Rumsfeld given withdrawl plan by Pentagon

[chomerics]

THis is why Murtha came out about it, he had the Pentagon behind him. . .

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

The proposal comes as tension grows in both Washington and Baghdad following a call by a senior House Democrat to bring U.S. troops home and the deaths of scores of people by suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities.

House Republicans were looking for a showdown Friday after Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and well-respected Vietnam veteran, presented a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date." (Watch Murtha urge legislators to sign off on pulling out troops -- 1:37)

Murtha on Thursday called the administration's management of the conflict "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" that is "uniting the enemy against us."

"It's time to bring the troops home," he said.

Republicans were looking to lock horns with Democrats after Murtha's remarks.

Rather than distancing themselves from Friday's resolution, House majority leader Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, welcomed a debate and vote, forcing Democrats to stand alongside Murtha or go on record against the withdrawal.

Meanwhile, at least 90 people were killed in two suicide bombings in Iraq, according to hospital officials. The U.S. military put the casualties at 150, without giving a breakdown. (Full story)

The deadliest of the attacks took place in Khanaqin, a Shiite-Kurdish town about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Baquba. Two suicide bombers detonated bombs near or inside Shiite Muslim mosques, destroying both of the structures, Iraqi and U.S. authorities said.

Scores of people were killed.

The attacks came during midday prayer services, when the mosques were full of worshippers, many of them children, the Khanaqin mayor said.

Also Friday, two suicide car bombings in Baghdad killed at least six people near a hotel, police said. (Watch security camera video of suicide car bomb -- :30)

The hotel is near the Iraqi Interior Ministry compound, where about 170 detainees were found last weekend, some with signs of torture, according to Iraqi officials. There were no reports of damage to the compound, and the U.S. military said the hotel was the target of the attack.

Rumsfeld has yet to sign Casey's withdrawal plan but, the senior defense official said, implementation of the plan, if approved, would start after the December 15 Iraqi elections so as not to discourage voters from going to the polls.

The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn.

Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.

CNN's Dana Bash, Arwa Damon, Enes Dulami and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

[Ignatius J.]

the plot thickens.

[chomerics]

the plot thickens.

Yep, and it is just the beginning. This could make Watergate look like childs play. . . it is sure interesting watching it all play out though.

[Ignatius J.]

Now that the blood has calmed down, realistically, does any of this mean anything? Is there any chance of a single republican supporting a proposal to bring troops home based on anything other than the whim of the president?

[WallyVon]

Now that the blood has calmed down, realistically, does any of this mean anything? Is there any chance of a single republican supporting a proposal to bring troops home based on anything other than the whim of the president?

If recent votes in the House are any indication, yes. There is a significant group of moderate Republicans, 30 or so, who have been dissenting from their party on a number of bills lately. They killed a financial bill this past week. Murtha has made a very convincing argument, and I think some moderate republicans looking to distance themselves from this administration will vote with the Democrats here.

[Underwater Ally]

Nah, don't get too excited. "Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year." This has all the markings of a phased withdrawl - hence the number of options, and the withdrawl by unit of Brigades. Not quite the same thing Murtha was calling for.

And it comes from the top US military Commander in Iraq, the one person who Bush will consider the authority on such things. What hasn't been communicated in all of this is that the Bush Administration did have a plan all along - that was to let the military do whatever it wanted to do. As I said before in the last thread Chom, the conservative view of military intervention is dictated by the experience in Vietnam. There our military was highly constrained and controled by the LBJ administration. Bush's approach is exactly the opposite: put the military in the drivers seat, climb in the back to take a nap, and tell the driver to wake us up when he thinks we've reached our destination. We've seen some problems with this approach as well, but thats the rationale.

Now that the MILITARY leadership is talking about beginning a phased withdrawl soon, NOW the Bush administration will beging to talk about it seriously.

[Redskins Diehard]

And this is exactly how it should be done. The President gives the military a mission and endstate. The military decides how to get it done and lets the President know when they think they are there.

Nobody on Pennsylvania Ave or in the Capitol building should be making this decision.

Of note concerning this whole situation is the fact that people want to put all the blame on the President for what is going wrong in the execution of this endeavor. In reality it is the military that is making the day to day decisions on how the whole thing is conducted. I haven't heard a whole lot of people, if any, place blame on the military for poor execution. Is that because there would not be any support for such a position?

Why hasn't anyone spoken out against Tommy Franks for going to war with too few people? He is either a) foolish, or spineless if that were the case.

The same could be said for Colin Powell who "mislead" the world during his presentation to the UN. Was he not bright enough to idenitfy bogus and manufactured intelligence? Or was he unwilling to make a stand for something he believes in?

Why do these two gentlemen get a free pass on this whole thing?

And on a side note...the mans name is Murtha. As a distinguished veteran AND member of the House of Representatives I believe he deserves to have his name referenced properly.

* To avoid any confusion, I think GEN Franks and Secretary Powell are great Americans.

[Underwater Ally]

And this is exactly how it should be done. The President gives the military a mission and endstate. The military decides how to get it done and lets the President know when they think they are there.

Nobody on Pennsylvania Ave or in the Capitol building should be making this decision.

:applause:

[Sarge]

Of note concerning this whole situation is the fact that people want to put all the blame on the President for what is going wrong in the execution of this endeavor. In reality it is the military that is making the day to day decisions on how the whole thing is conducted. I haven't heard a whole lot of people, if any, place blame on the military for poor execution. Is that because there would not be any support for such a position?

Why hasn't anyone spoken out against Tommy Franks for going to war with too few people? He is either a) foolish, or spineless if that were the case.

Because we work for civilian bosses. When the civilian boss wants to try out a new, light expeditionary method of kicking ass, that's what you do. Franks can say all he wants, but in the end you salute and do what you're told.

I prefer the overwhelming force method myself. It worked great in Desert Storm. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the military that we kicked as much ass as we did with the few forces we sent in to do the job

[Redskins Diehard]

Because we work for civilian bosses. When the civilian boss wants to try out a new, light expeditionary method of kicking ass, that's what you do. Franks can say all he wants, but in the end you salute and do what you're told.

I prefer the overwhelming force method myself. It worked great in Desert Storm. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the military that we kicked as much ass as we did with the few forces we sent in to do the job

GEN Shinseki did not "salute and do what you are told". It would be irresponsible for a man in GEN Franks position to commit the forces he did IF he didn't think it was sufficient. My point is that HE DID think they were sufficient and he is far more suited than you or I or anyone else on this board to make that decision.

I agree with the second paragraph.

[chomerics]

Nah, don't get too excited. "Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year." This has all the markings of a phased withdrawl - hence the number of options, and the withdrawl by unit of Brigades. Not quite the same thing Murtha was calling for.

Pretty damn close to what Murtha was calling for. He was calling for a phased withdrawl of about 6 months, this isn't much different.

And it comes from the top US military Commander in Iraq, the one person who Bush will consider the authority on such things. What hasn't been communicated in all of this is that the Bush Administration did have a plan all along - that was to let the military do whatever it wanted to do. As I said before in the last thread Chom, the conservative view of military intervention is dictated by the experience in Vietnam. There our military was highly constrained and controled by the LBJ administration. Bush's approach is exactly the opposite: put the military in the drivers seat, climb in the back to take a nap, and tell the driver to wake us up when he thinks we've reached our destination. We've seen some problems with this approach as well, but thats the rationale.

Now that the MILITARY leadership is talking about beginning a phased withdrawl soon, NOW the Bush administration will beging to talk about it seriously.

I actually don't disagree with you on that part, as the brass has been running this war after the initial invasion, I haven't really had a problem with the military in Iraq, other then the Abu Ghriab fiasco, they did their job. The problem is they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Sarge]

GEN Shinseki did not "salute and do what you are told". It would be irresponsible for a man in GEN Franks position to commit the forces he did IF he didn't think it was sufficient. My point is that HE DID think they were sufficient and he is far more suited than you or I or anyone else on this board to make that decision.

I agree with the second paragraph.

Shineski was referring to the occupation force, not the invasion force.

And the fact is, the force is stretched thin as it is. IF we had used a force of 100,000 for the occupation we'd be thinner than we are now

[Underwater Ally]

Pretty damn close to what Murtha was calling for. He was calling for a phased withdrawl of about 6 months, this isn't much different.

Except Murtha's whole point was that the whole thing is a disaster and we aren't doing any good, so we need to begin pulling out asap. The top Commander's plan I'm sure has everything to do with timing the pullout based on progress on the ground in Iraq. Thats a big difference. Bush isn't keeping the military there against their will. There is no egg on Bush's face from this -except where you choose to see it

[Art Monk Fan]

The top Commander's plan I'm sure has everything to do with timing the pullout based on progress on the ground in Iraq.

From the story above: "The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn."

You are correct, the plan requires certain conditions on the ground before implementation.

Pretty damn close to what Murtha was calling for. He was calling for a phased withdrawl of about 6 months, this isn't much different.

From the story above: "The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn."

You are wrong, the military plan would withdraw a limited number over the next 12 months, and only if certain conditions on the ground are met. Murtha's plan is a cut and run, the military's plan is a phased pull out tied closely to the measured accomplishment of the original mission. Murtha calls for surrender, Casey calls for victory -- a very big difference, IMHO.

[chomerics]

Except Murtha's whole point was that the whole thing is a disaster and we aren't doing any good, so we need to begin pulling out asap. The top Commander's plan I'm sure has everything to do with timing the pullout based on progress on the ground in Iraq. Thats a big difference. Bush isn't keeping the military there against their will. There is no egg on Bush's face from this -except where you choose to see it

Bush has blood on his hands from this war, not egg on his face a big difference. . .

Furthermore did you read what Murtha had to say? We are feeding the insurgency by our presence. The data he has seen, and the people he has spoken to have said that we are causing more harm then good right now. I think it is pretty much self evedent by the fact that 80% of Iraqi's want the US to leave, and 45% say that attacks on Americans are justified. Yes, 45% of Iraqi's feel that attacks on Americans are justified. That is what you call fueling the fire my friend.

Believe me, Murtha's plan stated exactly what we should do, and it is basically the exact same theing the general said. Now lets see if Congress lets the plan come to a vote on Monday.

[Thiebear]

Pretty damn close to what Murtha was calling for. He was calling for a phased withdrawl of about 6 months, this isn't much different.

Yeah if you say this every year, you eventually get close huh?

He did say this last year didnt he?

[chomerics]

You are wrong, the military plan would withdraw a limited number over the next 12 months, and only if certain conditions on the ground are met. Murtha's plan is a cut and run, the military's plan is a phased pull out tied closely to the measured accomplishment of the original mission. Murtha calls for surrender, Casey calls for victory -- a very big difference, IMHO.

Absolute BULL#$%@!!!! Read exactly what Murtha said, and not what Fox News is telling you he said. It is in the other thread, it is not "cutting and running", only myopic viewpoints and propagandists would dare say this.

It like that disgusting congresswoman from Ohio who was b!tch slapped by her republican fellows yesterday, and had to come back with her tail between her legs and apoligize, the rhetoric is outright disgusting, and it is lead by the top. Their leadership is to attack because they can't defendd their actions and lies. Iraq is not what they say it is, and it is getting worse. We have accompished what we set out to do, and we should start to pull out. Read what the people have to say directly instead of getting your information from second hand sources. . ie Fox News. I saw what they had to say about the incident, and it was well disgusting.

[Art Monk Fan]

Furthermore did you read what Murtha had to say? We are feeding the insurgency by our presence. The data he has seen, and the people he has spoken to have said that we are causing more harm then good right now. I think it is pretty much self evedent by the fact that 80% of Iraqi's want the US to leave, and 45% say that attacks on Americans are justified. Yes, 45% of Iraqi's feel that attacks on Americans are justified. That is what you call fueling the fire my friend.

Believe me, Murtha's plan stated exactly what we should do, and it is basically the exact same theing the general said. Now lets see if Congress lets the plan come to a vote on Monday.

If American forces are the primary target for the insurgents, then why set off two bombs in mosques during Friday prayers? How many American troops were in those mosques?

The goal of the insurgents is to topple the democratic government and establish an unstable religious regime similar to Afghanistan -- a haven for terror camps. The insurgents want civil war and, right now, only the presence of American troops is stopping that. If we cut and run, we will create another Afghanistan and we'll be back there within five years cleaning up our own mess. More American lives will be lost in the long run and, to me, that is not acceptable.

[chomerics]

Yeah if you say this every year, you eventually get close huh?

He did say this last year didnt he?

Here are his own words. . .

(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”

For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Bear, he called out for a safe withdrawl and timely, exactly what the general called for.

[Art Monk Fan]

Absolute BULL#$%@!!!! Read exactly what Murtha said, and not what Fox News is telling you he said. It is in the other thread, it is not "cutting and running", only myopic viewpoints and propagandists would dare say this.

It like that disgusting congresswoman from Ohio who was b!tch slapped by her republican fellows yesterday, and had to come back with her tail between her legs and apoligize, the rhetoric is outright disgusting, and it is lead by the top. Their leadership is to attack because they can't defendd their actions and lies. Iraq is not what they say it is, and it is getting worse. We have accompished what we set out to do, and we should start to pull out. Read what the people have to say directly instead of getting your information from second hand sources. . ie Fox News. I saw what they had to say about the incident, and it was well disgusting.

First off, you constantly accuse me of getting my information from sources of which you do not approve, which sources I do not rely upon. You continue to stereotype me (and others) in a most annoying and infantile fashion. You do not know from where I receive my information, and your sterotypical assumptions are insulting.

To the point of your post: Murtha calls for an immediate withdrawal of forces, justified by the assertion that our forces are the primary target of the insurgency. (Of course, I'm not sure how you'd ever fight any conflict if the condition for withdrawal was our enemies targeting us). He offers no conditions on the ground for withdrawal.

He sets an artificial date and "hopes" that this deadline will pressure Iraqi forces into standing up more quickly. In truth, it is more likely to encourage the insurgents to quiet their activites until the deadline is met and then openly attack and overwhelm the fledgling Iraqi forces upon our withdrawal. AT which point you will have Iraqi civil war and the establishment of an unstable religious state in which terrorist camps can thrive -- Afghanitstan II.

[Thiebear]

Here are his own words. . .

Bear, he called out for a safe withdrawl and timely, exactly what the general called for.

Yeah, i read that: MY entire point was he said that last year didnt he?

So lets not give him too much credit on his "timing"...

Next he'll say we should pull out around June depending with an immediate ramp up to 100-150k Iraqi soldiers. :laugh:

[wskin44]

I heard Murtha say on t.v. that one of the things that convinced him is that Iraqi trainees get one week off out of every four. Many of our soldiers are on their 3rd involuntary deployment but the Iraqi's are not serious about putting together a capable military force to protect their own country. Our soldiers don't get one out of four weeks off, why should theirs?

These people are using us. The Shiites are forcing things on the Sunnis because the American Military is there to back them up. If we weren't there the Shiites will be forced to treat the Sunnis more fairly.

Much of this is about oil, and since very little of it is located in Sunni territory the Shiites and Kurds are playing a heavy hand with the minority Sunnis.

At some point a U.S. presence will have a destabilizing affect on Iraq. That point may already be here.

[WallyVon]

First off, you constantly accuse me of getting my information from sources of which you do not approve, which sources I do not rely upon. You continue to stereotype me (and others) in a most annoying and infantile fashion. You do not know from where I receive my information, and your sterotypical assumptions are insulting.

To the point of your post: Murtha calls for an immediate withdrawal of forces, justified by the assertion that our forces are the primary target of the insurgency. (Of course, I'm not sure how you'd ever fight any conflict if the condition for withdrawal was our enemies targeting us). He offers no conditions on the ground for withdrawal.

He sets an artificial date and "hopes" that this deadline will pressure Iraqi forces into standing up more quickly. In truth, it is more likely to encourage the insurgents to quiet their activites until the deadline is met and then openly attack and overwhelm the fledgling Iraqi forces upon our withdrawal. AT which point you will have Iraqi civil war and the establishment of an unstable religious state in which terrorist camps can thrive -- Afghanitstan II.

As Murtha has said, the status quo isn't working. On that there can be no debate. And this administration has offered no alternative to the status quo. So, just because it is a change, this Murtha legislation should be given a chance.

[Thiebear]

As Murtha has said, the status quo isn't working. On that there can be no debate. And this administration has offered no alternative to the status quo. So, just because it is a change, this Murtha legislation should be given a chance.

You sure its not working? Have you looked at whats going on internally in IRAQ as opposed to the snipits on the news?

[WallyVon]

You sure its not working? Have you looked at whats going on internally in IRAQ as opposed to the snipits on the news?

How could I know what is going on internally in Iraq?? I don't live there.

But I believe the news. The only people who see this going well are choosing to do so and aren't looking at the situation objectively.