Uh, why would this upset people on the left, especially those of us who have been against this war from day one? It would be nice to have specifics, but I understand how these things work. Also, given the recent report out of the Pentagon that Iraqi police and security forces were "marginally literate" and had been infiltrated by insurgents -- oh, and my favorite part was when the Pentagon said that the US was serving up Iraqis as "cannon fodder" (their words not mine) -- well, it doesn't look good for next year. But we'll keep hoping, right? I mean, seriously, it would be great if it were next year.

Yeah, I'm going to get upset about troops coming home when I didn't want them there in the first place. The whole premise of this article makes no sense (this doesn't surprise me). It doesn't drive me nuts, it keeps a bit of hope alive that this thing isn't going to drag out for years and years.

Good for you Myrrander! I appreciate your comments!

Myrrander: You don't have an interest in a "long slog" though. Many "political" Democrats aren't interested in Iraq because of the supposed injustice of the endeavor, they are interested in what public angst over that supposed injustice can do for THEM.

So, you can see why they might feel a constant stream of negative press with no end in sight might benefit their cause. The last thing they want is to have this neatly wrapped up by 2006. I'd bet many would like to see it drag on right up to 2008.

The reality is, the Administration does have a withdrawal plan. It's just that it's an event-triggered plan, not a time-triggered plan. As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and better, the Coalition will be contributing less and less, until finally the phase-out is complete.

This is why the terrorists keep trying to prevent key events, like the election of an interim government and the drafting of a constitution, from coming off. Each time one of these events occurs, it signals progress. These things increase and the strength of the Iraqi people to resist insurgent pressure and take charge of their own destiny.

This is impossible. Col told me it was a quagmire and we would be in Iraq for years. Why would he lie?

Get the job done and get out. I want our men and women home as soon as it's feasible. I appreciate that both those in charge and the troops (as well as many brave Iraqis) are working toward that end.

As a follow up to the original post-

July 28, 2005 – The withdrawal of U. S. troops from Iraq will be based strictly on security conditions in the country and the readiness of Iraqi forces to conduct independent operations, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman in Baghdad said today.
The United States will not withdraw forces until the Iraqi security forces meet conditions to be established by a joint commission, Air Force Brig. Gen. Donald Alston stressed in a news conference.

Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said July 27 that substantial troop reductions could begin as early as spring or summer if the insurgency is put down and Iraqi forces are ready to handle the security mission.

The commissioned-established conditions will cover the combat capability of the Iraqi forces as well as the ability of the Iraqi government's ministries to sustain the forces and support them logistically, Alston said. The progress of Iraqi forces, however, isn't something that can be measured only quantitatively, he explained.

"Combat capability is not just a function of numbers," he said. "It has a subjective quality in terms of the combat seasoning that is going on with Iraqi security forces, and that's, I think, more of an art - a subjective assessment - that the leaders are inputting to their assessments. "

Joint readiness assessments are being conducted every month, Alston said, and the information gathered is giving leaders an idea of what the conditions for withdrawal should be. These assessments are important to ensure the transfer of authority is handled correctly, he said.

"This is critical we get this right," he said. "So we need to be as self-critical as we can be to continue to assess the readiness. "

The Iraqi forces continue to make progress toward achieving readiness, Alston said. The Iraqi Army now has eight ground divisions with 29 brigade headquarters and 101 battalions, he said. The army also has a mechanized division with a brigade headquarters and two battalions and three battalions undergoing training, he added.

The training is being conducted in Iraq and Jordan by international and Iraqi trainers, he said. As the Iraqi forces complete training, they join coalition forces in the field, and their presence aids operations significantly, he said.

"The increased numbers and growing capabilities of Iraqi security forces allow us to continue to put constant pressure on the insurgency," he said.

Well according to the pentagon's latest estimate....They are going to need to keep current troop levels for the next four years at the minimum.


Doesn't that contradict the alleged "reduction" just a tad?

Well according to the pentagon's latest estimate....They are going to need to keep current troop levels for the next four years at the minimum.

If you’re going to quote the pentagon, please make your quote accurate.

"In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq."[link]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1054992">Link

I would have to say that would be a four year maximum, not minimum like you and the media are trying to make it sound like. The General spoke for 30 minutes in that interview about troop levels and drawing down earlier then four years, but the media only reports "worse case" for four years as the only option. Talk about selective hearing, I know children that have better hearing then that,