How soon after 1/20 will we have POTUS talking of cutting/running - but with different verbs!
Stratfor.com
http://www.stratfor.info/Story.neo?storyId=241687 pessimistic analysis suggests the U.S. should withdraw its troops to the periphery and allow national processes, i.e., a civil war, to take place. Stratfor claims that every single attempt by the U.S. to rebuild an institution of government or security has been thwarted by insurgents, and since there is no appetite to send an additional 100,000 troops to the country, the status quo will not lead to a safer/freer country.
All of which leads to the NYT's Sanger/Schmitt article below
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/politics/10policy.html?hp&ex=1105419600&en=e461bbde941d55d3&ei=5094&partner=homepageHot Topic: How U.S. Might Disengage in Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
ASHINGTON, Jan. 9 - Three weeks before the election in Iraq, conversation has started bubbling up in Congress, in the Pentagon and some days even in the White House about when and how American forces might begin to disengage in Iraq.
So far it is mostly talk, not planning. The only thing resembling a formal map to the exit door is a series of Pentagon contingency plans for events after the Jan. 30 elections. But a senior administration official warned over the weekend against reading too much into that, saying "the Pentagon has plans for everything," from the outbreak of war in Korea to relief missions in Africa.
The rumblings about disengagement have grown distinctly louder as members of Congress return from their districts after the winter recess, and as military officers try to game out how Sunni Arabs and Shiites might react to the election results. The annual drafting of the budget is a reminder that the American presence in Iraq is costing nearly $4.5 billion a month and putting huge strains on the military. And White House officials contemplate the political costs of a second term possibly dominated by a nightly accounting of continuing casualties.
By all accounts, President Bush has not joined the conversation about disengagement so far, though a few senior members of his national security team have. <snip>
Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who commanded the invasion of Iraq, said on the NBC News program "Today" on Dec. 9: "One has to think about the numbers. I think we will be engaged with our military in Iraq for, perhaps, 3, 5, perhaps 10 years."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
