Bush's lie-based trillion-dollar quagmire in Iraq has almost broken our military.
We will need to reduce troops next year REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION, or face a BROKEN MILITARY.
SO HOW DO YOU CONS EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK WE CAN KEEP BLEEDING IN IRAQ FOREVER?
2007-09-11
14:47:02
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Viewing the matter from a different perspective, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are eager to reduce the troop totals as soon as possible because they see worrying signs of strain on troops and their families.
The Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, has a unique perspective on this because he was Petraeus's predecessor for 2 1/2 years and he is openly skeptical of Petraeus's theory that sending extra U.S. troops to Baghdad would create the conditions for Iraqi leaders to agree on power-sharing deals.
On Thursday Casey said he remains convinced that a smaller U.S. force would "cause Iraqis to do more, faster" — a central part of the argument that a bigger U.S. force tends to deepen the Iraqis' dependency and weaken the incentive for them to solve their underlying political differences.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_drawdown_debate_1
2007-09-11
14:47:25 ·
update #1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-24-army-study_x.htm
Study: Army stretched to breaking point
WASHINGTON (AP) — Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that
could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot
sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the
Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization
that the Army was overextended.
2007-09-12
07:27:19 ·
update #2