WASHINGTON, July 18, 2008
"General Time Horizon" Eyed For Troop Cuts
U.S. And Iraq Say Timeline For More U.S. Troop Withdrawals Is Part Of Broader Security Pact
-
Photo
U.S. Army Sgt. John Orem, right, and Staff Sgt. Eric Atkinson, left, from 4th Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment search a home in Sa'ada, about 20 miles north of Baghdad in Iraq's volatile Diyala province, July 7, 2008. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
Iraqi officials, in a sign of growing confidence as violence decreases, have been pressuring the United States to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw U.S. forces. President Bush has adamantly opposed a timeline, and the White House said Friday that the timeframe being discussed would not be "an arbitrary date for withdrawal."
Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked about the timing issue as part of discussions over a broader security agreement to keep American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.
The White House says the two leaders, in a conversation on Thursday, agreed that the accord should include "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq."
Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide - though that precondition could take years to meet.
Earlier this month, Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said Baghdad would not accept any security deal unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces. Al-Maliki also has said he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.
Bush has vetoed legislation approved by the Democratic Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.
The White House statement said the timing of further reductions would be linked to improved security conditions. In recently weeks, Iraq's government has expressed increasing confidence about its authority and the country's improved stability.
The United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.
The U.S. military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by Bush last year, left the country. There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq - as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further troops reductions this fall because security has improved.
"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible
it has not, and it is not," Mullen said. "But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said officials are looking for ways to send additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year. A cutback in Iraq could clear the way for more troops to go to Afghanistan.
The White House statement said the reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq was "a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the president and the prime minister in January 2007."
In other developments:
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos:July 13?July 19
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 172 CommentsNow the clear story, again.
Bush was against setting a timetable for US troops at a time when we were suffering huge loses and the Democrat Congress wanted to pull the troops out.
OUR PRESIDENT HAS ALWAYS SAID "WITH SUCCESS" WILL WILL BE ABLE TO DRAW DOWN OUR FORCES"
Now that the war Iraq is coming to an end OF COURSE we will be withdrawing our forces......DA!
But we will be withdraw forces due to SUCCESS.
And the Democrats and the flaming liberals that write these "fictional stories" get ZERO credit.
Thank God McCain has the guts to promote the "surge". It worked and now we can leave a functioning Democratic government in place.
Thanks Democrats for nothing.
And ASSOCIATED PRESS and CBS get your flaming liberal reporters under control.
Have a nice day everyone.......
Anyone who supports continuing this farce and who supports Bush is a Traitor.
In the near future will all of the Lemmings run off the cliff with George?
Success.
No thanks to the Democrats, far-left liberals, Code Pink, or any other Socialists/Communists/Marxists.
America is succeeding, and liberals continue to lose their War on America.
TIME TO REGROUP, AGAIN, DUMMY BUSH.
[Posted by OneAmerican- at 02:50 PM : Jul 18, 2008]
if you mean by success that it''s less of a quaqmire than it was ... that''s it''s not going to be any worse than what it currently is ... ''the worst foreign policy disaster in american history'' ... then yes ... this is a huge success.
once used to complete failure in all that you do ... this is huge news.
Posted by bobnjersey at 03:07 PM : Jul 18, 2008
---------------
Agreed - this is a huge success and it''s refreshing to read that, regardless of ideology, all Americans are pleased with the current direction of the war in Iraq.
Sorry, libs - denied.
Posted by WDRussell1 at 02:54 PM : Jul 18, 2008
-----------------------------------
In case you don''t realize it - "we" are still in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
Troops in another country != hostilities in another country.
It''s great news that the Iraqi government is stabilizing and that planned withdrawals are on the horizon, don''t you agree?
And weak-kneed liberals will be viewed with suspicion by all free democracies from here forward.
McCain needs a balance where Iraq and Afganistan are dangerous, but winable. Obama only needs Iraq to no be a threat to the US
Rafterman has sold himself down the river, after being up the creek without a paddle.
You sound more like Saddam''s spokesman, Baghdad Bob;
"There is no victory of American troops here. I can see no victory here. There is at no time a victory here..."
You''re pathetic, rafterboy.
Posted by rafterman1 at 03:40 PM : Jul 18, 2008
I reject your premise, but I can face any soldier or hero''s widow without any problem.
However, you will have a tough time facing yourself in the mirror for the rest of your misrable life.
Good luck with that.
Posted by donbl1 at 03:44 PM : Jul 18, 2008
Probably not, but I expect they will soon resort to trying to act like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
If you really are a USMC vet, then you know better.
Posted by rafterman1 at 03:46 PM : Jul 18, 2008
Ooooh. You have crossed over to the dark side.
Posted by rafterman1 at 03:47 PM : Jul 18, 2008
Only when it''s terrorists and traitors, yes.
I''m not sure your feelings are directed to the right people. I have served as an infantryman, and I am proud of the improvements our military has made in Iraq. In fact, I would guess (with some confidence) that the majority of military personnel have somewhat republican views.
------------------------
Posted by jamesm12341 at 03:39 PM : Jul 18, 2008
True. I want peace and stability in Iraq and Afganistan. Still, I can''t help but speculate about how it might affect the 2008 election.
Posted by donbl1
---------------
We "won" the cold war, right. And we congratulate ourselves about that. Now China owns us - and our grandchildren are in debt, before they''re even born.
Posted by jamesm12341
--------------------
Whatever you gotta tell yourself in order to get through your day, I guess..
But in 2006 when we the people made it clear to pull out these clowns forced there hands.
How much you want to bet they try to use this well folks here is the answer.
Fool me once (Nixon) shame on you, fool me twice (Bush) shame on me, fool me three times not a chance or prayer in Hel1.
They do not get a vote on the orders or the policy. They chose to volunteer because they believe in America and keeping her safe for our kids.
Those who serve are often Jacksonians. They prefer clarity to nuance, force when required and trust in America and the government no matter which party is in power.
Posted by jamesm12341
--------------------------
I have no trouble at all "blaming" the idiot-son for the deaths of 4100 (and counting) military in his quest for an oil colony.
Bye the way, what is the definition of "winning" in Iraq?
This is like watching Lovitz on Saturday Night Live, doing the serial liar thing. "It''s...ahh...it''s not a benchmark, it''s a... ''time horizon'' yeah, that''s the ticket!"
Posted by donbl1
----------------------------------------
Yeah, like Iraq was going to lauch a flotilla of camels and invade our beachs :-)
As an ex-volunteer enlisted man I am so PO''d at this Administration for mis-using our Military for it''s own political agenda
The creation of a fledgling democracy able to defend itself, answerable to its citizens and a contributing member of the global community.
------------
"Typical loser lib", huh? Is that the best you got?
I''ve been called worse than that by folks who made it ALL THE WAY through high school.
that doesnt surprise me
Posted by jamesm12341
----------------
Little newsflash here - I didn''t say it to surprise you.
What about the Battle of Armagaddon and the 2nd coming of Christ?
Isn''t that failure of christianity?
The creation of a fledgling democracy able to defend itself, answerable to its citizens and a contributing member of the global community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by donbl1 at 04:09 PM : Jul 18, 2008
15 of 18 benchmarks approved by congress have been successful.
Hopefully everybody can agree that the outcome of the war is far more important than the election.
Posted by jamesm12341
-----------------
Well, I''d like to say this is an improvement, but "typical loser lib" has a better ring to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by hadenough43 at 03:52 PM : Jul 18, 2008
This one was Educated in a school system that doesn''t hand out grades for fear of damaging the psyche of the LOSERS.
[Posted by jericho1337 at 03:24 PM : Jul 18, 2008]
the key word here is ''direction'' ... which has changed often ... and subject to whatever latest trend that''s outside our control. but for now the direction all is going is positive.
it still doesn''t change the fact that this endevour has been the worst foreign policy disaster in american history ... hopefully it remains so (nothing else outdoes it) ... and we learn from our failures.
Posted by mbcsmith
---------------------
When beffuddled, you can always fall on the "all ''em names" actic. You gonna make a great McAddled voter.
[Posted by hadenough43 at 03:52 PM : Jul 18, 2008]
this is rooted in the underlying fundamental thought process for ''right thinkers'' of good vs. evil ... black and white ... with nothing in between. you''re either winning ... or losing ... and there''s no other classification to imagine. strange but true.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 172 Comments