Since they are going to have to rotate the surged troops out anyway, this is not breaking news. It is good news, however, and let's hope they stick to it.

So the surge ends late next summer. As everyone knew it had to. Right strategy three years and three hundred thousand men late.

This might suggest the war in Iraq is lost, and immediately prior to the 2008 elections. I'm sure Bush will be glad to stump for Republican candidiates and explain why it's not. Funny in a morbid way.

Every day that the surge achieves any positive change in Iraq is more proof of Rummy's incompetence.
I was always opposed to the war but if we were going to do it anyway we should have gone in with enough troops to do the job and I bet that many of our troops have suffered or died because of the small size of force Rummy chose to send in against the advice of many generals.

Perhaps they should re-read that old Powell Doctrine. Every day the sense of it is more obvious.

danni finding sense in the powell doctrine... thats something i thought i would never read!

i've always wondered why they chose not to send in teh initial troop level called upon by the generals.... it was either
a. bravado, thinking out high tech military doesn't need so many men.
b. belief that the iraqi people would be so sick of violence, after being controlled by it for so many years, that they would actually want to try and come together and work out their shit.

maybe a little of both.

We once again must prepare for the "BUSH/CHENEY", form of Partisian Politics. Anyone who thinks that the Military leadership is not part of the Bush team is crazy!!!!!! Make no mistake they will circle the wagons and ask for more time in the September report, and use the anniversary of 9/11 to swamp the airways with that message!!!! They will get away with it because the Democrats are to concerned about what the republicans will say about them and national security, gutless!!!!! The Democrats must not let the republicians define them, when will they learn?????????

I guess they could ask for more time in Iraq and get it. Whether they ask for more troops and get them is the issue.

Troops are available, provided Bush wants to draw down some other US committment. My guess is he will not do this, as it suggests his Iraqi war has, er, consequences.

YODAR why wouldn't I support the Powell Doctrine which Bush/Cheney/Rummy totally ignored??
It was designed to prevent exactly the type of stupidity that is the Iraq invasion.

Celisary,

The Republicans do not define the Democrats, they do that all by themselves and yes they are gutless.

danni finding sense in the powell doctrine... thats something i thought i would never read!

i've always wondered why they chose not to send in teh initial troop level called upon by the generals.... it was either
a. bravado, thinking out high tech military doesn't need so many men.
b. belief that the iraqi people would be so sick of violence, after being controlled by it for so many years, that they would actually want to try and come together and work out their shit.

maybe a little of both.


plus

c. we didnt have the available troops.
d. we were able to contract out much of the effort.

i'm just surprised that you danni would even consider violence/invasion as a resort to bring about peace.

for instance, where do you stand on the two atomic bombs dropped on japan?

and they didn't totally ignore it, they left out one detail (of course a very important one), to use the full force. and i have a feeling that powell wasn't screaming his head off telling them they had to few troops.

c. sure we did, we just didn't call them up.
d. bad idea in terms of contracting out security, as the rules become fuzzy.

I think the reason they went in with so few troops was:
1. They didn't listen to that Cheney clip from 1994 and Cheney himself didn't remember. If you notice this administration has a terrible problem with memory.

""i'm just surprised that you danni would even consider violence/invasion as a resort to bring about peace.""

I'm not a pacifist. Never have been. I just thought that invading a country which never attacked us was unnecessary and that it would end up as a quagmire. I supported the invastion of Afghanistan.
I was against the Vietnam war because I never could see how a Communist Vietnam effected us in any way. Apparently, since we now do business with a Communist Vietnam I was right.

Oh, and I was taught that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved thousands of American soldier's lives. That is what my Dad told me. I assume that was the case. I have always thought that it was also a warning to the USSR.

Since we're on the subject of the Powell Doctrine, here it is:


1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

"... but if we were going to do it anyway we should have gone in with enough troops to do the job ..."

Okay, Danni, I gotta ask: do what job?

If we were going to do "regime change" then we needed enough troops to take over the country.
Shinsecki said:
"GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."

At the time of the invasion, the only part of the Powell doctrine even remotely true was #7 and that was only achieved with cooked intelligence.

Powell Doctrine Questions 1 through 8, with considered hindsight, the answers are all No, with the exception of 7, which can be answered with a mix of: Yes, No, Maybe, I Don't Know, I Don't Care, We just have to do something, Saddam Who?, Where's Iraq?, Kill all them a-rabs; problem solved, Is Paris Hilton Involved?

Katie, yeah, I think they're batting zero on the Doctrine.

Since Powell didn't insist on the application of the Doctrine it should be renamed.
His name should be removed and replaced with Shinsecki.
The Shinsecki Doctrine.

troop reductions begin 1.20.09

*********Pentagon Looks at Troop Reductions******

.........must be difficult trying to keep the sphincter muscle from snapping closed while trying to get a peek at the outside world............