Iraq troop levels to be dropped to 3,000

caniseeyourtaint

Passive agressive douche
Feb 26, 2004
2,465
168
678
Ocean County, NJ
#1
Sources: Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.
Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The generals on the ground had requested that the number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year reach about 27,000. But, there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of that decision that the number was then reduced to 10,000.

Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.
"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said.
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."
Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.
Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.
"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."
On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,420
22,054
398
Northern California
#2
I wish they would either give the generals what they want or (preferably) just get the fuck out of there.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#3
This is great, we can slam Obama for:
1. not pulling all the troops out like he promised
2. not giving the generals what the want by leaving more troops there

no matter what he does in this situation, there is something to be upset about, PERFECT!!!!
 
Dec 4, 2010
3,596
2
0
Glassboro, NJ
#4
This is great, we can slam Obama for:
1. not pulling all the troops out like he promised
2. not giving the generals what the want by leaving more troops there

no matter what he does in this situation, there is something to be upset about, PERFECT!!!!
Well he couldn't make it any easier.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#5
Well he couldn't make it any easier.
you dont seem to get it... its a no win. Someone that doesnt like Obama, and is looking to slam him will be able to find something no matter what.

1. pull out SOME troops.... well its not pulling them ALL out like he promised, and it pisses off the generals
2. pull out ALL troops... it pisses off the generals, and then we can slam him for leaving an unstable Iraq behind
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#6
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
I think here is the key to the whole thing... Dont see this as a bad thing really.
 

ShooterMcGavin

Go back to your shanties.
May 25, 2005
18,029
1,380
643
#7
Take them all out of there. It's time to take our country back to pre-WW2. You stay the fuck away from us, we stay the fuck away from you. We'll trade but that's it.

The Swiss have been doing that forever and they're still in great shape.
 
Dec 4, 2010
3,596
2
0
Glassboro, NJ
#8
I think here is the key to the whole thing... Dont see this as a bad thing really.
Of course. Ignoring the better judgment of people that are experts on the situation is a great thing. I want those people back too but decision based on political CPR is going to get people killed.

I would hate to be one of the three thousand people left to try out his new campaign strategy.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,420
22,054
398
Northern California
#9
This is great, we can slam Obama for:
1. not pulling all the troops out like he promised
2. not giving the generals what the want by leaving more troops there

no matter what he does in this situation, there is something to be upset about, PERFECT!!!!

These half measures just get us in more trouble. Either give the generals what they think they need to do the job as efficiently and safely as possible, or he should do what he promised and pull everyone out (the decision I would prefer). What is the logic of going against the generals and doing something they say will put the remaining soldiers in more danger? The answer is there is none beside the purely political motivation.

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm going to play your game here. Hold on, I have to create a mentality where I have nothing to add to the topic. Alright, ready.

Dude, no matter what Obama does some people will simply defend him. Reduce troop levels, increase them, pull them out completely... it doesn't matter. Obama can do no wrong.

Alright, now I'm going to go back to discussing the topic at hand.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#10
These half measures just get us in more trouble. Either give the generals what they think they need to do the job as efficiently and safely as possible, or he should do what he promised and pull everyone out (the decision I would prefer). What is the logic of going against the generals and doing something they say will put the remaining soldiers in more danger? The answer is there is none beside the purely political motivation.

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm going to play your game here. Hold on, I have to create a mentality where I have nothing to add to the topic. Alright, ready.

Dude, no matter what Obama does some people will simply defend him. Reduce troop levels, increase them, pull them out completely... it doesn't matter. Obama can do no wrong.

Alright, now I'm going to go back to discussing the topic at hand.
sigh... where did I say Obama could do no wrong? You really take some leaps in "logic". The generals have said that at 3k it becomes a training mission and we wouldnt be providing security. Isnt that the idea? Iraqi's doing their own security?

personally I'd prefer we pulled everyone out as well. But hey, lets not let us agreeing on something get in the way of trying to start an argument :D

I forgot, thinking isnt allowed when one is going for faxrage. carry on.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,420
22,054
398
Northern California
#11
sigh... where did I say Obama could do no wrong?
Your response in this thread is the same as your response in every thread regarding the President... "oh look, the same old people disagreeing with Obama"... instead of commenting on the actual situation. Perhaps there are people like that on here, but you're the same exact person, just from the opposite end of the spectrum. Not everything is Team A vs Team B, most people here have the ability to discuss specific issues. You, however, always seem to defend the President, or at least attack people who disagree with him on any issue.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#12
Your response in this thread is the same as your response in every thread regarding the President... "oh look, the same old people disagreeing with Obama"... instead of commenting on the actual situation. .
no, no its not. I make plenty of on topic comments. You dotn agree with many of them so you dont read them, nor do you read the ones you agree with. Once someone doesnt agreew with you 100% of the time, ie, slam Obama no matter what, you tune them out. I've stated my opposition to some of Obama's policies pretty clearly. But I dont think that everything he does points to him being a secret muslim communist that is hell bent on the destruction of The United State. That point of view, you know, thinking about topics and not falling back on some idiotic dogma, gets one branded a troll by those that do nothing but repeat that dogma over and over.

My apologies... the jab at the start of the thread wasnt meant directly at YOU... but rather at those that do nothing but slam Obama no matter what. its a win-win situation for them.

You dont be able to see the difference between NOT slamming Obama over EVERYTHING vs. defending Obama on every topic. epic logic fail.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#13
About fucking time. Pulling them all out would be best, but you can't always let "perfect" be the enemy of "good".
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,977
3,852
373
#14
This shit was agreed upon a long time ago between u.s. And Iraqi leadership. drop the numbers to nearly zero by dec 31 2011, just leaving a few stragglers around. but nooo donthetrucker has to disagree with my shit.
 

Yesterdays Hero

She's better than you, Smirkalicious.
Jan 25, 2007
16,437
3,944
571
Canada. Land of the Fat.
#15
3k is a start. If the Shwoogie was smart, he'd pull out everyone like he campaigned. It's not the business of the US to be the global nanny.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#16
I predict that they're not actually going to pull anyone out, they're just going to change their name from "troops" to "peacekeepers" like they did before.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#17
I predict that they're not actually going to pull anyone out, they're just going to change their name from "troops" to "peacekeepers" like they did before.
Good point. Last time he said all "combat" troops had been withdrawn from the country, but 50,000 "support" troops were left there.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,977
3,852
373
#18
I predict that they're not actually going to pull anyone out, they're just going to change their name from "troops" to "peacekeepers" like they did before.
I predict 0-1k will be left come jan. 1 2012.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#19
This shit was agreed upon a long time ago between u.s. And Iraqi leadership. drop the numbers to nearly zero by dec 31 2011, just leaving a few stragglers around. but nooo donthetrucker has to disagree with my shit.
What the hell are you talking about? I've always said that Barry has generally done the right things in the war in Iraq. It's Afghanistan that he's royally fucked up.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#20
Good point. Last time he said all "combat" troops had been withdrawn from the country, but 50,000 "support" troops were left there.
I predict 0-1k will be left come jan. 1 2012.
I was mostly joking, but that's all they did before when they "Scaled down" the presence in Iraq. My buddy's the CO of a Ranger battalion that used to be a "combat" unit, and they simply changed their name to "security" and sent them right back to Iraq. It's all lies and bullshit.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,977
3,852
373
#21
What the hell are you talking about? I've always said that Barry has generally done the right things in the war in Iraq. It's Afghanistan that he's royally fucked up.
Posts 37-41 and so forth.
DonTheTrucker: U.S. military ain't ever leaving there.
Biden: U.S. Troops Will Leave Iraq on Deadline.
http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php/132755-Just-to-toss-a-grenade-into-the-Egyptian-discussion...?highlight=Iraq

Yeah it sure is turning into the next Korea. :rolleyes:
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,977
3,852
373
#22
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
The article failed to mention why Hillary wants to keep troops there. To protect her dos guys. I don't blame her. Their shit is gonna get fucked up bad with very limited troops if any at all.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#23
3000 too many.

Fuck, do I miss Saddam :(
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#24
I find it amusing that you actually buy this shit.

1. We'll have a presence there for decades to come.
2. We SHOULD have a presence there for decades to come.

You've been lied to by your president, and I fully support it because some people just don't understand how the world really works.
 

Yesterdays Hero

She's better than you, Smirkalicious.
Jan 25, 2007
16,437
3,944
571
Canada. Land of the Fat.
#25
I find it amusing that you actually buy this shit.

1. We'll have a presence there for decades to come.
2. We SHOULD have a presence there for decades to come.

You've been lied to by your president, and I fully support it because some people just don't understand how the world really works.
Not sure if serious?