Petraeus May Renege On Withdrawal Plans If ‘Security Situation Deteriorates’ In Iraq Next Year
Petraeus May Renege On Withdrawal Plans If ‘Security Situation Deteriorates’ In Iraq Next Year
In his Congressional testimony in September, Gen. David Petraeus announced that he would soon begin to withdraw 30,000 troops from Iraq, stating that progress due to the escalation permitted a reduction to “pre-surge” levels by next summer:
Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve.
In multiple public interviews after his testimony, Petraeus vowed to bring the 30,000 troops home by next summer. “[W]hat I showed on Capitol Hill…will take place,” he said on PBS. “Starting in mid-December and then ending in mid-July, the five Army brigade combat teams and two Marine battalions will redeploy,” he said in an interview with Fox News.
President Bush warmly embraced Petraeus’s plan. But it now appears Petraeus may backtrack from this central tenet of his congressional testimony. After undergoing a revision of the “classified campaign strategy” on Iraq, a senior Petraeus adviser reports that Petraeus is willing to leave the troops in Iraq depending on “the security situation on the ground”:
“Redeployments of U.S. brigades — even of the surge forces — are dependent on the security situation on the ground in Iraq. If General Petraeus early next year sees the security situation deteriorating, he will have the courage to go back to the president and say he needs to keep forces that he had planned to send home,” said Col. John R. Martin, senior adviser to Petraeus.
In the end, President Bush and Gen. Petraeus’s strategy has failed at its primary goal. Nevertheless, Petraeus wants to buy more time for his unsuccessful attempt to quell Iraq’s civil war.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
50 Responses to “Petraeus May Renege On Withdrawal Plans If ‘Security Situation Deteriorates’ In Iraq Next Year”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
“…he will have the courage to go back to the president and say he needs to keep forces that he had planned to send home,…”
LOL
What kind of convoluted quadruple-speak is this?
Bush doesn’t want the troops to come home.
And besides, who needs courage to confront Bush, anyways?
(Oh, yeah, the owl might attack….)
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 pmDidn’t take long to reverse any withdrawal talk, did it?
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 pmJust how do they keep all the lies straight?
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pmDon’t these morons understand that NO ONE believes them anymore?
OR, has Petraeus decide that Cheeeney is truly his boss and they need those troops there to go into Iran after they drop a nuc in Tehran??
WHAT BOZO’S !!!
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pmOff topic: How is it we’re so happily troll free today?
//knock on wood
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pmGot that fourth star.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe only promotions left to get are full retirement, book deals and paid as FAUX news expert commentator while selling your book.
Okay, okay, people, what this article says sounds reasonable. If the security situation deteriorates, than the plans have to change. Simple. Reasonable.
The problem is that this administration has no credibility anymore. That’s the problem.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmIsn’t it getting a little obvious?
Say that you’re bringing home the troops in an attempt to appease the American public and satisfy the soundbite media’s attention span.
When the easily distracted ( pretty pretty shiny shiny ) media’s attention wanes, then issue a caveat saying that unless several impossible conditions are met, then you might have to keep the troops in Iraq.
And when you wind up doing what you had actually planned on doing in the first place (keeping troops in Iraq), and the media calls you on it, you remind them that you warned them that this might happen. And the media nods sagely and agrees sadly with the decision because, after all, he did warn us.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pmDUH.
(p.s.—remember when petraeus was in charge of “[h]elping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq’s security forces” back in 2004? heckuva job.)
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmAnd to think…everyone got all bent out of shape when MoveOn.org had the guts to say “Betrayus”.
If the shoe fits, you fascist fscks…if the shoe fits.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pmNow what I could stand to listen to this morning from Bush was maybe 2000 would be redeployed with later on maybe 3500. And by redeployed that could be back to Afganistan which is heating up again.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pmI believe this is what has always been called a bait and switch.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:09 pmI believe this is what has always been called a bait and switch.
“using the american soldiers’ lives” is the end of that sentence.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm“I believe this is what has always been called a bait and switch.”
Comment by woodguy
Or selling a pig in a poke, for you red staters.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pmBetrayUs was in favor of bringing home the troops before he was against it.
Or maybe he was in against the continued killing and maiming of US troops for an illegal, immoral and unsustainable war, before he was in favor of it.
Either way, it’s clear — Petraeus is a flip-flopper. Now, trolls, isn’t it time to bring on the “phony soldier” and “swift boat” comments???
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pmNo wonder he’s called:
BETRAYUS
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pmits OK if Betrayus reneges on the 30,000 troop reduction next summer as long as we get our 5,000 Christmas troops this year making for a truly awesome joyous Christmas Season.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm.
We all should know that when the situation in Iraq deteriorates a surge is required to turn that situation around until which time the situation there is sufficient proof that our military presence has created a stable situation in which Iraq is perfectly capable of tolerating our continued military presence there for all time, at either surge or presurge levels. I trust that this clears up any misunderstanding or misgivings about our foreign policy regarding Iraq.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pmMaybe it was a faux concept from the outset which was intentionally spun to alleviate some of the damage being done to the GOP and it’s candidates by this amoral, illegal war?
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:18 pmThey are buying more time with blood…the fix is in, war and more war is in order - all out of greed.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:18 pmProbably all smoke and mirrors in the first place. Nothing more than a very pedestrian PR stunt by the Great Divider and His Sycophant General Betray-us.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pmThe cracking sound you hear is the US military splintering from the strain of the Neo-Con pipe-dream.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pmits OK if Betrayus reneges on the 30,000 troop reduction next summer as long as we get our 5,000 Christmas troops this year making for a truly awesome joyous Christmas Season.
.
Comment by pluege — October 22, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Wait a minute?! I thought it was a war AGAINST Christmas, not a war ON Christmas or a war FOR Christmas or a war BECAUSE of Christmas. I’m getting really confused - maybe I need another Bible study class.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — October 22, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Yes, by all means — we MUST maintain the instability in perpetuity. At either surge or pre-surge levels.
You did a perfect example of neoconspeak in your post. Unfortunately, there are too many people who treat this nonsense as if it was uttered from a burning bush (no pun intended).
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt’s like Groundhog Day (deja vu?) all over again.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pmI’m a bit confused - does this mean that Patraeus will likely be keeping the SURGE! troops longer than their 15 month maximum tour times? Or will he cut just short of that somehow?
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pmSince he has run out of resources, there are but three options - extend the tours of those in Iraq, rotate in prior forces before they have 4 to 6 months of rest or bring in rookies before they have sufficient training. The equipment problems have no solution.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pmPlans change based on circumstances. Whatd’ya think, that he would be stupid enough to set firm withdrawal dates in order to embolden the enemy?
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 pmHey WalttheMan…
How come you’re not running the show? Gee, you’re so smart I can’t believe the Joint Chiefs aren’t consulting with you…
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pmwoodguy: “I believe this is what has always been called a bait and switch.”
EXACTLY! This is the “bait and switch” administration. Bait with “compassionate conservatism,” and switch to hardline conservative ideologue. Bait with “weapons of mass destruction” and switch to “regime change,” and then switch to “spreading democracy.” Bait with “healthy forests” and switch to no regulation of timber companies. Coincidentally, “bait and switch” is a common tool of corporate capitalists.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pmJT, come on now. You know as well as we do that Patraeus could say any damn thing he wants to and you’d buy it hook, line and sinker.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 pmHey WalttheMan…
How come you’re not running the show? Gee, you’re so smart I can’t believe the Joint Chiefs aren’t consulting with you…
Comment by JT — October 22, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Any cogent response to what Walt actually said?
Didn’t think so.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pmGeneral Petraeus knows a lot more about the situation than any of us posting to this website. You all are just playing armchair quarterback and wringing your hands with defeatist policies.
I think the irony here is that most of you have “war is not the answer” or “Obama08″ stickers on your SUVs. I agree war isn’t the answer, but what other solutions do you propose for suicidal maniacs who think their actions will be rewarded with a multitude of virgins? Turn the other cheek?…
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pmLet me get this straight…more troops were needed to improve the security in Iraq….but since the security hasn’t improved…the extra troops should stay there to…improve the security in Iraq?
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm…….and life is good under zionism??? ……nazi ran???
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm……demonicocracy…..only god could spawn such madness….
I am not sure that anyone reading this story has done the math yet: with current, extended 15 month rotations for the US Army, the 30,000 troops must—repeat MUST—come home. There are no current replacements for them now, nor will there be in the future unless the administration chooses to ’support the troops’ by extending their already extended tours in the theater.
12 months = 15 months = and now 18 months or more.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pmEven Bushco isn’t stupid enough to spend a trillion dollars occupying a country they intend to relinquish. Permanent bases are, and always were, the main objective.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pmjt: “I agree war isn’t the answer, but what other solutions do you propose for suicidal maniacs who think their actions will be rewarded with a multitude of virgins? Turn the other cheek?…”
No. History and experience clearly shows that the best way to deal with terrorism is through domestic and international law enforcement agencies cooperating to the fullest and with the help of military assets when needed (for example to send cruise missles into a terrorist training camp.) Invading a country which had nothing to do with attacks on you is certainly not the answer.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pmJT…The only way to stop “suicidal maniacs” is to enlist the aid of the locals, who know the language, know the people, know the neighborhoods.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmDebathification and Abu Gharaib turned many potential Iraqi allies against us.
Petraeus has reversed this somewhat by giving defacto amnesty to former insurgents, who want us to leave…but don’t want foreign fanatics blowing up their markets. Their help is what has turned the corner for Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Last March, we were asked to give the surge a chance, and wait a Friedman until the Betrayus Report in September. In September, Betrayus said we needed to wait another Friedman, keeping the surge in place until March. Now, we are being told that the troops will likely stay a Friedman beyond that, until September 2008. At that time, it will be right before the elections, and we will have to keep the troops in another Friedman, lest we be accused of manipulating the troops for political reasons. That will take us to March, 2009, and a new administration, which will then be blamed for the failure in Iraq.
Remember, each Friedman = 600 American deaths.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pmJust a few more months and this,
just a few more months and that,
just until next summer and we . . .
should be able to keep this illegal invasion going until our
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 pmcriminals are out of office and then we’ll have pulled off
the ultimate in ‘externalization’ by leaving it for others
to deal with.
General Petraeus knows a lot more about the situation than any of us posting to this website. You all are just playing armchair quarterback and wringing your hands with defeatist policies.
Comment by JT
1. Petraeus may know more about the situation, but that doesn’t entail he’s been exactly truthful about it:
http://alaskafreepress.com/msgboard/board/2114
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 09/ 04/ hiding-stats-from-gao/
And of course his wonderful rosy op-ed back in 2004 about how swell our training of Iraqis was going:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A49283-2004Sep25.html
So excuse my slight bout of skepticism about believing everything this man has said when it’s clear he’s got some political overtones in his rhetoric at times.
I think the irony here is that most of you have “war is not the answer†or “Obama08″ stickers on your SUVs.
Actually the irony of incessant war supporters like yourself coming in here and pretending to have a balanced view while clearly supporting Mr. 24% on this is much more evident.
I agree war isn’t the answer, but what other solutions do you propose for suicidal maniacs who think their actions will be rewarded with a multitude of virgins? Turn the other cheek?…
By “suicidal maniacs” I’ll assume you’re referring to the Sunnis and Shiite death squads who’ve lived there and fought each other long before we decided to jump in the middle of things. They will continue to battle one another no matter how much DEMOKRAZY we attempt to pursuade them with. Which, BTW, I think you would agree that our bit of pursuasion (i.e. shooting them dead and blowing up their children, Blackwater anyone?) isn’t exactly the most enticing means of winning their hearts and minds, you know?
But since we’re essentially fighting for a Shiite fundamentalist government in leagues with Iran as well as arming Sunnis on the other side (and possibly giving $ to the Saudis which, strangely that $ ends up in the Sunni insurgent hands), things will no doubt turn around for you, won’t they? Then we can just continue to “just trust” our beloved Bush and his politicizing General.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm#33 Comment by JT — October 22, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
General Petraeus knows a lot more about the situation than any of us posting to this website.
You betcha, JT! He is Bush’s and Chainy’s man. He knows better than us when he will say yes to withdrawal and exactly when to change his mind according to his masters wishes. We only know, in advance, that it WILL happen, but are not privy to when.
You all are just playing armchair quarterback and wringing your hands with defeatist policies.
No, you are wrong here! YOU are wringing YOUR hands as you try and prevent this massive defeat and horrible debacle from becoming what it already has become. Common knowledge and belief by the American public.
I think the irony here is that most of you have “war is not the answer†or “Obama08″ stickers on your SUVs.
Actually, its ironic that you no doubt believe this “talking point” baloney. We Progressives are not the “bumper strip” philosophers you so desperately want to believe we are. For instance my “bumper strip philosophy” reads “First things first! Impeach Cheney” And my choice for President is Al Gore, not Obama or Clinton.
I agree war isn’t the answer,
Yeah, you say that now, but you were always a cheerleader for the neocons, weren’t you? C’mon now admit it, you thought Rumsfeld and his “shock and awe” was really great stuff. Bet you were glued to the TV back in ‘03 cheering them on.
…but what other solutions do you propose for suicidal maniacs who think their actions will be rewarded with a multitude of virgins? Turn the other cheek?…
Read Col. Jack’s response to you above… And will you admit that this is not a real question? And that you are not really interested in any answer except to continue the war as it has been going on since ‘03.
You are a troll, plain and simple. Pity…
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pmAbout the only surprise I can see here is that this is coming out about 3-4 weeks earlier than expected. So much for a few extra soldiers being home for Christmas this year. Bush has already fired 3 top Generals in Iraq for not being able to bring about a military victory.
The only bone I have to pick with the General’s is why have they agreed to take on a task that they know has the slimest of chances of being successful. The Department of Defense cannot get the job done by themselves. The State Department needs to step up to the plate. They have been deadly silent for 5 years now (since the bungled presentation to the UN by Powell). Rice, not Petraeus, is the key player and she is nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile Petraeus, like all the other General’s before him, is taking it on the chin.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pmThe surge and the Petraeus strategy is working remarkably well:
Violence in Iraq drops sharply: Ministry
Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:01pm EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.
Washington began dispatching reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq’s feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi’ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.
While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country’s warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling violence.
Under the plan, U.S. troops left their large bases and set up combat outposts in neighborhoods while launching a series of summer offensives against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, other Sunni Arab militants and Shi’ite militias in the Baghdad beltway.
Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters that there had been a 70 percent decrease in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September over the previous quarter…
In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 pmLook, it doesn’t matter how many troops they ‘bring home’; they will just be replaced by hired killer mercenaries, many of whom aren’t even American citizens.
Where do you think one (1) trillion dollars go to.
∞
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 am#46 Comment by alphainfinityomega — October 23, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Look, it doesn’t matter how many troops they ‘bring home’; they will just be replaced by hired killer mercenaries, many of whom aren’t even American citizens.
Unless they bring them all home, which is the only real course of action.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 am#45 - Use some common sense.
If violence is down by 70% then why this story about Petraeus backing down on bringing some troops home starting this December? Obviously, that story you quoted has cherry-picked some small aspect of violence in order to make a point. And that is one of the problems, the data is not uniform with manipulation for political purposes (both sides do it to some extent). About the only number that is reliable is troops killed. After being God-awful for the first 8 months of 2007 they have come down nicely the last two months.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 amI see starting with comment #1 (Nevar) we note the same absurd premise.
It’s like going to Bush and asking him if he wants a cookie.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 amWhy would be courage be necessary?
Re: #36 - Michael Lafferty
Isn’t it amazing how Bush can claim ’support’ for the troops?
And isn’t it galling how he can claim that unless Congress gives him 100% of everything he wants, they don’t support the troops?
While he and Petraeus are breaking the military with over(and over)-extended tours, and under supplying them with life-protecting equipment (even though Congress has provided plenty of funds)?
And finally, isn’t it amazing how the 25%’ers still buy into the charade?
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 am