Due To Obama, Pentagon Planning Faster Iraq Withdrawal

WASHINGTON -- Military commanders are drawing up plans for a faster withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in anticipation that President-elect Barack Obama will reject current proposals as too slow, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.

The new plans would provide alternatives to a timetable drawn up by the top American commanders for Iraq to bring troops home more slowly than Mr. Obama promised during his presidential campaign. Those plans were described to Mr. Obama last month.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[SailFree]

If you note the rhetoric from Obama and his supporters, wouldn't it be WISE to PLAN for a faster withdrawal, even if you think it would be a stupid idea? The military is under civilian control in THIS country.

[Grannysue]

I will be happy to seen our military come home, but unfortunately they will be met with unemployment, home foreclosures and crapy healthcare! Welcome home, this is what Bush was doing while you were over there risking your life in his trumpted up WAR. We are sorry, but our country needed to be overthrown, that's probably why you were kept so busy over there so you wouldn't notice what was going on here.

[TLV]

Our soldiers are coming home soon, but they are being replaced by civilians. The Army spends an outrageous mount of money on these people. They are given more money than regular soldiers because they made more in civilian life. My brother-in-law will receive $125,000 per six month stint - one in Iraq and probably another $125,000 in Afghanistan on top of his regular pay. Why can't we train Iraqis and Afghans to do the work at lower rates?

[JBS]

Your underlying assumption needs questioning. "Why can't we train Iraqis and Afghans to do the work at lower rates?"

Why should WE decide what work needs doing there?

Why shouldn't the Iraqis and Afghans decide for themselves what training they need and how much to pay?

We screwed both countries pursuing the neocon dream of imposing a Friedmanin ideology of anarcho-capitolism by shock & awe

... not the fault of the troops, but of the radical politicians who sent them there.

Iraq may be on the verge of doing for itself, but I doubt Afghanistan can.

Our policies in Afghanistan haven't equipped them to do so. We invaded in 2001 and tore everything up, and immediately diverted resources from rebuilding Afghanistan to stand on its own. We've neglected the obligation we created there - to our own detriment.

In any case, an independent Iraq or independent Afghanistan will not feel much gratitude or good will to the U.S. in years to come.

But you are correct regarding the cost/benefit ratio of using civilian contractors to perform military functions.

I highly recommend Naomi Klein's excellent 2004 article "Bhagdad Year Zero" from Harper's Magazine. It's still relevant today to understanding how we got into this mess.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

... and, in fact, how our own economy ended up in such a shambles.

[MakeAWish]

While they are at it, get us the heck out of Afghanistan! It's another Vietnam! Bring our troops and money home, now!

[owiseone]

Let's just hope that our soldiers who will get to come home will have jobs.

[RadicalConservative]

Sure it's ending in Iraq, the military under Bush did it's job. Now, it's off to Afghanistan because Obama promised a 30,000 troop increase.

[Coinyer101]

yep. cuz bush took his eye off the ball, and invaded iraq illegally. you remember all the li es about WMDs ,dontcha? oh yeah, bush was responsible for creating AQ in iraq, also. that's surely something you can be proud of, too.

[cjk002]

Wait a minute - Weren't all the trolls saying that Obama was breaking his promise and not getting out of Iraq?

What happened?

[rbarry647]

You can never please a tr0ll

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

The trolls are searching for something else to "B" about.

[Roguewolf]

Vice President-elect Joe Biden assured Iraqi leaders Tuesday that the incoming administration won't withdraw U.S. troops in a way that threatens stability, an Iraqi spokesman said. "He said that [Barack] Obama is committed to withdraw but he wants the withdrawal to be a responsible one. Obama does not want to waste the security gains that have been achieved," said the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh.

No, He has just assumed President Bush's policy, we will withdraw when the situation warrants.

[JBS]

Won't withdraw "IN A WAY THAT THREATENS STABILITY" doesn't mean no withdrawals.

Truth is there's no way to have the forces to meet our obligation in Afghanistan == "You broke it, you bought it!" - without taking them from somewhere else.

Guess where that "somewhere" is?

Especially since it was the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2002 so that Bush could have his Iraq war that created the current instability in Afghanistan.

And we do have an obligation in Afghanistan, if to no one other than ourselves.

It was predominantly the U.S. abandonment of the Afghan Mujaheddin after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 that produced the Afghan civil war and the ultimate rise of the Taliban to power there. Who in turn provided a haven for bin Ladin's al Qaeda to plan and prepare for their Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Do you think it a good idea to once again abandon Afghanistan to the ferment of Islamic extremism?

I only hope we haven't left it too late.

[rollingdivision]

Well it's not to go bump off Bin Laden, Ebola is backing off that as quickly as he can post election. Just three short months ago he was going to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice which meant kill him. But that was just election campaign talk for the rubes. Now he's adopted the Bush policy! "Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

His comments, in a CBS interview, represent a significant watering down of the "dead or alive" policy pursued by President Bush since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. They also appear to contradict Mr Obama's own statements made in the election campaign. "

[rollingdivision]

"Words, just words"

[odan]

That's going to be the problem with the incoming Pres. i'm afraid that much of his rhetoric were just words.

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

Hey stupid you don't tell your enemy exactly what to do, it is called deception!!

[TLV]

Bin Laden is dead. Why waste tax dollars chasing a dead man? Bush can prove what a success he was by producing the body. Why hasn't he done that yet? He does have few days left.

[odan]

Ya, I mean, after all it's not the pentagons job to offer up all possible solutions and scenarios to the pres. as they see it. I love this stuff on huffpooh, the pentagon doing it's job, not going out of it's way, just doing it's job, and they paint it like they are bending over backward for the next guy comming in. If the next guy would have been McCain he would have been offered the exact same plans from the pentagon. I am willing to bet anything they will submit a plan for staying longer to the Pres. Elect after he swarn in too.

[rollingdivision]

They play on the ignorance of the rubes. There are consequences of the failure of our education system.

[Coinyer101]

ur the only person of ign orance on this thread apparently.

[simplify]

Blah, blah, blah

[PhilipTaylor]

Just think according to Harvard Magazine we have spent $3 Trillion on the Iraq war to date and the purpose was to catch 800 a_l q_aeda members:

That is $3,750,000,000 per member!

One member's $3,750,000,000 could have paid for infrastructure repair and school repair
One member's $3,750,000,000 could have paid for a lot of Healthcare Reform.
One member's $3,750,000,000 could have paid for a lot of Home Owner Mortgage relief.
........... 797 more members to go ........

But as Obama pulls troops out and reforming military contracts much of that money will begin to flow to productive purposes. What a massive change that will be!

[RJII]

Osama said he could not concieve how well his plan would destroy America.
Osama paid for flight school and plastic box cutters, America in return spent trillions.

[TLV]

And all of the guys who helped get Bush elected whom he promised to make richer through his policies are happy as pigs in sh*t.

[Beninn]

And due to 0b@ma, we're doubling the number of troops in Afghanistan.

In Pashtun, 'Afghanistan' means 'Vietnam'.

[BigHeadTodd]

Quick, war profiteers! Burn the evidence like all good soldiers do.

[AliMB]

for what its worth, my brother is with the marines in iraq, and they have for sometime now been looking for ways to shift the corps over to the f i g h t in afghanistan... their AO (basically anbar province) is relatively pacified, after this month's provincial elections, things should get even more quiet... holding them back is this cautious approach by the MNF commanders, but i saw a report that even the commandant wants to get the green light for surging into afghanistan... i think this headline from the times is missleading; the fomenting of faster withdrawal plans is pillared on the ground situation and not what Obama may or may not say (again, even the article talks about alternative plans, not orders from Obama's team).

[Beninn]

The buildup is happening in Afghanistan. Double the number of troops.

What exactly is our objective in Afghanistan?

[odan]

So it begins in with the left in A-Stan. Is any military action worth while to you guys. I mean you will accept no definition of victory so what's the point trying to explainit to you doves.

[TLV]

My brother-in-law told us a long time ago that the fight would be transferred to Afghanistan and he would follow it. That's why he gets paid the big bucks.

[rabiddog6708]

Didn't Bu$h say MISSION ACCOMPLISHED over 5 years ago? Saddam was toppled and there are no WMDs......the elections have been held and there is a government......so why are we still there? What do we hope to accomplish by remaining there? Answer: we know that as soon as we leave that government will collapse. 8 billion a month to delay the inevitable.