Or would there be an orderly paced withdrawal that does not compromise troop saftey?
As far as I know it wouldn't be like Clear and Present Danger.....but maybe you know more.
2007-05-24 08:02:27 · 9 answers · asked by Peace Maker 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am all for the 'No soldier left behind" act.I think that a steady withdraw over a six month to a year period would be an effective manner to get out of a region that simply will never be peaceful no matter how much money or troops we throw at it.
2007-05-24 08:12:01 · answer #1 · answered by Demopublican 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't expect an orderly paced withdrawl, but, when it was clear Congress was serious about de-funding, and the money was about to run out, there'd be an immediate withdrawl conducted as safely as possible with the remaining resources.
As with the Fall of Saigon, though, a great many Iraqi 'collaborators' would be left behind, likely to an even more gruesome fate than 're-education' by the VC.
2007-05-24 15:12:23 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, budget planning is made months in advance and the army is covered in terms of budget for about a year. If congresses gave them no money, the army would have enough funds to stay for a long time. Current approval of funds indicates the intention to stay at least until 2009.
Here is an article that breaks up the Military budget for FY 2008 and demonstrates that the funds being provided imply intentions to stay in Iraq for at least a year more. Some of the items are not supposed to get to Iraq until 2009!!!
The army is not in dire straights. The fact is Bush wants more money to give to Honeywell, Halliburton and others in the Military-Industrial complex. The war is not about winning, it is about consuming materiel and enriching arms manufacturers.
War partisans don't believe me? Surely Bush cares about you... surely.
2007-05-24 15:08:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think there would funding for the troops as we withdrew from Iraq. I don't think anyone wants to stop providing for our troops...we just don't want a war with zero time table so it will be our children who have to go there and continue this mess.
2007-05-24 15:06:46 · answer #4 · answered by sketch_mylife 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Bush would leave them there with no armor and lie about how it was the "unpatriotic" anti-war people who did this to them. After all, he sent them there with no armor on a pack of lies.
.....
2007-05-24 15:13:05 · answer #5 · answered by ladykofnyc 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A withdrawal would began
2007-05-24 15:06:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
no responsible president would just abandon the troops but then again we have Bush don't we.
2007-05-24 15:14:47 · answer #7 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no prob in another 5 year all troops will surely die!
2007-05-24 15:10:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Where does this idea come from that if funding is cut, they would be left there to die? Sounds like republican propaganda to me.
2007-05-24 15:06:25 · answer #9 · answered by beren 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋