160,000 to 137,000 is not really a drawdown; 137,000 is our baseline level of troops in Iraq. We upped the troops to 160,000 to provide additional security for the two elections, so bringing it back to 130,000-140,000 is not exactly a drawdown in the sense that we are decreasing our baseline presence in Iraq.
Glaivester | Homepage | 12.17.05 - 10:29 pm | #

It is still a drawdown. Perhaps, we better leave the 160,000 as is? And wait another year and then draw it down to 137,000?

A drawdown is still a drawdown from a high number.
mcconnell | Homepage | 12.18.05 - 1:16 pm | #

Then maybe Bush should send 50,000 more soldiers to Iraq for a week?

Then instead of drawing down our presence by 23,000, he can draw it down by 73,000.

My point is that if the Iraqi elections were supposed to make Iraq more independent so that we could draw down our forces, then we ought to be able to draw them down below what they were prior to the election. If the only troops we are able to withdraw are those who were specifically needed because of the elections, it is hard to see how the elections helped us in drawing down our forces, when we are in exactly the same place we would have been without elections.

If we can have the next election without increasing our forces beyond 137,000, then I will consider the reduction of troops to 137,000 to be a "genuine" drawdown. Otherwise, it is just normal fluctuation.
Glaivester | Homepage | 12.18.05 - 11:47 pm | #

Yes, it's a fluctuation but it is also a drawdown, never mind that it's not the drawdown to a much lower level that liberals are screaming for. The 20,000 that was sent out is expected to be back in the United States a few weeks after the election.

However, conditions can change and the U.S. must be flexible to meet those needs whether it's drawing down to below 100,000 (why 100,000...nice round numbers?) or adding more troops.

Until Iraq can stand up, we stand down.
mcconnell | Homepage | 12.19.05 - 11:35 am | #

Okay, let me try another tack:

Even Rumsfeld on Foxnews with O'Reilly last night think a drawdown from 160,000 to around 137, 000 in 06 would be significant enough to begin with.

How is it significant that we draw down the troops after the election to where they were before the election? Seeing as the extra troops were here specifically for the election, one would have expected them to leave after it was over. unless of course, you think that it is a significant victory that we did not need to increase troops permanently?

Yes, technically this is a drawdown. My point is that the drawdown does not represent any significant achievement; it simply represnets maintaining the status quo.
Glaivester | Homepage | 12.19.05 - 10:50 pm | #

Not for the U.S. troops but it is significant achievement that the Iraqi troops are able to take greater and greater security roles in Iraq. They've proven it during the election process. The 20,000 US troops as back-up was a contigency plan for additional support to Iraqi troops if it need be.
mcconnell | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 6:58 am | #