Current level of troops in Iraq until 2010?

herekitty · #1 10-13-2006, 12:02 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d/mideast/iraq

Quote:

'Tough' Time in Iraq to Continue, Casey Says

By Josh White and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 12, 2006; Page A21

Violence in the Baghdad region has peaked with a flare-up of sectarian attacks in the past few weeks, leaving U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government "not comfortable" with the current situation there, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, said yesterday.

Casey, in Washington for regular meetings with top U.S. officials, said at a Pentagon news conference that Iraq is a "tough situation" and that he expects it to continue to be difficult through Ramadan and in coming months, as Sunni and Shiite extremists vie for control of that nation's capital.

"I think it's no surprise to anyone that the situation in Iraq remains difficult and complex," Casey said.

The general tempered his assessment of the Baghdad area by saying that progress exists in Iraq alongside the attention-grabbing violence. Much of the country is relatively peaceful, Casey said, and U.S. goals for the development of Iraqi security forces are on track.

He said the current approach of bringing the level of the insurgency down as Iraqi forces stand up is still "a valid framework for what we're doing in Iraq," and he was dismissive of a wholesale strategic change, as some members of Congress have recently suggested.

Casey said there are no plans to boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq in the near term, but he said that if he needs more, he'll ask.

"It's a tough nut: Whether or not bringing in more troops . . . will have a significant long-term impact on the violence," Casey said. "There's no question [that] locally, more troops will have some affect on the levels of violence, but whether more U.S. troops for a sustained period will get us where we're going faster is an open question."

Earlier, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that he plans to be able to provide enough troops to maintain the current level in Iraq through 2010. There are about 140,000 U.S. soldiers there.

"I don't think you should read too much into this," he said, cautioning that "this is not a prediction," but rather an attempt to be prepared for any contingency. The Army provides troops to field commanders, who determine their troop requirements in consultation with the defense secretary and the White House.

Casey and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met with President Bush yesterday. Casey said he believes the ongoing wave of violence in Baghdad is intensified by the holiday period and the inability of the newly created Iraqi government to handle such a volatile situation. Casey said that although he believes there has been progress on the security front, "this is going to be a long-term process."

Rumsfeld declined to speculate on plans for troop levels or how the U.S. military services might supply troops for a lengthy stay in Iraq, saying that he is evaluating a series of briefings on the matter.

"We're looking around corners, up ahead, and asking ourselves how we would do things," Rumsfeld said.

In his meeting with reporters, Schoomaker, the Army chief, also elaborated on comments made Tuesday at an Army convention that public support for the military is "tepid."

The U.S. public respects the military, he said, but lacks an understanding of how dangerous the world has become and so isn't funding the military adequately, he said. "This is about what's good for America in the strategic environment we're in. . . . I think this is America's choice."

He also insisted that while he strongly desires a sharp increase in spending on the Army, he hasn't threatened to quit over the issue, as has been rumored. "I've never discussed early departure with anybody," he said. "It's not useful to walk around here threatening anybody."

Schoomaker is expected to retire in the next 12 months. Pentagon insiders expect Casey to succeed him.

Inthehole06 · #2 10-13-2006, 03:56 PM

What a waste of money, and another four years! ha wait til '08.

W. Wanker · #3 10-13-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inthehole06

What a waste of money, and another four years! ha wait til '08.

you mean 2008, when we "elect" another rich white guy to lie to us for a salary bigger than most of us will ever see?? oh dude, im like totally stoked for '08.

Inthehole06 · #4 10-13-2006, 06:33 PM

Maybe you would prefer if the American public elect a homeless man off the street, or some hippie.

But in anycase, you missed my point. The opposing party don't wish to be in Iraq as the republicans do.

W. Wanker · #5 10-14-2006, 01:02 AM

The opposing party... THERE IS NO OPPOSING PARTY!

You live in an illusion to think that the Supercrats are gonna come rescue you from the evil clutches of the Republo-Cons. Doesn't work like that.

But in consideration of my crusade to stop picking on the slaves, I will just stop now. But here's a tip:

Think.... Independent!