Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Washington Post
Iraq Order of Battle
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News

Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Digby's Blog
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Saturday, November 26, 2005


The clock is running

Atrios posted this

Declaring Victory and Pretending to Get Out

Attaturk's got the right idea. Certainly, as Josh says, this is all about the 2006 elections bt it's more complicated than that. I'm sticking with my "we're never leaving while George Bush is in office." The number of troops in Iraq is now at near record levels, so decreasing that number somewhat is possible simply by reverting back to the average. Perhaps they'll go down to 100,000 as that's a nice round number.

Still, it isn't just the fact that the troops are there that's a problem it's the fact that they're dying. If troop strength is decreased simply for electoral purposess and the declining numbers leave those who remain more vulnerable then that's a problem.
I disagree with this.

The fact is that the Army has until mid-summer 2006 to remain a viable force in Iraq. Both Guard and RA enlistments are coming to an end, and people cannot do more than three tours in Iraq. A fourth tour would pretty much guarantee a broken marriage and or severe injury. The human body can take only so much stress.

Sure, the units may remain there, but the edge will slowly and permanently slide over to the resistance.

Bush may want to remain in Iraq forever, but rumblings of deployal refusals are in the air. You cannot send Guard units on repeat tours, some shouldn't have been sent on one.

Once you start reducing troops, the pressure to bring them home increases expoentially, and their combat effectiveness declines. If you leave 50,000 troops in Iraq, they won't be able to move. They will be under increasing attacks daily and soon penned in their bases.

We are short by at least two-thirds of the troops we need there to provide security and place the Resistance on their heels. The fact is that fewer troops just make for more targets. Holding Anbar becomes impossible, then Tirkit goes. If the British leave, the South is gone.

And at that time, people get ideas. Like, oh, let's cut off a US base, or lets ambush a patrol and kill everyone as a lesson.

Once we start to wind down, the pressure for a total withdrawal becomes inexorable. The Iraqi government is making that point all too clear by defending the resistance.

posted by Steve @ 2:57:00 PM

2:57:00 PM

The News Blog home page


Editorial Staff

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans