This alarming situation will likely cause General Petraeus to recommend troop reductions next month. He doesn't have a lot of options.
Bring back the draft. Extend the tours. Annex and colonize...(okay that was a joke). But anything is better than leaving now just to watch Iran and the extremist groups take over the country. You want to fight this thing again in 2015?
Do you want to stay there taking casualties for no gain until 2015? The Iraqis are fighting each other and we don't want that fight at all! It ain't our fight. Iran we can handle better without having our army broken trying to oocupy Iraq. The article isn't about the Iraq occupation, it's about the depletion of our army. We can't even sustain the force we have there, much less fight in Korea or Iran or anywhere else. We have 38 brigades and every single one of them is deployed, about to be deployed, or just returned from being deployed. It may take a draft to fight the next war if we can't find a way to preserve what's left of our army.
I'm going to simply post a few paragraphs from the rest of your article as my reply: "Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction. Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick. "The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
1. we will not be fighting in either of those places any time soon so you neednt worry. 2. you should consider voting for ron paul. he agrees with you that this war is not a good idea.
The article wasn't about getting troops out quickly, it was about being fundamentally unable to maintain the current forces any longer. Did you note than none of those cited said they could maintain the levels currently deployed. None of them stated that troop reductions would not happen. "Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly", but they are talking about drawing down.
Thank you, omniscient one. Wiser minds realize that we must be prepared for what is possible tomorrow, not what seems likely today.
Your right that none of those cited said that troop reductions would not happen and do you know why that is? because "the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction." The surge has improved the security situation in Iraq, the Iraqi's are starting to take over more and more responsibility and we will be able to bring some of our troops home because of that.
I hope you are right because IED attacks against US troops are happening at six times the rate of 2003 and have become the enemy's weapon of choice. Military Grapples with Onslaught of Homemade Bombs in Iraq The Pentagon is forced to spend billions and billions on technology, equipment, and tactics to counter IED's it, when the most effective way is to simply starve the enemy of easy targets.
