US to make Iraq troop level cuts

[bigfootedfred]

President George W Bush has authorised cuts in US troops levels in Iraq, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said during a visit to the country.

Speaking to troops in Falluja, Mr Rumsfeld did not specify a number but said the US force would be cut by two brigades - several thousand staff.
Further reductions will be considered "at some point in 2006", he said.
The move will take the number of US soldiers to below the 138,000 level, seen for most of this year.
Two army brigades scheduled for deployment to Iraq - one currently in Kansas state, the other in Kuwait - will no longer go.
A brigade is usually made up of 4,000-5,000 troops.
Mr Rumsfeld said US commanders would "continue to shift their focus to emphasise training and supporting the Iraqi security forces".

Political process
Mr Rumsfeld has previously said that an extra 20,000 troops sent to Iraq to improve security during recent elections would be withdrawn in January, to bring US force levels back to the 138,000 baseline.
Now Mr Rumsfeld says troop numbers will dip below that level.

"The adjustment being announced today is a recognition of the Iraqi people's progress in assuming added responsibility for their country," he said.
Mr Rumsfeld is due to meet Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Friday, after staying overnight in Iraq for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

After his arrival in Iraq, Mr Rumsfeld said Iraq would need time to build a working democratic government following elections on 15 December.
"The Iraqi people who are involved in this process are relatively new to the political process. It will take some time, I suspect," he said.
"It is a big, big, enormous thing for them to try to accomplish in a relatively short period of time."

More than 2,100 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the end of the invasion in April 2003, while Iraqi deaths are put at more than 30,000.
President Bush has come under increasing pressure over the war. Polls suggest most Americans are unhappy with his handling of the conflict, and some lawmakers are questioning how long the troops should stay.

source

hang on.....less troops?
...they need more troops surely, given the situation.

[malarkey]

it said in the newspaper today that British troops will leave Iraq next year.

[Freddie]

source

hang on.....less troops?
...they need more troops surely, given the situation.

Not really, the alliance has trained a new Iraqi army and police force and there not at the point were they can look after themselves.

The attacks are anything special, the country now a democratic government, a new army and US/UK backing. In the south British troops are already pulling back and letting the Iraqis look after their security. Anyway these insurgents will go away in a couple years, as look as they don't have popular support amongst the general population they won't succeed in their objectives.

[bigfootedfred]

[CENTER]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Not really, the alliance has trained a new Iraqi army and police force and there not at the point were they can look after themselves.

able to look after themselves.....not yet, probably not for a while..


READ THIS

[Freddie]

able to look after themselves.....not yet, probably not for a while..


READ THIS

That really doesn't prove anything all it shows is that mistakes happen. Kind of funny though, the guy who set him free must be kicking himself after losing all that dough. He would have been setup for life……….kind of like Saddam LOL (well ok if they weren;t going to hung him he would spend the rest of his days in prison).

[Carach]

Not really, the alliance has trained a new Iraqi army and police force and there not at the point were they can look after themselves.

The attacks are anything special, the country now a democratic government, a new army and US/UK backing. In the south British troops are already pulling back and letting the Iraqis look after their security. Anyway these insurgents will go away in a couple years, as look as they don't have popular support amongst the general population they won't succeed in their objectives.

cant be bothered to read throug hthe whole thread so ill just post what ive read from military magazines and other sources.

America doesnt have the amount of troops recomended there now, and never did. Pulling out troops is inviting trouble.
The iraqi security forces are corrupt and riddled with spies for the terrorist groups.

The south seems in better state though as the british forces seem to have handled the situations in iraq a lot better since the start, and do not have such rebellious people to control (well they were pro west anyway..but not so much as the kurds in the north are)

I think the southern iraqis respect britain a lot more than the americans - its the british peacekeeping experience i think that has the edge there.
However there is still trouble around. The soldiers are needed, as well as more of a presence from the newly reformed iraqi army and security forces.

Not trying to insult america here, its just my view on things - but yea, america should have more troops than they do currently, a least thats what military advisers told Rumsfield(sp?)

---But i guess the coalition are pulling out troops to 'test the waters' so to speak, see how iraqi security forces can cope on their own and see whether the insurgency drops or not, and maybe to get the iraqis a bit happier.

im rambling because i cant really describe or explain very well heh

[danzig]

cant be bothered to read throug hthe whole thread so ill just post what ive read from military magazines and other sources.

America doesnt have the amount of troops recomended there now, and never did. Pulling out troops is inviting trouble.
The iraqi security forces are corrupt and riddled with spies for the terrorist groups.

The south seems in better state though as the british forces seem to have handled the situations in iraq a lot better since the start, and do not have such rebellious people to control (well they were pro west anyway..but not so much as the kurds in the north are)

I think the southern iraqis respect britain a lot more than the americans - its the british peacekeeping experience i think that has the edge there.
However there is still trouble around. The soldiers are needed, as well as more of a presence from the newly reformed iraqi army and security forces.

Not trying to insult america here, its just my view on things - but yea, america should have more troops than they do currently, a least thats what military advisers told Rumsfield(sp?)

im rambling because i cant really describe or explain very well heh

Your overstating things a bit since I think its clear the lack of trouble in the south where the Brits are is generally for the same reason for the lack of trouble in the north where Americans are and center more on the population being less openly hostile. If you dump British troops in Baghdad from the start you'd still run into the same problems.

[Removed_user_012521]

First, regarding muslim religion. They can't come to agreement over their doctrine? Oh... And christians can? That's why we have what... Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Vitnesses, Mormons, Baptists and whatnot.

Those are all separate relgions based on the same theme with church structer and so on, and they don't preach to go out and kill people. You talk about islam like its one religion with one dogma but its not, not all muslims preach hate and violence, and those that commit acts of hate are propably brainwashed by only a handfull of radical clerics. It is amazing how and Idea can spread among the uneducated masses.

To my knowledge majority of population of USA were quiet and peaceful during your rebellion against the british. So are majority of iraqis. Would you say that french or americans did not want to get rid of their respective "occupiers" then?

Well Iraq is different because they are a free country and we are just helping them get on there feet, technicaly this occupation is now a charity operation to help a struggling democracy get organised. I doubt the germans or the british had any real intentions on leaving in the near future.

Again, this is not computergame, this is reality. In reality you do not see whole nations turning up with guns and participating actively. But there can be, and in Iraq there is based on polls, strong sentiment AGAINST occupiers. People may not participate actively but they can offer passive support or simply turn a blind eye. That someone does not take up arms does not mean they do not want occupiers gone.

They have dug themselves into a hole... Why do they dislike the occupation? You say because it brought violence. Why is there more violence, because they are turning a blind eye to the insrugency and not helping the US and there own government establish some order.

Did Saddam rig the elections? I don't know. You made that claim so back it up!
By the way, I think YOU do not know (or understand) the truth.

I do know this for a fact that in at least one (that I know of there bound to be more) election that Saddam got 100% of the voted was because he was the only one on the Ballot.

You are "restoring" the democracy in american image. It's foreigners who call all the shots and you can't make so large changes without affecting the society. Specially if you come from completely different standpoint. Iraqis are muslims, USA is pretty much as fundamentalist christian as nations get these days. As comparison you could say USA is for christianity what Iran is for islam.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING? DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF? DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRACY AND IRAQ WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! Sry bout that but I meant DAMN!!! you are clearly now just attacking the US on what ever ground you can and most of that crap you said you just pulled out of your ass.

As I believe, the US was the first working democracy, it also has the best record and propably the longest standing of any democracy, aparently the US democracy is a real, working, democracy. You can not in any conceivable way tell me that pre-war Iraq had a functioning democracy so dont even try that crap argument.

USA uses 1,2 million in tomahawk to make it explode in one desired location. It has nothing to do with OTHER damage. To explain it in simple terms, so called "smart" weapons are designed to make sure something specific DOES get destroyed, they do not take into account what ELSE is destroyed in the process. Like I said, drop "smart" 500lb bomb in a house in urban area and you cause just as much damage as you do with "dumb" 500lb. You just get larger certainty that one particular house is devastated. I guess you have read too much Pentagon propaganda about "surgical" strikes. Special forces team going in and taking bullets can be surgical, bomb or other munition never is.
This goes for Lee too, if you want to minimize collateral damage you have to accept increased losses. Because only way to avoid civilian casualties is to make sure your soldiers are at the location and can confirm visually the target as hostile. Of course that is not what US army wants because it is difficult to find idiots to join up when they know odds are getting even more against them. I hear recruiting is already in trouble and US army is, despite it's opposite claims, still not caring about minimizing civilian casualties.
To be honest I can admit that I do not realistically expect any military to actually go for the "take the bullet for innocent"-policy but at least you guys should have decency to not to try to claim you are doing everything to minimize the civilian losses. It's the hypocricy that annoys me most.

Well damn I just said that we have ROE whe we cant use big huge bombs in cities and the reason why we use smart bombs that cos 1.2 million dollars is because the only other option is saturating the entire area with bombs. We do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties, troops are trained to distigusht combatants and insurgents and not to fire if civilians can be harmed.
IN the news how many civilain casualties die because an american bomb? Tell me. Because it certqainly isn't the US military killing 30,000 Iraqis (well the innocent ones atleast). So tell me how many Iraqis are killed directly because of american bullets.
And since you like WW2 so much how did they destroy german factories then?.... BE thankfull for giuded weapons.

Your claim of common sense does not stand water to be honest.
For example resistance in Iraq, your idea that people would NOT fight against any occupier is against common sense. People are always patriotic and NEVER can a patriot look at his/her nation to be under occupation and not try to take up arms against it. Furthermore are you aware of research which points out that most likely suicide bomber candidate (and those there seems to be no lack in Iraq) is person who perceives his/her nation to be under occupation?

Well technicaly we are liberators in the stage of occupieing a country. Look at americans after the liberated france. We were forigners and we brought war, using your theory the french would fight us too.

Also about the suicid bomber, how many suicide bombs have gone off in Iraq, not IEDs but suicide boombs.

[Tiwaz]

Those are all separate relgions based on the same theme with church structer and so on, and they don't preach to go out and kill people. You talk about islam like its one religion with one dogma but its not, not all muslims preach hate and violence, and those that commit acts of hate are propably brainwashed by only a handfull of radical clerics. It is amazing how and Idea can spread among the uneducated masses.

Well Iraq is different because they are a free country and we are just helping them get on there feet, technicaly this occupation is now a charity operation to help a struggling democracy get organised. I doubt the germans or the british had any real intentions on leaving in the near future.

They have dug themselves into a hole... Why do they dislike the occupation? You say because it brought violence. Why is there more violence, because they are turning a blind eye to the insrugency and not helping the US and there own government establish some order.

I do know this for a fact that in at least one (that I know of there bound to be more) election that Saddam got 100% of the voted was because he was the only one on the Ballot.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING? DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF? DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRACY AND IRAQ WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! Sry bout that but I meant DAMN!!! you are clearly now just attacking the US on what ever ground you can and most of that crap you said you just pulled out of your ass.

As I believe, the US was the first working democracy, it also has the best record and propably the longest standing of any democracy, aparently the US democracy is a real, working, democracy. You can not in any conceivable way tell me that pre-war Iraq had a functioning democracy so dont even try that crap argument.

Well damn I just said that we have ROE whe we cant use big huge bombs in cities and the reason why we use smart bombs that cos 1.2 million dollars is because the only other option is saturating the entire area with bombs. We do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties, troops are trained to distigusht combatants and insurgents and not to fire if civilians can be harmed.
IN the news how many civilain casualties die because an american bomb? Tell me. Because it certqainly isn't the US military killing 30,000 Iraqis (well the innocent ones atleast). So tell me how many Iraqis are killed directly because of american bullets.
And since you like WW2 so much how did they destroy german factories then?.... BE thankfull for giuded weapons.

Well technicaly we are liberators in the stage of occupieing a country. Look at americans after the liberated france. We were forigners and we brought war, using your theory the french would fight us too.

Also about the suicid bomber, how many suicide bombs have gone off in Iraq, not IEDs but suicide boombs.

All separate religions? Not really, they are all offshoots of christian religion, all consider themselves christian as principle. However their dogmas can be even mutually exclusive. Sunnis and shias are closer to one another as sects of one religion than christian religions are. Even orthodox and catholic are immensly different despite originating directly from same church.
As for preaching violence. How about north Ireland? Religions "tolerance" at it's peak. The Inquisition. Galilei trial. Oh yes, christianity has always been SO tolerant and peaceful.

Iraq is not "different", it is independent country under hostile occupation. Honestly, all your talk about "liberation" and "helping" is limited to ONE perspective. You apparently do not grasp what I said. There is no SINGLE truth in occupation.

I'll give you another example. 1939 USSR attacked Finland, guess what they told their population? They told them that Finland, this immense warmachine, had attacked USSR. But wait! There is more! They told them that they were going to "liberate" finns from their oppressive goverment and estabilish a more "enlightened" society there. And finally they told that finns would welcome the occupation with open arms since they were going to "help" poor finns. Change some words and you get rhetoric of current US administration.

Germany, 1939 invasion of Poland. Germany attacked Poland based on few reasons.
1) "Liberation" of sudetendeutch from polish oppression
2) In response to polish aggression towards Germany (arranged with few german fanatics using polish uniforms to attack german borderguard)
And so on.

See, EVERY goverment feeds it's population BS about "liberating" and "freeing" and "helping" and "doing the right thing" when it wants to attack someplace. This is called "propaganda" and aims at making people think just like you seem to think.


As for iraqis digging themselves in a hole... Why it is so difficult for you to expand your thinking and understand that people in Iraq do not WANT TO BE "LIBERATED" BY USA? They did want to get rid of Saddam but that's it, they do not want USA there after that calling the shots.
Court Saddam was taken into for OR? Arranged based on US principle (where criminal is brought to court to hear the charges, this system did NOT exist in iraqi justice system EVER). USA deciding who gets all the deals in Iraq, USA deciding when and where elections are arranged. Occupiers having their forces overrule any iraqi powers when they wish.

Do you honestly think that people would sit and play dead under occupation because occupier uses flimsy excuses like "liberation and democracy"? And because it would be convenient for occupiers? By the way, democracy means exactly that. Democracy, demos and kratos or people deciding freely translated. Democracy has no further requirements. 1 person to choose from or a million does not change the fact that both fit into rather wide definition of democracy. Besides which, I have said this many times but I'll say it once more. Democracy is NOT some higher purpose even if you think so. Democracy is one political system amongs many.
Objectively it is also extremely inefficient system.

Finally in regards of WW2 and ALLIES liberating france. You forget that in this force there were allies of the french (UK and France having alliance before occupation) and their own leaders like De Gaulle (who gained his position BEFORE that mess and escaped during german invasion) who were driving away already existing foreign occupier. THAT is not comparable to situation of Iraq like german invasion is. And french DID fight against german occupiers.
As for suicide bombers, off the top of my head I remember at least 2 strikes to have taken place in about a week. Less than roadside bombs but still quite enough.


Oh yes, and no sources coming from this direction until you start to provide your own ones. The "But I think it is that way!" does not suffice.

[danzig]

source

hang on.....less troops?
...they need more troops surely, given the situation.

Shrug ask the Democrats, its what they have been pushing for looks like they are going to get their wish. I think its clear by the end of 2006 there will only be a very small amount of coalition troops in Iraq. Though probably a good idea to atleast start plans for scaling back, though it shouldnt be rushed.

[OTZ]

Shrug ask the Democrats, its what they have been pushing for looks like they are going to get their wish. I think its clear by the end of 2006 there will only be a very small amount of coalition troops in Iraq. Iraq I guess will have to learn to swim or drown.

If you think tens of thousands is a small amount, then sure...

The US Administration is well aware that there will need to be a substantial US military presence on the ground for years to come.

[danzig]

If you think tens of thousands is a small amount, then sure...

The US Administration is well aware that there will need to be a substantial US military presence on the ground for years to come.

Tens of thousands is indeed a small amount compared to 130k (160k total with other countries I believe) currently. Wouldnt really suprise me if troop strength came down to 50k-75k levels and serve more as a backup. Of course it also wouldnt suprise me if the numbers were even lower either. Got an big elections in 2006 too as well and politicans are of course politicans.

able to look after themselves.....
are you kidding me?

That really isnt an indication of inability (though the ability of Iraqi security force is questionable) since even western nations with all their wealth and training make these types of mistakes. Hell if you believe the story Saddam's two sons drove right past US military checkpoint at one point.

[bigfootedfred]

That really isnt an indication of inability (though the ability of Iraqi security force is questionable) since even western nations with all their wealth and training make these types of mistakes. Hell if you believe the story Saddam's two sons drove right past US military checkpoint at one point.

ok.
if we look at it from that artcile, it dosent look that bad.
but he was arrested with several other men, becuase the police had been susicpious about him.

The deputy minister, Maj.-Gen. Hussein Kamal, told the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp., that Iraqi police "suspected this man" and detained him "along with other members" of his group.

"Afterward, he was released because we did not know the identity of this criminal," Kamal told LBC.

source

.....they cant even do a background check apprently.

[OTZ]

ok.


.....they cant even do a background check apprently.

Who can't? The few individuals involved in the arrest - or the entire Iraq security forces, as you seem to be implying here.

[OTZ]

Tens of thousands is indeed a small amount compared to 130k (160k total with other countries I believe) currently. Wouldnt really suprise me if troop strength came down to 50k-75k levels and serve more as a backup. Of course it also wouldnt suprise me if the numbers were even lower either. Got an big elections in 2006 too as well and politicans are of course politicans.

50-70K is neither small nor "very small" as you indicated in your first post. 70K would represent more than half of the mean number of troops in Iraq (which is approx 138K).

50K is also not a small amount when compared to 130K.

Just nitpicking, but your wording made me feel that you think the US-led troops are ready to cut tail and run, leaving only a token force in-country - when clearly this is not the case.

[danzig]

50-70K is neither small nor "very small" as you indicated in your first post. 70K would represent more than half of the mean number of troops in Iraq (which is approx 138K).

50K is also not a small amount when compared to 130K.

Just nitpicking, but your wording made me feel that you think the US-led troops are ready to cut tail and run, leaving only a token force in-country - when clearly this is not the case.

Not at all sorry if I left that impression, Im actually against pulling out troops until the time is right ie country is stablized as much as possible or the Iraq goverment asks us to leave which ever case. The political reality however is 2006 probably sees the reduction in troops.

they cant even do a background check apprently.

Shrug Id like to see more incidents of it to judge it because I know WE make mistakes like that here in the US. Plus the incident did happen over a year ago as well, cant expect a war torn country that is just entering atleast *some* level of stability to not make mistakes.

[Caelius]

This has been in the works for some time now, the only reason troop levels were boosted was to beef up security for the elections. Now that they've taken place the presence of some troops is no longer needed. Coalition troops excluded the current number of US troops in Iraq right now stands at a little over 160,000, with the reductions that number will probably fall to about 153K, and based off of conditions next year that number could further be reduced to about 125-130,000. It really wouldn't have a dramatic effect on US forces as most of the troops being withdrawn are either support units or combat units that Iraqi forces have/will take over for.

[OTZ]

source

hang on.....less troops?
...they need more troops surely, given the situation.

What's the situation?

Wouldn't the Americans or the Iraqis be in a better position than you to determine if more or less troops are needed?

[Manningham]

Whoever thought that we were going to actually see through the transition of Iraq to a functional democratic government was kidding himself. Look at Afghanistan. We cut out of there, leaving a token presence for political talking points, as soon as it was practical to do so and without rebuilding even the sub-par infrastructure.

Iraq will be abandoned as soon as its practical to do so, that's US foreign policy these days. I think there's only a few factors which have kept us this long - This administration's relationship with certain firms which are making huge profits off Iraq's resources and need (Haliburton), and this administration's want to be viewed as virtuous for making an effort in the country.

The Iraqi army is nowhere near ready to take over, and I'm personally skeptical about whether they'll ever be ready ... unless they're heavily backed through US aid like Israel. And if you think we're spending a lot keeping Israel afloat, try and imagine the cost of supporting the Iraqi government.

[Freddie]

Whoever thought that we were going to actually see through the transition of Iraq to a functional democratic government was kidding himself. Look at Afghanistan. We cut out of there, leaving a token presence for political talking points, as soon as it was practical to do so and without rebuilding even the sub-par infrastructure.

Iraq will be abandoned as soon as its practical to do so, that's US foreign policy these days. I think there's only a few factors which have kept us this long - This administration's relationship with certain firms which are making huge profits off Iraq's resources and need (Haliburton), and this administration's want to be viewed as virtuous for making an effort in the country.

The Iraqi army is nowhere near ready to take over, and I'm personally skeptical about whether they'll ever be ready ... unless they're heavily backed through US aid like Israel. And if you think we're spending a lot keeping Israel afloat, try and imagine the cost of supporting the Iraqi government.

YYou haven’t thought that post through have you. Do you do know that Iraq is one of largest exporters of oil in world? Through oil revenue alone they will have hundreds of billions dollars flooding in there country much like they now. What do you think is paying for the rebuilding effort? And what makes you think that the Iraqi's can't look after themsleves? How are you qualifying that statement? YOu have the two best armies in the world over there at the moment training the army and poilce force. If anything Iraq could have one of the best armies in world in the next 5-10 years.

As for Afghanistan, schools, hospitals roads government have all been redeveloped since the Taliban were removed from power, and the security situation is a lot better as well.