Bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends "pullback" in Iraq. Is this just a euphemism for "retreat"?

Question

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Answer 1

In a sense. But the plan is not to immediately turn around & run for the hills, as you sometimes see armies do as portrayed in movies.

The idea is to gradually reduce the number of our troops, while turning over the security of the areas at hand to the Iraqi army. By doing it gradually, they have time to adjust to the fact that they'll be completely in charge, and not have the additional backup for out troops.

Eventually, our troop numbers will be reduced to a small force needed for backup purposes and secondary enforcement (as some have recommended.) After a short time, we'll probably pull out the rest of the soldiers, with the exception of 1 or 2 military bases (I'd expect it to be so, we still have bases in Germany from WWII.)

The euphemism "slow & steady wins the race" definitely works here. Anybody who says that the plan is to immediately pull every soldier out is speaking hogwash and shouldn't be talking about politics. An immediate pullout would not only be dangerous to our soldiers, but to the Iraqis, as well.

Answer 2

Pullback does mean a retreat. Maybe a slower more planned out approach.

However the Bipartisan group probably already figured out that it's a religious civil war that's going on and those last for years and years and years. They don't want the troops out there for the next 30 plus years.

Answer 3

It is just a euphemism for "retreat," unless they can explain how lessening our fighting force is necesssary for victory.

I do love how people think that the word "bipartisan" means "nonpolitical." What a joke.

-Aztec276

Answer 4

yes, i would say both words basically mean the same thing, though a pullback might be more planned out,,, over a slower/longer period of time, perhaps its a slow retreat?

Answer 5

Yes. Graceful exit.