So General Rick Lynch is saying that pulling troops out of certain areas would be a "giant step backward". Fair enough. But General Pace is "supposedly" saying that we should have a troop cut. Which is a more accurate picture of what's going on? General Lynch does say that we can start bringing home troops in 2008 if things are going well, but of course, that's still up in the air.
Couple that with the recent intelligence estimate that has said that the surge has generated "measurable" success, but doubts the political strength of Iraqi leaders, it all looks very murky.
I think the safest thing to do would be to wait for General Petraeus' report, but that certainly won't stop people and politicians from speculating as to what's going on and what will happen next.
Of course, Harry Reid is already trying to undercut the US troops by trying to get Republicans to jump the aisle and push for a quick withdrawal.
With the gains seen in Iraq lately, that seems pretty unlikely.
Of course Senator Carl Levin is now joining up with Hillary in calling for al-Maliki to be removed from office.
But what troubles me most about these three stories is that there's a suggestion of removing 5,000 troops in certain areas in order to prod the Iraqi's into stepping up to the plate. While that sounds good on paper to some, I think it's a really bad idea to use US troops and civilians in harms way in a giant game of chicken.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment