Comments on: Bush considering cutting Iraq troop levels by half next year

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Sessions expects bipartisan support for drawdown in September

Sun, 27 May 2007 17:56:10 +0000

[...] Sessions is no Arlen Specter/Olympia Snowe centrist Republican so this is worth noting. Reducing the number of troops isn’t the same as withdrawal, of course, and Sessions was careful to say that much will depend on what Petraeus says in his progress report, but with elections coming up Congress is clearly Congress inching towards the exit no matter if Bush is serious about joining them or Iraqis think it’s a good idea. [...]

By: Dave Shay

Dave Shay — Sun, 27 May 2007 11:57:34 +0000

Mongo like candy!

By: Hening

Hening — Sun, 27 May 2007 01:25:11 +0000

Tactical nukes make sense if we wish to reduce US forces.

By: NEMETI IN SYRACUSE

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE — Sun, 27 May 2007 00:42:44 +0000

Let’s get Mookie some teeth, get him a hair cut and get his stinkin ass (which by the way he hasen’t washed for over twenty years) shot and killed. I would like nothing better than to see him hanging over a rail like a landed walleye!!!

By: see-dubya

see-dubya — Sat, 26 May 2007 23:48:30 +0000

Yes, that’s nice, can we please photoshop Rosie’s face under Sadr’s turban now?

By: Patriot33

Patriot33 — Sat, 26 May 2007 22:48:15 +0000

Drudge and the rest are really overblowing/misrepresenting this. Same way the British troop cuts were overblown/misrepresented.

By: NPP

NPP — Sat, 26 May 2007 22:04:11 +0000

AP,

Troop levels will have to come down regardless of what Bush or anyone else want. It’s a product of the surge, our end ground force strength, and rotations.

Currently, we have well over 50% of our deployable ground forces deployed. Anything over 50% is unsustainable which is why this whole operation is called the “surge” in the first place. Even if we wanted to, we could not maintain the current force levels in Iraq past the spring of 2008 without breaking title X and calling up more Guard units, or pulling forces out of Korea and other places to send to Iraq, or extending deployments indefinitely.

Currently around 60% of our ground force is currently deployed and those troops will have to rotate back to the states in the spring of 2008. The remaining brigades currently in the states will rotate out to replace them. Obviously 40% of the force is less than 60.

By: gmoonster

gmoonster — Sat, 26 May 2007 22:02:48 +0000

This is a Pandora’s box to be sure.

Stay and try to stabilize things, the Media and Dems and now some Republicans will continue to wail and gnash their teeth.

Leave, and the situation could descend into an ever worse chaos with Iran probably coming out on top.

By: JustTruth101

JustTruth101 — Sat, 26 May 2007 20:23:59 +0000

We’ve been there for four years, and the iraqis still cannot agree to evenly share the oil revenues amongst each iraqi citizen equally. They could do what the kuwaitis do if they wanted to but obviously they don’t want to, because if they did, it would be done. I’m starting to believe they really do want their civil war, and I don’t want to be there for it. HOWEVER, once we leave and the ethnic cleansing begins, the jihadis will take over, and with the help of Iran they will then have all the oil revenues they will ever need to attack us and we will be paying for all of it at the pump, on top of the fact that the appeasing dhimmis we have elected to office will submit to their demands. Unless and until we get an alternative and renewable energy program up and going, which no one is seriously doing (to not even be drilling ANWR is suicidal…) so what do we do? What is the solution?