home

General Casey: Withdrawal of Troops To Start This Summer

Huh?:

Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad. “I believe the projections are late summer,” General Casey said, adding, “I think it’s probably going to be late summer before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods.”

Ah. IF security conditions improve. Well, since they won't, that means when pigs fly. Casey has played this game before:

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early [2006].

Come to think of it, BushCo has been promising withdrawal since 2003:

According to a March 3, 2003, CNN report, "Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war. He also said 'the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark.'" Specifically, Pentagon officials announced a plan in the weeks following the fall of Baghdad to lower U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 30,000 by the fall of 2003.

The worst Administration in history.

< On Iraq Escalation: Obama Has The Right Idea, But Maybe Not The Right Proposal | Unbelievable: Cheney (!) Tired of Fools >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Riiiiight.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    I'd guess he's lying at the behest of Gates to make the "surge" more palatable.

    General Casey, who spoke to reporters after meeting with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates...


    La la la la la....... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    Casey: if... I believe... I think...

    Sure General, I'll go along with the first two...

    It's amazing that they think people are dumb enough to fall for this kind of crap. It's even more amazing that some do.

    if I heard correctly (none / 0) (#3)
    by dutchfox on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 07:14:31 PM EST
    on NPR today, Casey said that the troops were soon to arrive in Iraq. Which troops? I ask this because Pelosi had stated that the troops Bush wanted are already on their way to Iraq.

    Parent
    Via Scarecrow at Firedoglake, Jan 08/07 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    Surging in Afghanistan
    David Wood of the Baltimore Sun (by way of Boston Globe) summarizes what we're not supposed to be watching: Commanders seek more forces in Afghanistan.  Not only are the US and NATO forces already stretched for enough troops to deal with a resurgent Taliban, but some of the US troops already there are scheduled to be part of the "surge" into Iraq.
    KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the US military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against US troops and undermanned NATO forces. This has prompted US commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new US Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions.

    NATO's 30,000 troops in Afghanistan are supposed to have taken responsibility for security operations. But Taliban attacks have risen sharply, and senior US officers here describe the NATO operation as weak, hobbled by a shortage of manpower and equipment, and by restrictions put on the troops by their capitals....
    ...
    A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq.
    ...
    "It is bleak," said Colonel Chris Haas, commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan.

    Conway said US commanders understand that the Afghan war is an "economy of force" operation, a military term for a mission that is given minimal resources because it is a secondary priority, in this case behind Iraq. [emphasis mine]



    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    NO (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    Really effing OY!

    Parent
    Military commanders and comments. (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 07:22:26 AM EST
    Wars with two fronts always produce conflict between commanders over resources. See some of the exchanges between FDR and MacArthur, and the comments made about FDR made by MacArthur.

    But I suspect that you are interestd in these only because they are negative.

    I wonder why I believe that? Could it be because you are biased against Bush??

    Parent

    Could be, Liz... I mean Jim. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:00:48 AM EST
    But I suspect that you are NOT interested in these only because they are negative.

    I wonder why I believe that? Could it be because you are biased against hearing the truth??

    Better google Warner and McCain this morning, Jim. Even they have had enough of the view.

    Parent

    3 ways to start, Dutchfox (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    1. Move them from Afghanistan

    2. Extend current tours of others.

    3. Send scheduled troops early.

    I doubt they will advertise it much, but we will read about it if we search. Do naval personnel and AF personnel count?