Accelerated Troop Draw Down in Iraq Announced

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,803
Likes
62,558
#1
Just heard on the news that the Obama Admin will draw down troops to 3000 by the end of the year.

Military wanted 25K, Obama Admin countered at 10K and military said they could adjust but it would be problematic.

Now the number will be 3K and military is highly concerned. Apparently, H. Clinton was only admin member against this move.

Details to follow I'm sure - news just broke and I can't find a written story.
 
#3
#3
Obviously I'd like us to be done with this but I have to wonder how 3K is workable.
 
#4
#4
Obama is more worried short term image than long term success. Elections are coming up. The figure at 3k is a joke.
 
#6
#6
In before gsvol posts blog entry from unknown loon who explains that Obama is a secret agent Muslim doing this to purposefully create a vacuum so that radical Islamic terrorists can take over Iraq.
 
#8
#8
You all are kidding yourselves if you don't think there will be private security firms bidding for contracts to make up the difference. Troop drawdown does not equal drawdown in the US force footprint.
 
#9
#9
Without knowing more, it's hard to see this as anything more than putting re-election optics ahead of what is likely needed to maintain some semblance of stability in Iraq.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
rjd970 said:
You all are kidding yourselves if you don't think there will be private security firms bidding for contracts to make up the difference. Troop drawdown does not equal drawdown in the US force footprint.
Click to expand...
publicly announced troop drawdowns are nothing more than sorry ass politics. If you want to draw down and it's sensible, do it. We don't need the political games as a part of the process.
 
#12
#12
why do we have to pay for a private security firm to do the job when we have the most powerful army on the planet?

I will answer it for you... because Obama wants to make sure the 38% that still like him will show up in Nov 2012
 
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
publicly announced troop drawdowns are nothing more than sorry ass politics. If you want to draw down and it's sensible, do it. We don't need the political games as a part of the process.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that politics should have nothing to do with military decisions?

Isn't that exactly why we got into this mess in the first place?

(Note: I agree with you. And once we are there and committed, it has to be done right. But if there is criticism of Obama for drawing down troops because of politics then let's remember what politics caused it to begin with.)
 
#16
#16
VolsNSkinsFan said:
why do we have to pay for a private security firm to do the job when we have the most powerful army on the planet?

I will answer it for you... because Obama wants to make sure the 38% that still like him will show up in Nov 2012
Click to expand...

IMO the reason is two-fold. First, we don't have to call them "US Military Casualties". These firms just hire combat troops right out of the military and have them do the same thing they were doing before. And second, more money to be made contracting everything out that can be.

In this case though, the election season has much to do with it.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
So you are saying that politics should have nothing to do with military decisions?

Isn't that exactly why we got into this mess in the first place?

(Note: I agree with you. And once we are there and committed, it has to be done right. But if there is criticism of Obama for drawing down troops because of politics then let's remember what politics caused it to begin with.)
Click to expand...

Sure, that's exactly what I said. I want autonomous control for the military.
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
Sure, that's exactly what I said. I want autonomous control for the military.
Click to expand...


Well, either politics enters the picture or it doesn't. And that is either acceptable or it isn't.

You cannot argue that in cases in which politics invades the decision-making and it leads to increased military action that's good, whereas in cases where it reduces military action, that's necessarily bad.

The wisdom of this particular decision from a military point of view you can fairly criticize. I might join with you in that. But the complaint from a number on this board is not that its a bad military decision, its that its Obama making it and he is allowing politics to influence his decision.

The issue is one of process. If it is wrong of Obama to allow politics to influence his decision, then was not also wrong of Bush to allow politics to influence his?

P.S. On related note, I've been watching Cheney a bit on the various shows promoting his book. Dude is even scarier, and creepier, and more sinister in private life than in public.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
Well, either politics enters the picture or it doesn't. And that is either acceptable or it isn't.

You cannot argue that in cases in which politics invades the decision-making and it leads to increased military action that's good, whereas in cases where it reduces military action, that's necessarily bad.

The wisdom of this particular decision from a military point of view you can fairly criticize. I might join with you in that. But the complaint from a number on this board is not that its a bad military decision, its that its Obama making it and he is allowing politics to influence his decision.

The issue is one of process. If it is wrong of Obama to allow politics to influence his decision, then was not also wrong of Bush to allow politics to influence his?

P.S. On related note, I've been watching Cheney a bit on the various shows promoting his book. Dude is even scarier, and creepier, and more sinister in private life than in public.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone will argue the war was one of choice, not necessity. But there were legitimate reasons outside of WMDs for going in. Regardless, IMO your point is valid wrt to politics playing a huge part in the decision.
 
#21
#21
nbakerld said:
Howsabout 0 troops in Iraq?
Click to expand...

If I have my story straight, technically we are supposed to be at zero at the end of the year under the agreement Bush signed in 2008.

The Iraqi's asked for a delay in the withdrawal and apparently we listened. Now the debate is about changing the extended stay we apparently agreed to.

On your point, I tend to agree. It's hard to imagine 3000 is much different than 0 and it is certainly more dangerous for the 3000 in question.
 
#22
#22
I'm not up to date with this. I assume some sect of Iraqis still want us there, and another doesn't.
 
#24
#24
Where I work and what I do, I have a vested interest in knowing the situation over there.

These contractors will be more than trainers too...many of those guys will be sitting next to the Iraqi regulars putting rounds downrange. While the article doesn't specifically state it, the Iraqi would rather have it that way because the mercenaries aren't constricted by US rules of engagement...they, in a sense, "own the soldiers" and can tell them what to do.

I doubt this will be reported in the MSM.
 
#25
#25
rjd970 said:
I'm not sure anyone will argue the war was one of choice, not necessity. But there were legitimate reasons outside of WMDs for going in. Regardless, IMO your point is valid wrt to politics playing a huge part in the decision.
Click to expand...

you cannot go without all the politics, period. You can absolutely come home without them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top