Pentagon may have to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq
The Bush administration may have to cut U.S. troops in Iraq by more than half to keep enough forces to face other threats, a congressional agency said on Tuesday in a report that fueled calls for more international help for peacekeeping in Iraq.
There is soooo much that is crazy about this. Just what are the horrible “threats” we face and why do we need so much military to deal with them? Isn’t it now painfully obvious that many of these “threats” appear precisely *because* the US has invaded yet another place and the populace is fighting back?
And now, sob whine, The Bushies are pleading /demanding that other countries and the U.N. bring in troops to help clean up the mess the U.S. has made – while insisting of course the U.S. must remain in charge. What a bunch of goofy birds.
And how’s this for arrogance and stupidity:
“Iraqis have to be more in charge of the transition,” a senior State Department official said Tuesday.
Well then, why the fuck haven’t we let them? Lord, this dimbulb is no doubt puzzled as to why an Iraqi resistance has formed after all we’ve done for them.
The Congressional Budget Office said under current policies, the Pentagon would be able to sustain an occupation force of 38,000 to 64,000 in Iraq long term, down from the existing 150,000 that a number of lawmakers said is not enough to confront the spiraling violence.
Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat who requested the CBO study, said it showed that President Bush’s policies in Iraq were “straining our forces to the breaking point.”