HEADLINE: AFTEREFFECTS: THE NEW STRATEGY; U.S. Plans to Reduce Forces In Iraq, With Help of Allies
BYLINE: By MICHAEL R. GORDON with ERIC SCHMITT
DATELINE: BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 2 The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.
The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.
Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations.
The British are organizing a "force generation" conference next week in London to solicit troops for the effort, and another conference is likely to be held later this month in Warsaw.
The Bush administration's aim is to bring most of the American troops here back to their bases in the United States and Europe so they can prepare for potential crises.
The administration does not want substantial numbers of American forces to be tied down in Iraq. It is eager to avoid the specter of American occupation, and it is hoping to shift much of the peacekeeping burden of stabilizing Iraq to other governments.
If the administration plan is carried out, the effect would be to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq from over 130,000 soldiers and marines at present to 30,000 troops or fewer by the fall.
I wonder if the reasons why this didn't happen can be found any where in this article, Blueprint for a Mess, which argues that the Bush administration had really no workable post-war plan.
Which, can be found here if the N.Y. Times article runs over the alloted time for free viewing.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It didn't happen because said allies were not quite so enthused about doing Bush's dirty work after being ostracized from the With-Us-And-Favored club for castigating his little war.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or because they still wouldnt be in control of Iraq.
We would.
By Bush's "plan" to pull our forces back to "prepare for potential crises" you can read: "Plan to invade the next country."
Step right up and place your bets! The top bets are
Syria
North Korea
Afghanistan (hey, it worked once! NObody remembers that anyway after Iraq took the spotlight, right?)
France (just because they havent surrendered to anyone in this century yet and we should be he first- before Germany beats us to it again)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I know Turkey's withdrawn it's offer of troops. Mainly because the presence of Turkish soldiers would cause far more harm than good. Especially in Kurdish areas.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :