Petraeus Suggest Surge Forces For Another Year

Associated Press:

The top U.S. general in Iraq outlined plans Monday for the withdrawal of as many as 30,000 troops by next summer, drawing praise from the White House but a chilly reception from anti-war Democrats.

Gen. David Petraeus said a 2,000-member Marine unit would return home this month without replacement in the first sizable cut since a 2003 U.S-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein and unleashed sectarian violence.

Read the whole story: Associated Press

Comments

[RDixon]

05:32 AM on 09/11/2007

Oh the insanity!

[jeersforfears]

02:13 AM on 09/11/2007

Of course the Dems blast Petraeus. Success in Iraq means they don't get the WH in '08. The Dems would rather the US lose in Iraq, and the war on terror altogether (which they deny is even going on!) then punt away their power grab by admitting the truth: the surge is working, there is hope for stability in Iraq - at least stability as far as the US and her allies is concerned.

[GhostintheMachine]

01:50 AM on 09/11/2007

These improvements include a halving of "truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks" since the surge began in February, USA Today reports. Early August saw 74 security incidents in Anbar, down from 450-500 weekly last fall. In Ramadi, such episodes have plummeted from 120-180 weekly last summer to three the week of August 6. Pentagon officials say Iraqis are volunteering 23,000 monthly tips, quadruple August 2006's figure.

[GhostintheMachine]

01:49 AM on 09/11/2007

Reviled by most Democrats, President Bush's 20,000-troop surge is working. Indeed, news of this policy's success is emerging from an unlikely source: Democrats.

Despite other misgivings on Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) admitted to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working."

"The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq," Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) told journalists. "More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq."

"The military aspects of President Bush's new strategy in Iraq…appear to have produced some credible and positive results," Senate Armed Forces chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said in a joint statement after visiting Iraq with his committee's ranking Republican, Virginia's John Warner.

Senator Jack Reed (D., R.I.) told Charlie Rose: "My sense is that the tactical momentum is there with the troops, and we've had some success in terms of blocking insurgents moving into Baghdad."

"The troops have met every assignment," said Senator Bob Casey (D., Pennsylvania). "They've beaten the odds time and again. They've done everything we've asked them to."

Iraq war foe, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.), recently returned from there a changed man. "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one, and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region," he's said. Baird now opposes military-retreat timetables.

After visiting Iraq last month, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D., Calif.) favors more operational flexibility for U.S. commanders. "I'm more willing to work to find a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying," he said.

Rep. Tim Mahoney (D., Fla.) believes the surge "has really made a difference and really has gotten al Qaeda on their heels."

[GhostintheMachine]

01:47 AM on 09/11/2007

Top Senate Democrats have started to acknowledge progress in Iraq, with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee yesterday saying the U.S. troop surge is producing “measurable results.”

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan highlighted improved security in Baghdad and al Qaeda losses in Anbar province as examples of success — a shift for Democrats who have mainly discounted or ignored advances on the battlefield for weeks.

“The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results,” Mr. Levin said in a joint statement with Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, after a two-day visit last week to Iraq.

Mr. Levin joins a growing chorus of Democrats — including 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois — who say the troop surge has produced benefits, but who also bemoan failures of the fledgling Iraqi government they have repeatedly criticized for taking an August vacation.

[Moosbrugger]

01:43 AM on 09/11/2007

If the plan is to give the factions their guns and let God sort them out, then maybe we should change the plan.

[GhostintheMachine]

01:43 AM on 09/11/2007

WASHINGTON — The no. 2 Democrat in the Senate — the assistant majority leader, Richard Durbin of Illinois — is conceding that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq.

His comments make him the second Democratic leader in 10 days to make comments that could open the door for the majority party in Congress to pivot away from its insistence on a deadline for an American retreat.

Speaking to CNN yesterday while visiting Baghdad, Mr. Durbin said, "We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda."

Those words are a long way from a statement Mr. Durbin made on the floor of the Senate on May 16. Then, just before voting for an amendment to set a hard deadline for the withdrawal of troops, he said there was no hope for Iraq: "This morning, the White House announced that the president has finally found a general who will accept the responsibility for the execution of this war. Why did four generals before him refuse this assignment? Because those four generals know, the American people know, and this Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed."

[Moosbrugger]

01:40 AM on 09/11/2007

the Army and the Marines are trained (God bless them) to do one thing. kill people and blow shit up.

That's probably true. But maybe the Army and the Marines are not the only people who should be on he ground

[GhostintheMachine]

01:40 AM on 09/11/2007

August 21, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told a veterans group yesterday that President Bush's troop surge is working -- but that it is still time to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.

"It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics," she said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province.

"We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war. We have to win.

[GhostintheMachine]

01:37 AM on 09/11/2007

Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Their conclusion:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.

[Moosbrugger]

01:25 AM on 09/11/2007

The U.S. is responsible for this mess, we should stay and clean it up. What would be the point of leaving now? We leave, people die. We stay, people die. Might as well try to redeem our selves.

A lot of people say that the war has been mismanaged by incompetents. I agree. Some people say that the current administration has malevolent intentions, maybe that’s true too. Maybe Democrats will have some fresh ideas. Leadership can change and policy can change.

Why do so many folks now think that it is a bad idea to stick around and help rebuild a country we destroyed?

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

01:35 AM on 09/11/2007

the Army and the Marines are trained (God bless them) to do one thing. kill people and blow shit up.

don't buy into the bullshit. the factions have their guns, the plan is to let God sort them out.

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

01:04 AM on 09/11/2007

this is a ruse. they're redeploying to "outposts" to make an attack on Iran without jeopardizing the Green Zone's supply lines to Kuwait.

and Hillary is totally onboard with this redeployment plan to attack Iran.

[MI6troll]

01:03 AM on 09/11/2007

A whole 2,000!

No matter. The withdrawals will just bring the number down to the pre-surge level.

[FogBelter]

12:57 AM on 09/11/2007

Why is this whole pathetic mess beginning to resemble that UBS commercial where the guy starts choking at dinner and the suits around the table with him start discussing intervention and the theory of the Heimlich Maneuver while he turns purple?

Democrats ... WILL YOU PLEASE GET OFF YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES AND DO SOMETHING!?!

[repubesnivel]

12:51 AM on 09/11/2007

Blast, smasht...do your duty and stop funding this war. I'm not giving another nickle to the Democratic Party until they get a goddamn spine.

Keep sending the same bill up for a vote, a vote with a timetable for leaving Iraq. Don't allow any money until you have enough to override a veto, the hell with Bush and his jackals.

[Beachrat]

02:24 AM on 09/11/2007

There can be no compromise, no negotions with the bush regime, the Democrats just have to san NO MORE! And the only way to do that is to support the troops by bringing them home, and only sufficient funding to do that in a safe and orderly manner, otherwise, we will be there until our military can no longer sustain itself, and the country is totally bankrupt , and nothing will have changed. Cant anyone see this?

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

02:31 AM on 09/11/2007

Exactly right! Even small investments with no returns are bad investments, so not a dime, nickel or penny for "oops-position" that permits members-Bu$h admixn. to plunder here and overseas while converting democracy into demonocracy under our noses (!tfn diebold et al!). Why are impeachmentS off the table when Reasons FOR impeachment are OFF the Charts?! With certain justice, ReThugs voting NO in 08 get impeached in 09 or soon after. Is reform or a legislative agenda possible when this adminixontration is run by crooks and their cronies? What does your oath of office require? Just wondering.