqi government?
"How much confidence do you have in the Iraqi government to meet the goals the United States has laid out for Iraq: a great deal, a fair amount, not much, or none at all"
A Great Deal - 2%
A Fair Amount - 30%
Not Much - 42%
None at All - 24%
There it is, despite recent rightwing spin most Americans realize that Iraq is and has been a great big clusterfreak, thanks again Republicans!
Posted by: Loser at the White House cruise control | December 21, 2007 4:47 PM
As "few" as 100,000 troops when W retires?
We will never leave Iraq if the Republicans have their way.
Now THIS is unsubstantiated!
"Finally, why do you think Fox News is the most watched cable news? Because they treat people like they have a brain maybe and don't just let fly with unsubstantiated commentary."
Apparently, the poster has never watched BillO
Posted by: athena | December 21, 2007 5:11 PM
That is the object - when you achieve victory, you start to withdraw your troops. Victory is being achieved.
Posted by: Terry | December 21, 2007 5:36 PM
"Finally, why do you think Fox News is the most watched cable news?
_____________________________
When there are only two other competitors in the market, viewership is not an accurate reflection of the influence a channel has with respect to world issues.
Juannieed just likes to toss around numbers because the ones he regurgitates tend to reflect his tiny "minded" view of reality.
Posted by: rncbs | December 21, 2007 5:51 PM
This sure looks like a time table to me. So Gates is sure there will be a democratic (That's Democratic, for the chickenhawks that think republicrites invented government) government by 12/31/08. ROTFLMAO. There hasn't been a democratic government in most of the middle east for thousands of years. If this pull out (which I still support) goes on, it is pure politics to try to somehow enhance the legacy of THE.WORST.VICE.PRESIDENT.IN.US.HISTORY- bu$h.
Posted by: rncbs | December 21, 2007 6:07 PM
athena,
There ya go; We are never leaving. We are screwed in spades.
Posted by: C.Morris | December 21, 2007 6:29 PM
That is the object - when you achieve victory, you start to withdraw your troops. Victory is being achieved.
_____________________________
But v.p. bu$h said the surge would bring a stable democratic government. Where is that? Or do you have the latest republitard victory-definition-du-jour to justify the illegal occupation of Iraq and the 4k+ dead Americans that would justify such illegal actions? If so,please share it with us, because we need another definition of victory for the next month. It sure changes a lot with these shameless hate-spewing 9/11-Tourette's sufferering deranged Armageddon-yearning chickenhawks.
Posted by: rncbs | December 22, 2007 6:18 PM