DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Strategery » So Much for Withdrawal

So Much for Withdrawal

Well, so much for those plans to withdraw American forces from Iraq. President Bush’s big speech at the Naval Academy “did not break new ground or present a new strategy,” the AP notes. So that means, despite the chatter beforehand, no new schedule for bringing troops home.
GI_point.jpgWhat Bush did say is that “as Iraqi forces become more capable the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change.”

We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists.
We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.
As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political progress advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

Which says to me: kiss the “oil-spot” theory goodbye. That’s the idea, which has been gaining momentum in political circles since an August Foreign Affairs article, to use our troops to set up safe havens in Iraq, and then slowly grow them out.
But to do that, you need troops — lots of troops — to fill a city up, and patrol virtually every corner. If I’m reading between the lines of Bush’s speech right, that’s not the idea here — despite talk in the President’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” or “clear[ing]” out and “hold[ing]” insurgent epicenters.
Speaking of the “Strategy,” it ain’t. The document reads more like a marketing document than a focused plan for winning a war. And there are some mighty odd statements in it, as Dr. AC Wonk notes. For example, the Strategy claims that:

As of November 2005, there were more than 212,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces, compared with 96,000 in September of last year.

But “Iraq did not, however, have 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces… in September 2004,” the Wonk responds.

Adam Entous with Reuters obtained internal Defense Department documents in September 2004 that revealed only 8,169 had completed the full eight-week academy training. 46,176 of what are publicly called trained and equipped forces were listed privately as untrained.

Whatever the numbers, Bush’s bottom line is clear: no big changes to Iraq strategy, despite all the heavy-breathing. “Stay the course,” he repeated four times at the end of his Annapolis speech. “Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working,” add his plan.

Share |

November 30th, 2005 | Strategery | 293716 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/11/30/so-much-for-withdrawal/So+Much+for+Withdrawal2005-11-30+17%3A14%3A32jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Calling all Catamarans | PROPAGANDA ‘R’ US? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    November 30, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    Don’t be so down. We all knows President Bush has problems with the truth and quite often he ends up doing the exact opposite of what he says he will never do. The bigger the issue the bigger the “flop” and this is a “Super Sized” issue.
    Remember “…we will rebuild New Orleans and pay what ever it takes. I can’t imagine an America with out a New Orleans.” or an Iraqi War classic “…al Sar has killed Americans and we will do all that is necessary to bring him to justice.” or the all time classic “I’m a uniter not a divider.“
    On that theory, the troops in Iraq should be packing their bags. The “Freedom Birds” are gassing up as I write.
    ALLONS,
    Byrob Skinner

    Reply
  2. pete says:
    November 30, 2005 at 2:44 pm

    Thanks for posting that C-Low. What you said in the beginning about freeing up troops to do constant disruption ops is absolutely true. My very good friend just returned from the region and he was vey excited at the progress made against the insurgency.
    The media never reports a house that is not burning.

    Reply
  3. Smolinsky says:
    November 30, 2005 at 3:35 pm

    “…If we lose the WOT it wont be over we maybe able to hide in our little isolationist cacoon for a time but at some point the terrorist will get the WMD and they will make the Big Satan really pay and on that day that hundreds of thousands US civilians die and the people demand retribution, maybe they even dont at first but then the second attack, then they do, the war that will follow be that war of civilizations and the tatics that will be required are insane ugly, time will not be a advantage like we have today with WMD out of the bottle every attack will have to be stopped at all cost thier will be real police state patriot act nessecary, the muslim religion will be either heavily restricted or outright outlawed, mulsims here will be in concentration camps, thier cities will be burning across from Indonesia to Morroco that will be a war that will make WW2 look like a freekin creampuff in its brutality on both sides.“
    Whew.
    I’ll take the Mother of All Run-On Sentences for 500, Alex.
    It’s all good Low… I promise we’ll all still be here to read the finished product.
    Now, could you go back and slice and dice that bad boy a little shorter, tighten up the spelling and throw in a little punctuation. I’m sure there was a good point in there somewhere.

    Reply
  4. C-Low says:
    November 30, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    Thanks Pete
    And sorry guys for the booklong rant but one thing that has just driven me crazy about this war is the misinformation and incompetent reporting on the subject. In past wars the media supported and did thier part for the nations war effort and in this war they have either been outright anit-american or at best equal to both sides american and terrrorist. What really sikens me that people dont have pride in thier nation to the point were a war effort strated by the slaughter of 3000 civilians cant be supported or at least make room for the good news to, the ohh good news dont sell line I just dont buy. Whatever happened to responsible reporting?
    What scares me is the WOT wont end with Iraq and if this nation has no ability to make thier case continualy on the media front while our enemies have free reign to the point were every mistake is blown out of proportion every success is ignored or just briefed with more doom right after and what is historically minimul casualties unbearable we are doomed. If we cant make the fight on the media front we may skin by on Iraq but I dont look forward to the future especially when some major enemies on the horizon I couldnt even imagine thinking about fighting a WW2 level war agian in todays enviroment we would have no chance. War is hell war is brutal bad things happen people die that is reality and it will never be any different.

    Reply
  5. Max says:
    November 30, 2005 at 6:59 pm

    Peter– I think Bryon is having a little fun with the whole “no plan + aggitation to leave + GOP inability to admit mistakes + GOP inability to allow the Dems any say + the GOP saying that leaving is losing and unpatriotic= stay the course” when we all know we gotta get out before the next election cycle (or at least GOP senators and congressmen know that).
    And C-Low, you gotta edit those things. Would like to read em, but no way I am going to slog through all that.

    Reply
  6. Matt Stevens says:
    November 30, 2005 at 10:14 pm

    well im happy to see that our stay the course strategy will be continued. After all the blood thats been shed, to have the place turn into a terror haven that we most likely would have to re invade in a few years is not cool. And i believe that is what would happen if we so much as anounced even a ‘general’ timeschedule for our pull out. If we announce a date they’d just lay low till it came. Better we stay the course, and not aboandon those who have put their fiath and future in us.

    Reply
  7. C-Low says:
    November 30, 2005 at 11:59 pm

    Sorry guys never have been any good at English hated it in school and just barely got by now math I can swing a little bit but dont do me much good on this. Either way I know it was too long and I appologize, got a little well alot carried away.

    Reply
  8. JSAllison says:
    December 1, 2005 at 9:18 am

    So does anyone here happen to know just when things are going to be sufficiently settled down to magically bring our troops home? No? I thought not.
    Sounds to me like the military and DoD are tieing troop withdrawal to success indicators rather than locking in to an arbitrarily chosen schedule. We all know how well *those* work.

    Reply
  9. Forum says:
    April 16, 2007 at 4:06 am

    The time of president Bush is over.

    Reply
  10. Amber says:
    July 5, 2007 at 9:16 am

    Hi everyone my name is Amber Homolak and I’m new. does anyone want to talk to me and be my friend?

    Reply
  11. mehmet ali says:
    February 5, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    thanks…

    Reply
  12. Gazeteler says:
    July 31, 2008 at 10:37 am

    The time of president Bush is over.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Mac, has the Air Force ever asked the Army what it...
      TMB
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      With unlimited resources, the US could buy an...
      SMSgt Mac
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      RE: “A LAAR aircraft capability has the...
      smsgtmac
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Just when we thought prop aircraft were gone...
      Max
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Hey if it works for the troops on the...
      Marshall Tall Eagle
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      If you are going to do close air support (CAS),...
      LTCMike69
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The Air Force has got it backwards again. Here it...
      gmanaz
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Damn it! I thought this hole tanker BS was over with...
      Thunder350
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      my bad… i misread your second to last...
      Project Thor
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      excuse me… were you reading what i...
      Project Thor
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage