Petraeus Expects to Recommend Troop Cuts in Iraq This Fall

[Moby]

What could be better for the GOP then a troop cut 2 months before the presidential election?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052201724.html?hpid=artslot

By Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A04

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said he expects to recommend additional cuts in U.S. troop levels there this fall. Petraeus said he would assess conditions before his departure in September, when he is scheduled to take over the U.S. Central Command.

"My sense is I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions," Petraeus said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday on his nomination to the post that would put him in charge of U.S. military operations from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia.

Petraeus declined to estimate the size of a troop cut. "I don't want to imply that that means a BCT [brigade combat team] or major combat formation, although it could," he said, referring to units that could total as many as several thousand troops. U.S. troop strength peaked in Iraq last year at about 165,000. Recent and already approved drawdowns are expected to bring the level to about 133,000 by the end of July.

......

[asroc]

i feel bad for patreus, dude is just doing his job and they bring him in before congress and grill him.

it should be the policy makers getting grilled, not the guy whose sole job it is to execute it to the best of his ability. he's not supposed to be a political figure for either party.

[Cat slave]

Well thats the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, we knew there would be some movement toward placating those
against the war and it is disgusting that while this comes at a time chosen
for its political impact......our kids and friends and neighbors are perishing
daily. Those who play with lives for political gain should be prosecuted
at the very least! I could say what Id like to see done but then probably
the FBI would be all over me and calling me a "terrist"!:taunt: Apparently
they have nothing better to do.

[Moby]

i feel bad for patreus, dude is just doing his job and they bring him in before congress and grill him.

it should be the policy makers getting grilled, not the guy whose sole job it is to execute it to the best of his ability. he's not supposed to be a political figure for either party.
In 2004 he wrote a letter campaigning for Bush. A military General campaigning for a politician is NOT just doing his job. He's the one that decided to get involved with politics.

Once he decided to start campaigning for his boss, we have to question everything that he does.

[Cat slave]

Everyone makes mistakes. That was his.

[asroc]

In 2004 he wrote a letter campaigning for Bush. A military General campaigning for a politician is NOT just doing his job. He's the one that decided to get involved with politics.

Once he decided to start campaigning for his boss, we have to question everything that he does.

i don't really agree with this, in 2004 he wrote a letter supporting a sitting president in wartime. that's basic instinct to a general, it's political but i don't really consider it enough to judge a general on the policy itself.

it's kind of a leap in logic.

[Smurf-Herder]

What could be better for the GOP then a troop cut 2 months before the presidential election?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052201724.html?hpid=artslot


First of all, may I point out how negatively you spin something that should be good news? Bad habit.

Second, I watched the testimony on CSPAN. Odierno emphasized that everything was conditional on maintaining current trends.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0523/p25s16-usmi.html

[Independent Harry]

First of all, may I point out how negatively you spin something that should be good news? Bad habit.

Second, I watched the testimony on CSPAN. Odierno emphasized that everything was conditional on maintaining current trends.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0523/p25s16-usmi.html

Wait, I thought the troop surge was good news...why is a troop cut good news to you as well...

[Smurf-Herder]

Wait, I thought the troop surge was good news...why is a troop cut good news to you as well...

Is that supposed to be taken as a serious question?

[Moby]

First of all, may I point out how negatively you spin something that should be good news? Bad habit.
I simply question the timing. You have to admit that the timing would be very good for the GOP. Or are you saying that the timing wouldn't be good for the GOP?

[Moby]

i don't really agree with this, in 2004 he wrote a letter supporting a sitting president in wartime. that's basic instinct to a general, it's political but i don't really consider it enough to judge a general on the policy itself.

it's kind of a leap in logic.
We have historical situations where this occurred a few months before a presidential election?

General writes letter in support of a presidential candidate.

That presidential candidate wins the election.

That presidential candidate promotes the general that helped him get elected.

See the huge conflict of interest?


We only saw the letter. Think about all the additional campaign efforts that went on behind the scenes. The military leaders pressing military subordinates and campaigning for a president is a very dangerous thing that happens often in dictatorships but historically doesn't happen often in democracies.

[Smurf-Herder]

I simply question the timing. You have to admit that the timing would be very good for the GOP. Or are you saying that the timing wouldn't be good for the GOP?

The two generals didn't make troops cuts a major element of their testimony. It was in there with a bunch of other topics. The press is just using it for sensationalist headlines. And these potential cuts were already talked about generally back when the surge started, if it was successful.

[Smurf-Herder]

We have historical situations where this occurred a few months before a presidential election?

General writes letter in support of a presidential candidate.

That presidential candidate wins the election.

That presidential candidate promotes the general that helped him get elected.

See the huge conflict of interest?


We only saw the letter. Think about all the additional campaign efforts that went on behind the scenes. The military leaders pressing military subordinates and campaigning for a president is a very dangerous thing that happens often in dictatorships but historically doesn't happen often in democracies.

You're paranoid.

Petraeus was the best choice for the position, because of his successes with counter-terrorism on his first tour of duty in Iraq. And this proved itself out with the way things have changed since he took command. Papers are reporting that the level of violence in Iraq is now the lowest it's been in four years.