Petraeus Wants Another Six Months Before Withdrawal Decision

New York Times:

The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress is to begin today at about 12:30 p.m. Eastern time, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August 2008, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush's troop reinforcement plan.

The precise timing of such reductions, which would leave about 130,000 troops in Iraq, could vary, depending on conditions in the country. But the general has also said that it is too soon to present recommendations on reducing American forces below that level because the situation in Iraq is in flux. He has suggested that he wait until March to outline proposals on that question.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[Paco216]

07:31 PM on 09/11/2007

I'm willing to give you another six months, reluctantly I might add, if you General are willing to give up all rights to any and all retirement benefits should the "surge" prove to have failed.

After all, that is a small price to pay for all the military and civilian lives you will have destroyed in your fantasy!

[CharlesMac]

05:14 PM on 09/10/2007

With all of these 2008 benchmarks.... could somebody run up to Capitol Hill and remind those folks.... this is 2007!

MARCH 2008 and AUGUST 2008 are NOT months away...

they are too many dead Americans and Iraqis away.

[Meah]

05:02 PM on 09/10/2007

HuffPo, America does not care what Patraeus says; they want our troops to begin to be deployed. Why did you word your byline like you have? It does not reflect what TPM says. Cheeze.

[susie1776]

04:43 PM on 09/10/2007

Why am I not surprised that Gen Petraeus wants MORE TIME? Sure, we can stay there until the next millenium but as long as we are there, the Iraqis will do NOTHING to help themselves. Why should they when they have those "stupid" Americans spending THEIR blood and THEIR treasure? After all, if you can get somebody else to take care of you, why should you bother taking care of yourself? This is a load of crap! I am tired of subsidizing Iraqi democracy which they don't seem to be all that interested in anyway.There is NOTHING the least bit patriotic or heroic about what we are doing in Iraq now. The Sunni and Shia are going to have their civil war whatever we do...so...let them have at it but without US!!!

[serendipityschild]

04:33 PM on 09/10/2007

As a veteran, I find it difficult to believe that after four years of training Iraqi troops, that these people are unable to take care of their own security needs. I went through six weeks of boot camp, then another eight weeks of advanced training. With that amount of training, the troops there are expected to do the job, and they have done it as well as they are able. Why is it that the Iraqi forces have not been able to get it together after 4 years? Surely our military trainers are not incompetent, it must be that they don't want to follow orders given by Americans.

This was a bogus deal from the beginning, and all signs lead to a permanent occupation by US forces. Congress must starve the beast in order to cut this off, to stop it before any more loss of life. Perhaps we need to remind the Legislative Branch that they work at our pleasure, and not the opposite view. Ditto for the Executive Branch.

Oh, and for all of you that feel the surge is working, and that we should stay there, get yourself down to a recruiting office, and sign up so that you can give the ultimate support for your beliefs.

[Meah]

05:15 PM on 09/10/2007

We are doing nothing regarding a political agreement between parties. Nothing. Why wouldn't the war go on?

[WigWamWag]

04:29 PM on 09/10/2007

Both the Democratic and Republicans Parties are both at fault for this on going mess.

The ever consuming, commercial watching non-thinking lame mass of sheepish lemmings in the public also bares a large amount of the blame for any tragic future based on foolishness.

There has not been a viable war since WWII. The corporations and governments that exploited the people and natural resources of foreign countries and their own human resources had lead to the "blowback" by those who have manipulated by dark the evil forces. These dark evil manipulative forces include the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Exxon, the Heritage Foundation, and many other dominating multi-nationals off shore banking criminals. Many of which are commonly defined as the neo-cons.

Sadly the "progressive" neo-liberals are totally clueless since they constantly focus on welfare based / government based earmark supported socialist ACLU promoted band aids that do not address the real issues of global economies and true democracy that is based on self reliance and individual responsibility.

[Meah]

05:14 PM on 09/10/2007

So says you. WW11 was a "viable war"?. Interesting oxymoron. You can go on and on, but you do not have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to liberals.

Were it up to liberals, we would NEVER have gone into Iraq. 911 might not have even happened. If it did, Bin Laden would be seen as important to capture. We would not be anathema or a laughingstock to the rest of the world. We would not be wasting our money on a catastrophe of a war. Our kids would not have been blown to smithereens in Iraq. The thousands of Iraqi people would still be alive. We would not have NEARLY as many enemies. Shall I go on?

You bash neocons, but label liberals clueless at the same time. Sorry, your argument is not "viable" when it comes to liberals. Neo-liberals? You mean all of the Republicans that will be voting with the Democratic party? Well, I can't say much about them, but they are welcome.

[gappytoofcondi]

04:15 PM on 09/10/2007

Heard all of the BS before- they should just make one recording and play it on a loop.

>Stay the course
>The surge is working
>Only need another six months
>A drastic withdrawl will insure defeat as stated from the retreat and surrender Democrats
>Victory is just around the corner
>Progress is being made on the ground

AND the biggest BS
>Mentioning 9/11 with ANY linking to Iraq


Sure....got any vacation homes to sell me in Baghdad?

ALL OF THESE POLITICIANS FROM BOTH PARTIES SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO NOT PROPERLY PAY HONOR TO THOSE FALLEN FROM 9/11. BET BUSH MAKES HIS SPPECH TO THE COUNTRY ON 9/11, AGAIN SPINNING THE SAME LIE THAT OBL AND AL QUEDA HAD TIES TO IRAQ. GREAT DOUBLE FEATURE- BUSH THEN THE OBL VIDEO.

Quite a bargain at $9bil a month.

Too bad the politicians do not have to be held to the same standards as those in China. There would be mass executions from this conduct.

[larry278]

04:12 PM on 09/10/2007

There is a most remote possibility that the NYT is saying that the US surge may be less than a success when they credit an unknown NYT in Iraq with contributing to this story. I think.

[PollM]

02:22 PM on 09/10/2007

Agree selling pipe dreams...

Has General Petraeus' testimony before Congress convinced or changed your mind that success is at hand in Iraq?-----------------------------------------------------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=463

[Marlyn]

06:46 PM on 09/11/2007

"convinced or changed your mind" ?

obtuse

[ESerafina42]

01:22 PM on 09/10/2007

This headline is very confusing. It implies to me that Americans don't care about Iraq, but the story sounds like it's saying that Americans don't "care" (believe) what Petraeus says. That's a big difference. Headlines should be clear because a lot of times they're all people read.

[ajax2]

01:33 PM on 09/10/2007

Will the congress sacrifice more lives and give Petraeus more hundred dollar bills to hand out?

[sammy333]

01:52 PM on 09/10/2007

Its is not about the two parties, it is about the fights inside each party. The real parties span both formal ones. The "war and destruction" party is strong and united, while the peace and prosperity party is weak and unsupported by the population. The best people (like Chuck Hagel) will keep giving up and the worst people will keep taking their place.

The war and fear propaganda from CNN and Fox will continue, people will be told that only Hillary can win and will stupidly vote for her. She, of course, will keep the essentials, war and occupation, the same. But she will try to introduce a military draft and increase taxes to expand the wars.

[Grannysue]

01:52 PM on 09/10/2007

Well of course they treat the American public the same way they talk and explain everything to Bush because they already know he is dumb as a doorknob. Except a good majority of the public is a whole lot smarter then Bushy, hell my dogs smarter then Bush. They have to begin withdrawing troops beginning in April of 08 becuase the rotations will be up, so the whole wait till March crap is just that!
What did anyone expect, They have no clue how to get out of Iraq, so the next best thing is to pass it on to the next administration, probably Democrats, then blame them for the failure. Oh, can't you just see their flyers now, DEMS LOSE IRAQ WAR! We can put that banner right next to Bush's, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
And what say all those spewing remarks like, it's beginning to work, we should stay, the Iraqi's want us OUT. ASAP. So, in there new found democracy, what now your going to tell them, well ya you voted, but until we say were leaving, it's really not your country! Pathetic.

[Marlyn]

06:43 PM on 09/11/2007

They have no desire to get out of Iraq. The plan is to stay until they have created a shining new democracy in the Middle East.

[Nyla785]

02:16 PM on 09/10/2007

Well, that monthlong Madison Avenue 'sell-job' How could it NOT work? They did everything in their power to 'create a perception'--and the public didn't buy it?? That was just Bush's latest scam-job.

His whole presidency has been a scam-job on the public.

Meanwhile 9 more soldiers have died.

[hmmmmmer]

01:20 PM on 09/10/2007

And he will get it because there are not enough senators and representatives to sustain a veto. The Republicans are wrapping themselves in the flag and using the words terrorist and Al Queda as many times as they can when describing this war.