WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Unless the Bush administration significantly cuts American troop levels in Iraq next year, the U.S. military's roughly 140,000-strong presence there will become a detriment to America's national security, according to a report released this week.
In the latest instance of foreign policy experts calling for the Bush administration to set a timetable for U.S. troop reductions in Iraq, the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, Wednesday said the future of America's military hangs in the balance.
"It has become clear that if we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer army," said the a report written by the center's Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. Korb served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.
The United States must reduce troop levels in Iraq, ideally with 80,000 leaving the country in 2006 and most of the rest leaving by the end of 2007, to avoid losing a broader "struggle against violent extremists" that goes beyond Iraq, the report says.
A timetable for U.S. troop reductions would carry the additional benefit of putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to stabilize the country quickly, Korb said during a panel discussion at the center on Wednesday -- an argument recently used by Democrats including Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.
However, the Bush administration has given no indication that it will introduce one -- and no "responsible administration" would, according to James Dobbins, a panelist at the discussion and director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the nonprofit RAND Corp.
"I don't think that any responsible administration would either articulate or allow themselves to be held to a deadline or schedule," Dobbins said, "which doesn't mean that its opposition can't propose it."
The eight page report by Korb and Katulis calls for the redistribution of American military power, taking troops out of Iraq and relocating thousands to Kuwait, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and southeast Asia. All National Guard and Reserve troops would return to the United States under the proposed plan.
The new locations of troops currently deployed in Iraq would better confront a global terrorist threat and give reserve units a much-needed rest, according to the report.
"Crouched in the trenches in Iraq, the Bush administration has lost sight of the broader battlefield in a global war against multiple networks of violent extremists," the report says, specifying Somalia, Sudan and the Philippines as "breeding grounds for terrorists.
Beyond forcing Iraqi politicians to compromise with one another when the country's first permanent postwar government takes control in January 2006, the proposed reductions of American troops would also speed up the U.S.-led training of the Iraqi military, Korb said.
The training of the Iraqi military has gone slowly because there has been a lack of motivation, Korb said, noting that American troops regularly enter combat situations with only basic training.
"We take young men and young women and we send them to three months of training and (then) send them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's not a question of training," he said. "It's really motivation, and if we give them a deadline, that should be the motivation they need. And if it's not, they'll never get it."
Army basic training, in fact, lasts nine weeks and is followed by advanced training in the soldier's job specialty. The Army says advanced infantry training immediately after basic lasts 14-16 weeks, for example, while intelligence training lasts more about 28-29 weeks.
While some experts said setting a timetable for troop reductions could not hurt because the U.S. military would eventually have to leave Iraq anyway, others sharply disagreed.
While the Bush administration is unlikely to announce a timetable for troop reductions, the CAP plan is probably similar to what Bush policymakers have in mind anyway, according to Dobbins, of RAND.
U.S. military planners, administration officials and critics on both the right and left all seem to have different agendas for troop reductions in Iraq, but each group essentially has the same aim -- to have most American troops out of the country by the end of 2007, Dobbins said.
"I think (the new report) is exactly what the U.S. military plan is and I think it's exactly what the administration and the president hopes can take place by then," he said. "The problem is that each of these constituencies, if you will, is speaking for a different audience."
posted
not going to happen... I for one wsih it would. Liberalism would be stamped out of this country for good if every young man had to serve four years in the service or even two.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i would like to see two years of required service for every citizen too...
then we can convert the VA into a national health care sytem and get rid og health insurance...
somehow that doesn't seem liberal or conservative...
i'm not really clear on how miltiary service would stamp out liberalism.... this idea that liberals are somehow unpatriotic and unwilling to fight is propaganda... one of the many arguments the conservatives use to suppport invading iraq is that Clinton was doing it( nation building)too... Bush argued aginit in the 2000 debates and turned around andunnit, and the plans were on the drawing board BEFORE 9-11 too...... they are all lying sax-ochits
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
everyday since I saw you appear on this website. I'm not posting a link 4art... you know damned well you do nothing but imply the authoritarian designs of this administration.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
There you go... You could spend hours reading implication after implication made by you that this country is horrible... facist... totalitarian.... authoritarian... blah blah blah.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Post a link or cease your childlike ranting.
4Art, you are as misleading as you claim the current Administration is. You have suggested Bush is a Nazi many times in our conversations.
Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Scott McLellan's Nov. 8 Press Briefing...
Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --
Q I'm asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --
Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --
Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q -- yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: The country? No.
The US Government? There's certainly a case to be made.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
