The U.S. military will likely maintain or possibly even increase the current force levels of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top US. commander in the Middle East said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of how quickly American forces can be brought home.
Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed.
”If it’s necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we’ll do it,” he said. ”If we have to call in more forces because it’s our military judgment that we need more forces, we’ll do it.”
Abizaid said that right now the current number of troops ”are prudent force levels” that are achieving the needed military effect.
His comments came as U.S. political leaders continue to face declining public support for the war in Iraq, as they head into the coming congressional elections. Abizaid, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace are expected to meet with members of Congress later this week.
Late last year, military leaders had said they hoped to reduce troop levels to about 100,000 by the end of this year. But Abizaid said Tuesday that the rising sectarian violence and slow progress of the Iraqi government made that impossible.
”I think that this level probably will have to be sustained through the spring,” he told military reporters. ”I think that we’ll do whatever we have to do to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan and use the military power of the U.S. to do that.”
10 Comments
Well, of course, Boo, we are not leaving Iraq! the resident of our house in DC has said so. And after all he is the decider, now isn’t he. He said we will leave it up to the next president[s] to do what he needs to do now. It will never happen under this goverments watch…I pity the future of the government, for they will have a severly hard time to get control of the situation, and it is bound to get worse…
The placement, they figure, of our troops in Iraq will help in t he invasion of Iran, or so they figure anyhow. Once we control the waters, air then will come the land. So what now?!
We have a bunch of crazies ruling our government and it make me madder than mad. Try this group for war crimes now.
No Shit?
That’s why the Bush administration insists on “total victory” even though total victory can’t be defined or achieved.
that, and the fact that they are morons.
“Prudent force levels that are achieving the desired military effect”?
What desired effect is that exactly? Can anybody clear that up for me?
The effects I see are more dead/wounded U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens, increased U.S. alienation from the rest of the “civilized world”, increased probability of our own economic collapse, increased motivation for the terrorists and our nation divided into bitter opposing camps.
Now I read here about an impending war with Iran! WTF! What is the justification? (don’t say WMD’s, cause we know they don’t have them!) Where will the troops come from? Who will support us? How do we pay for it? What can we possibly accomplish that will be positive??
How long do they expect to continue this insanity? How long does the media obediently play along? How long does Congress look the other way? How long do the voters sit on their hands? Holy moral dilemma BatMan!
Of course the US is never leaving Iraq. The plan was to seize Iraqi oil for the US, thereby resolving a host of problems involving the current account budget, the weakening dollar, and . . . uh . . the price of gasoline.
It did not work.
So plan B: Keep anyone ELSE from getting Iraqi oil. Specifically preventing the Iranians from getting it, which is a real risk if the US just walks out. Or the Turks. Or anybody. So that means staying, and keeping the chaos going. I don’t know how many of the death squads over there are ours, but in the early days of death squadding (remember Negroponte?), ALL of them were ours. Most of them still are. Iraq is now one big false flag operation designed to generate chaos.
Unfortunately for us, this plan B is a matter of treading water at the expense of our future position: Right now we are generating and expanding the opposition that will bring us down later. But BushCo is not going to understand that: They really believe that American liberals were the cause of our defeat in Vietnam, and that repeating the Vietnam strategy–the whole, pointless, Geneva-defying, genocidal morass of it–is the road to victory rather than defeat. They know no military strategy whatever, not Clausewitz, not Sun Tzu, not Mao (who is very much to the point), not anybody.
So there we are, until the end.
Yes, there will be an end, but that is another story. As long as Americans cling to their cars and the idea of cheap gas, they will cling to Iraq, and they are not wrong: Letting go would accelerate the inevitable. It is a trade–short term comfort for long term disaster, but it is the trade that is being made. And will be made, for a while longer. Too long, I fear, but what of that?
Thanks for the response. Your ability to put down on paper what so many feel is appreciated. May I be allowed to suggest that you work the above into a diary? I think the BooMan himself might put it on the front page. It should be read by a whole bunch of us pond dwellers, not just me!
I’ll write if I can–thinking about it.
Yeah, I changed that one critical letter, ’cause explains the maintenance of the full force through “next spring”, as opposed to any other time frame. If the Supreme Council in Iran chose to break the impasse on nukes with an end date to complete negotiations (say, November 7), the world literally changes.
Totally removes the potential for an October wag of the dog.
Chocolate rations are up 12%!
Pax