U.S. Army to Keep 100,000 Troops in Iraq to 2006

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp...=20031121ANS103

 

.S. Army to Keep 100,000 Troops in Iraq to 2006 -NYT

 

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Army officials plan to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq through early 2006, reflecting concern that stabilizing Iraq could be more difficult than originally planned, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

 

The newspaper reported that a "senior Army officer" warned that maintaining a force of such size beyond early 2006 would cause the Army to "really start to feel the pain" from stress on overtaxed active-duty, reserve and National Guard troops.

 

But the Times said another senior military official cautioned that while the senior Army officer's comments reflected prudent planning, it "has nothing to do with what the security situation on the ground might be in 18 months."

 

The newspaper said the Pentagon plans to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq to 105,000 by May from the current 130,000, and that while some defense officials have raised the possibility of shrinking the force even more next year, the senior officer said planners were assuming the number of U.S. forces in Iraq would probably stay the same when the military begins its third one-year troop rotation in March 2005.

 

"What we're looking at doing is making some assumptions with the Marines about sustaining the type of force we're going to need," said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

"As you look at this, it wouldn't seem prudent right now to plan on using a force of less than what is there now, for March '05." That force would presumably remain in Iraq until March 2006, although its size could fluctuate, depending on conditions on the ground, the Times said.

 

The views of senior Army and Marine Corps officers involved in the planning in Washington are important, the report added, because they track and respond to what ground commanders in Iraq say they require.

[Vern Gagne 0]

It reads like nothing is set in stone at this point. Troops staying in Iraq after Iraqi's take over their gov't isn't that suprising. They'll need help stablizing the country. Running a democratic country. This will be new ground for most Iraqi's.

[Guest JMA]

Well, that's not TOO bad. It'll be 2004 soon, so that's only two years.

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

You guys are silly enough to think they'll stay in Iraq? Methinks Bush has his next country lined up - anyone got an oil production index on them?...

[Firestarter 0]

You guys are silly enough to think they'll stay in Iraq?  Methinks Bush has his next country lined up - anyone got an oil production index on them?...

Fascinating observation. So you think we invaded Iraq because it has oil. And now you've decided that we're going to leave in less than two years, having pumped over 100,000,000,000 barrels of oil in however much time we have left - and we'll completely disregard the gas reserves, not to mention all the undiscovered oil Iraq is believed to possess, because we're not only evil, deceitful, and greedy, but almost unbelievably stupid. Unless you think that we really don't want to enrich ourselves at the expense of other countries, and we just enjoy - in some bizarre fetishistic way - invading countries that happen to have oil?

 

Buy into the latest anti-American left-wing conspiracy theories! Fun for the whole family! (Unless they were gassed, shot, or incinerated by that loveable rogue Saddam Hussein!) You don't even have to make sense!

[Guest Sagrada3099]

I've got nothing to add except that was really funny.

[Guest Cerebus]

You guys are silly enough to think they'll stay in Iraq?  Methinks Bush has his next country lined up - anyone got an oil production index on them?...

Fascinating observation. So you think we invaded Iraq because it has oil. And now you've decided that we're going to leave in less than two years, having pumped over 100,000,000,000 barrels of oil in however much time we have left - and we'll completely disregard the gas reserves, not to mention all the undiscovered oil Iraq is believed to possess, because we're not only evil, deceitful, and greedy, but almost unbelievably stupid. Unless you think that we really don't want to enrich ourselves at the expense of other countries, and we just enjoy - in some bizarre fetishistic way - invading countries that happen to have oil?

 

Buy into the latest anti-American left-wing conspiracy theories! Fun for the whole family! (Unless they were gassed, shot, or incinerated by that loveable rogue Saddam Hussein!) You don't even have to make sense!

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

Fascinating observation. So you think we invaded Iraq because it has oil. And now you've decided that we're going to leave in less than two years, having pumped over 100,000,000,000 barrels of oil in however much time we have left - and we'll completely disregard the gas reserves, not to mention all the undiscovered oil Iraq is believed to possess, because we're not only evil, deceitful, and greedy, but almost unbelievably stupid. Unless you think that we really don't want to enrich ourselves at the expense of other countries, and we just enjoy - in some bizarre fetishistic way - invading countries that happen to have oil?

 

Buy into the latest anti-American left-wing conspiracy theories! Fun for the whole family! (Unless they were gassed, shot, or incinerated by that loveable rogue Saddam Hussein!) You don't even have to make sense!

 

Never said you'd leave after a few years having pumped all the oil - just when things were 'up and running', so to speak. Now that may genuinely be when the country is stable to operate by its own government, and/or when the oil situation is seen to. I personally think both, but that is just my opinion.

 

But to approach the topic in a slightly less sarcastic way, who is next in the war on terrorism? That is, when Saddam and Osama are finally caught (but would it again be silly of me to suggest their capture is not so important now Iraq has been 'secured'?)