WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2008
Bush: 8,000 Troops Coming Home By Feb.
President Plans To Maintain Current Troop Levels In Iraq Through End Of Year
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Bush To Move U.S. Troops
President Bush is to announce a plan that will move U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan by February 2009. The troop withdrawal reflects a decrease in violence in Iraq. David Martin reports.
-
Photo
U.S. Army soldiers from Hawk Company, 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, patrol in a village near Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad in Iraq's volatile Diyala province, Aug. 2, 2008. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that President Bush will make what could well be his last major decision on the Iraq War - an issue that has dominated and defined his presidency.
Acting on recommendations made by Defense Secretary Gates, the president will announce the withdrawal of 8,000 troops from Iraq by next February. A battalion of 1,500 Marines out of western Iraq in November and an Army combat brigade of 3,500 soldiers will be withdrawn in February, along with 3,400 support troops.
That will bring overall troop strength in the country down to 136,000 - about what it was in 2006 before the "troop surge" was announced.
The president will say the withdrawals are possible because of the dramatic reductions in violence, now down to the lowest level since the spring of 2004.
The measured reduction - slower in scope and pace than many Democrats in Congress would like - gives the military some flexibility to shift forces into Afghanistan.
"Here is the bottom line: While the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight," Mr. Bush said in remarks prepared for delivery to the National Defense University in Washington.
But even these modest withdrawals - less than six percent of U.S. troops - are more than the commander in Iraq, General David Pretraeus originally wanted. He recommended no further reductions until June of next year.
But he was overruled by because of the pressing need to free up more troops for Afghanistan.
The president will announce he is sending 5,000 more combat troops to Afghanistan: a Marine battalion in November and army combat brigade next January, but that is only a fraction of what the commander there says he needs.
President Bush will say it may be possible to withdrawal more troops in the first half of 2009 but that will be a decision for the next president.
In his remarks Mr. Bush argued that Iraq is in a better place now by almost any measure. He said violence is at its lowest point since the spring of 2004, "normal life is returning to communities across the country," and political reconciliation is moving forward.
The president cautioned that progress is still fragile and could be reversed. But he said his top commander and diplomat in Iraq assure him that the gains made there now have some durability.
But all this emphasis on progress and improvement belied the fact that his announcement is likely to be a disappointment to many who wanted - and even expected - bigger drawdowns sooner.
Nowhere did Mr. Bush acknowledge this, instead highlighting his announcement as one of "additional force reductions."
The Iraq war has drained the country's spirit during Mr. Bush's second term, and the future course of the conflict is a major point of division between the men who want to replace Mr. Bush, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.
More than half of Mr. Bush's address is devoted to Afghanistan.
He outlined what he called a "quiet surge" of additional American forces there, bringing the U.S. presence to nearly 31,000, compared with about 146,000 in Iraq.
"For all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," the president said.
He announced that a Marine battalion that had been scheduled to go to Iraq in November would go to Afghanistan instead, and that that would be followed by one Army combat brigade.
Commanders repeatedly have asked for more troops in Afghanistan, where there has been a resurgence of the Taliban and a growth in violence. The president acknowledged that the challenges in Afghanistan remain huge.
"Unlike Iraq, it has few natural resources and has an underdeveloped infrastructure. Its democratic institutions are fragile," Mr. Bush said. "And its enemies are some of the most hardened terrorists and extremists in the world. With their brutal attacks, the Taliban and the terrorists have made some progress in shaking the confidence of the Afghan people."
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 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
Is there legitimate record out there providing information that the U.S. used Neutron bombs, phosphorus or thermobaric weapons in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
Al Jazeera "reports" that a former commander of the Iraqi Republican Guard, Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi, reports weapons were used at the Baghdad Airport.
David Hambling, author of %u201CWeapons Grade: How Modern Warfare Gave Birth to Our High-Tech World,%u201D speculates that such weapondry, the AGM-114N, might have been used.
Its an obvious attempt to draw respect away from the President of the United States. Like him or not, approve of his policies or not, this is our President and has been for almost eight years.
During that time he did what we wanted him to, respond to the 9/11 attacks (which were planned during the President Clinton''s time in office and inherited by Bush). And there have been NO other attacks on American soil during seven long years.
President Bush has not complained about either the job he was left to do, or the criticism he has taken for it. He did Clinton''s dirty work, and yours, and has been hammered for doing what everyone wanted after the attacks. Unlike us, his life doesn''t go back to normal after a while. He must stay with the wheels set in motion at that time, and worry about the threats we never hear of, because the were prevented.
Its an obvious attempt to draw respect away from the President of the United States. Like him or not, approve of his policies or not, this is our President and has been for almost eight years.
During that time he did what we wanted him to, respond to the 9/11 attacks (which were planned during the President Clinton''''s time in office and inherited by Bush). And there have been NO other attacks on American soil during seven long years.
President Bush has not complained about either the job he was left to do, or the criticism he has taken for it. He did Clinton''''s dirty work, and yours, and has been hammered for doing what everyone wanted after the attacks. Unlike us, his life doesn''''t go back to normal after a while. He must stay with the wheels set in motion at that time, and worry about the threats we never hear of, because the were prevented.
Posted by vranger at 10
9/11 took place on Bush''s watch, not Clinton''s.... Clinton handed over hundreds of pages on Bin Laden which Bush ignored.... quit standing up for this piece of ***....27% approval rating says it all.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by vranger at 10:14 PM : Sep 08, 2008
+ report abuse
Yea, aside from being a Traitor, War Criminal, Mass Murderer, and Subverter of the Constitution, he''''s just swell......LMAO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by singinrich
And just what do you suppose your President and mine should have after 911? Sit on his hands? Apologize to the terrorists because our twin towers got in the way? Pay compensation to Saudia Arabia for the loss of its citizens? Leave the radical Taliban to rule in Afghanistan and spread their message of hate? The American public would have been clamoring for his impeachment. What do YOU think we should have done after 911? Nothing? That''s what Bill Clinton did before it happened --- Nothing!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by easeltine
I could not agree with you more! He had the guts to do what needed to be done and the Left hates him for it. All the Dems voted for the Iraq war when it was a popular thing to do and reversed when it turned ugly. Now that Iraq is turning around and the surge is working just like PRESIDENT Bush said it would, all the Dems are jumping onboard and saying that they were for it all along. What a crock! I am amazed that anyone would vote Demoncratic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by lucasnico
I guess Carter was a piece of S*** too. He had less of an approval rating than Bush does. The public is fickle. Give them bread and circuses and they will follow you and cheer you. Stop giving them bread and circuses and they turn on you like a hungry wolf. Obama is a perfect example of a "bread and circus" man. God help him when the grain supply does not come from Egypt!
George W. Bush a Republican hands you guys another "post-dated check" and you accept it.
The man is a failure and indecisive. He is arrogant and believes in "saving face" then in saving the lives of our troops, over 4000 now; more Americans then died on 9/11.
10s of thousands wounded and more Iraqis died then under Reagan puppet Saddam Hussein.
This Presidency is a sham and all you Republicans should hold your head low when Bush''s name is uttered. He''s a disgrace to America.
--------
Yep.
In other words, HE''S trying to make decisions the NEXT president should be making NOT him! This is extremely hypocritical since he makes it a point to stress, that HE makes NO decisions about Iraq now anyway! It''s his COMMANDERS that tell him what needs to be done!
''W'' and the GOP are a disgrace to America! People in that party ought to shut their mouths and hope that the rest of us forget about them!
Gee more people have died because we had to win a war that should never have been fought. Now they can "bring them home" AFTER the election. They may, or, may not, but it looks good now.
Gee more people have died because we had to win a war that should never have been fought. Now they can "bring them home" AFTER the election. They may, or, may not, but it looks good now at election time.
The Bush Administration is playing politics with lives of our soldiers.
ArmyDogII...............
Very good point , How may soldiers are rotating out of Iraq in January. As you mentioned, you know 2500 scheduled to rotate out in January. anyway.
Very good point , How many soldiers are rotating out of Iraq in January. As you mentioned, you know 2500 scheduled to rotate out in January. anyway.
Please let me know how reducing the troops by 8000 is what Obama wanted to do and not part of any operation?
--------------------
I can''t get all comments in, but here''s a few:
1. Three things have destroyed the USA. ''W'', his lemming supporters, and a non-reporting press!
2. Within 2-3 years we will be a third world nation.
3. And it took the worst president in history to do it!
4. Iraqis weren''t behind 911, we invaded them. Oops!
5. In spite of U.S. provocation, Iran still hasn''t retaliated against us!
6. Any the U.S. (W) is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi CIVILIANS!
7. But, the Iraqis don''t laugh about it, they CRY!
8. Americans were killed on 911. The wrong perpetrators have been blamed!
9. The public doesn''t blame ''W'' for everything, only what he''s bungled, that''s plenty!
10. It wasn''t necessary to go to war, and most Americans lives'' would be better NOT worse, like now.
11. Obcourse, you don''t know because you CLAIM to study, but you DON''T THINK! You''re a republican!
12. You accuse others what YOU''RE guilty of! That is, talking off your heads! SO, my advice:
13. Instead of proving your ignorance, shut up, then we won''t know you''re stupid!
14. As life worsens, it''s your best defense not to let everyone know you''re one of THEM!
And the U.S. (W) is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi CIVILIANS!
Also to Posted by stn_sage at 10:33 AM : Sep 09, 2008, we`re there. We`re third world already. We are living on residual wealth. In a few years, we will be a poor nation too.
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 10:37 AM : Sep 09, 2008
---------------------
Nancy, I absolutely agree with you, the troops shouldn''t have gone! In light of housing crash, banking crash (11th has fallen), underreported unemployment, and SKYROCKETING PRICES for most
goods; yeah, I can see why you''d say we''re already
third world, I was just trying to be optimistic!
But, the damage HAS been done! Thanks, ''W''! Thanks, GOP!
Posted by jmurrieta11 at 10:41 AM : Sep 09, 2008
--------------------
Another OPTIMIST! :)
Posted by buckfush500 at 10:44 AM : Sep 09, 2008
----------------------
It''s question of simple math! There''s less to count
now, it''s easier to figure out, ERGO it''s BETTER!
If we are a third world country I guess you two better pack up your bags and leave.
I think you are little confused. You say that a troop reduction was not on President Bush''s agenda? Do you remember him explaining what the surge was? Do you remember him saying that additional combat brigades will be deployed and then redeployed? I guess you missed that part.
The "surge" is and always was temporary. That means when the surge is over the troops come home.
Hmm, just in time for the election. No coincidence there.
Please let us know which law President Bush broke to be charged as a war criminal. I would like to see the law, not you cut and paste casualty reports. I am sure you know that it is not a war crime if civilians are killed if the target was a valid military target.
Posted by Nancy_Naive..you mean in a few months......regards
Posted by Hacker101001 at 11:23 AM : Sep 09, 2008
People are sheep, you know.
-
by edward1975-2009
September 9, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
- ArmySgt5: Too many that post on these sites have never served, which in itself should tell you something, and do not understand who or what the Geneva Convention protects, much less rules of engagement and such, it''s a waste of time trying to educate most, so you laugh and carry on. And be glad that they made the choice not to serve, they haven''t the stomach for it.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 38 Comments