Troop Withdrawal - Articles - Zimbio

Bush Administration Admits Surge Failure

Fri, 28 Apr 2007 10:47:15 GMT

posted by QuestionMain

The Bush Administration is finally admitting that the proposed "surge" of American soldiers to Iraq is failing. The New York Times broke the story this morning. This failure is occuring despite President Bush's proclamations for months that the plan would surely work and that generals on the ground in Iraq should be trusted for their wisdom in knowing the most effective plans to achieve success. Now the New York Times reports that the Bush Administration will wait until September to evaluate the success of the surge and that "top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited."

The problem is that all of the grand strategies for "winning the War in Iraq" begin from a perspective that the U.S. should not withdraw troops anytime soon and that we should continue to occupy Iraq until we have "achieved success." Almost 4 years ago to the day, Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" which was as laughable then as it is now.

This is all very strategic and tricky political manipulation on the part of the Bush Administration as well. This week, the House and the Senate approved the Iraq war supplemental spending bill with conditions that troop withdrawal would begin in October with a full pull out in 6 months. President Bush has stated there is 100% chance he will veto the bill and delay the funding for the needs of American soliders in order to avoid admitting that for four years, none of his Adminsitration's planning (or lack thereof) has worked. By issuing these announcements of not assessing the proposed troop surge until September, Bush is attemtping to scrounge up a possible argument that in the interim we should once again fund the war in Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal and "wait just a little longer" to see if we can end daily bloodshed in Iraq.

The catch 22 for the argument is this: if the Bush Administration believes that the troop surge plan will work and the September assessment will proclaim victory, then what's the problem with having a phased troop withdrawal beginning the following month?! Theoretically the surge plan is about building a self-sustaining Iraqi democracy with an Iraqi military capable of keeping the peace, so a September assessment of success would mean we don't need to be there anymore. For the following six months, American soldiers would slowly withdraw leaving a "stable, self-ruled" Iraq.

On the flip side, if the statements in January about a "last-ditch effort" master plan for a troop surge doesn't work, and the September assessment verifies its failure, the Bush Administration needs to tone down their desperation, face facts, and put a stop to American soliders dying in Iraq for a poorly planned invasion and occupation. They will have had their chance, for over four years after they proclaimed Mission Accomplished, and the will of the American people and their wish for our troops to come home should be listened to and followed.

Timeline for Troop Withdrawal is Negotiated

Wed, 7 Aug 2008 21:51:00 GMT

posted by danojohns

Wow. The AP writes today that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government are in negotiations to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by October 2010. Interesting reversal of position, if true. Certainly, now that McCain and Obama have both suggested that 16 months was a "reasonable time frame" subject to conditions on the ground, the Bush Administration might just be getting the message that the American people want us out as soon as possible. The AP article can be seen here.

Nine Vulnerable GOP Senators Vote Against troop Withdrawal

Tue, 28 Mar 2007 14:06:00 GMT

posted by kfisherdemocrat
By now you all know that Republicans have an abnormally high number of seats to protect in '08 (21) and that many of them are in states that are trending very blue. With a chance to step up and vote against an open-ended occupation by an incompetent president and adminstration, how many would do so?

One
Gordon Smith of Oregon voted with the Democrats to include a timetable for ending the occupation of Iraq. The only other GOP Senator to do so was Chuck Hagel, who is not considered at all vulnerable should he run for reelection. With the two Republicans who really went out on a limb and voted with the overwhelming majority of America, the timetable made it through 50-48.

The other nine (vulnerable Senators) voted to give this President yet another blank check in Iraq. Remember them.

Norm Coleman (MN)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Cornyn (TX)
Liddy Dole (NC)
Pete Domenici (NM)
Mitch McConnel (KY)
Pete Sessions (AL)
John Sununu (NH)
John Warner (VA)

President is disappointed, Senate pushes for troop withdrawal

Tue, 28 Mar 2007 15:24:04 GMT

posted by The_Zimbio_Team
"The President is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law. In the two weeks since the senate defeated a similar proposal, General Petraeus reports encouraging signs are already emerging," the White House said in a statement.

Welcome to our blog about Troop Withdrawal

Tue, 28 Mar 2007 15:22:45 GMT

posted by The_Zimbio_Team
This is our group blog, which is unique because any Zimbio member can post an entry to it. Some members blog about recent news and trends related to the portal topic, others recount relevant personal stories. You can also comment on and rate existing blog entries, to voice your opinion and to help the community identify which members and entries on the portal are must-reads. Got an interesting idea or story to share with other members of this portal? Well, then put on your journalist's cap and add your own blog entry!