Log In | Register
16 Comments
PrintImages 
(showing 1 of 14 photos)
(showing 1 of 14 photos)advertisement
The U.S. Marine commandant said Wednesday that his forces in Iraq's once-volatile western Anbar province can be reduced, as the military moves to hand over control of the region to the Iraqis next week.
Gen. James Conway, who visited Iraq this summer, told a Pentagon news conference that the two main ground combat units in Anbar, known as Marine regimental combat teams, represent more than enough force to maintain security once the Iraqis take over because violence has continued to drop.
Any decision to reduce Marine forces in Iraq rests initially with Gen. David Petraeus, who commands all U.S. forces in Iraq and who is due to present troop-level recommendations to the Pentagon shortly. Also weighing in on this will be Defense Secretary Robert Gates as well as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the final decision to be made by President Bush.
Conway said Marines serving in Anbar told him, "There aren't a whole heck of a lot of bad guys there left to fight." Driving through the once-dangerous cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, he said, "Our vehicles seemed to go largely unnoticed as there was much construction and rebuilding taking place."
Conway said a ceremony marking a handover of security control in Anbar to the Iraqis could happen in the next few days; other officials, in Washington and in Iraq, said it is expected on Monday, but the Iraqi government has made no announcement.
Ten of Iraq's 18 provinces have already been returned to Iraqi control. President Bush said in January 2007 that the goal was to have all 18 in Iraqi control by the end of 2007; currently there is no announced goal, although completing the process is a crucial step in phasing out the U.S. combat role in Iraq.
As recently as 2006, Anbar was the deadliest province in Iraq for American troops. Toward the end of that year, however, the Sunni Arabs who were leading the insurgency in Anbar decided to join hands with U.S. forces to jointly fight the extremist al-Qaida group, and violence levels plunged.
Now Anbar is one of the quietest parts of the country, with Iraqi security forces in the lead.
The transfer to Iraqi provincial control of Anbar has been delayed since late June. Initially the delay in holding the handover ceremony was attributed by U.S. officials to a sandstorm, but it became clear that is also was due to worries that the shift could set off unrest due to competing Sunni camps in Anbar.
Reducing forces in Iraq, Conway said, is necessary in order to move any additional Marines into Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise.
"Quite frankly, young Marines join our Corps to go fight for their country," Conway said. "They are doing a very good job of this nation-building business (in Iraq). But it's our view that if there is a stiffer fight going some place else ... then that's where we need to be."
Conway, who has repeatedly pressed for more Marine involvement in the Afghanistan fight, said commanders say they need as many as 10,000 additional combat forces there to quell the insurgents.
Gates earlier this year dispatched more than 3,400 Marines to Afghanistan, including roughly 1,200 to serve as trainers for the Afghan forces.
The trainers are from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. The other unit there is the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is fighting in the south. They already had their seven-month tours extended by about a month — until the end of November. Conway said that he would not rule out another short extension for a "small segment" of the Marines.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
6 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Robert Burns's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: United States , Iraq
 | Iraq: Shiite cleric wounded in ambush | Associated Press | Sun Aug 17 | 3 |
| Iraq deal hovers over presidential campaign | Associated Press | Fri Aug 22 | 1 |
 | U.S., Iraq close to deal on pullout - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com | msnbc.com | Fri Aug 22 | 1 |
| Rice says US-Iraq coming together on timetables | The Seattle Times | Thu Aug 21 | 0 |
| US, Iraq have draft to pull US troops out via timetable | The Huffington Post | Thu Aug 21 | 1 |
- Public Discussion (16)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
8.2
3.8
{"commentId":2520473,"authorDomain":"mentalshift"}
They have no choice but to pull back. As Senator Obama predicted, Afghanistan is falling apart.
{"commentId":2520473,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"mentalshift"}
- 4 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:31 PM EDT{"commentId":2520589,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
If Afghanistan is falling apart. It's because the Europeans, aka NATO, can't carry their share of the load, and as in every conflict since WWII, the US military will now has to bear most, if not all of the load in Afghanistan .
{"commentId":2520589,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2520772,"authorDomain":"JoeBpsplk"}
Why in the world is the U.S. still occupying Afghanistan??? Can't the U.S. ever do a focused combat mission, in this case attacking a terrorist camp, and then LEAVE?
{"commentId":2520772,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"JoeBpsplk"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2520804,"authorDomain":"mentalshift"}
as in every conflict since WWII, the US military will now has to bear most, if not all of the load
Exactly why it was a mistake to go into Iraq while Afghanistan was still on the table.
{"commentId":2520804,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"mentalshift"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2520591,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
Pretty soon McCain & Obama's plans for Iraq and the war on terror will look similar. What then?
{"commentId":2520591,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 4 votes
#2 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:43 PM EDT{"commentId":2521219,"authorDomain":"superman2001"}
Then maybe we'll stop hearing McCain denigrate Obama's judgment on foreign policy, given the fact that their policies will be the same.
To outline just two points:
1) Obama said: 'We need to engage our enemies in diplomatic talks, including Iran.' McCain and the White House said: 'We cannot and will not appease terrorists, especially those who oppose our allies.' Result: The US sends a White House diplomat to sit in on discussions with Ahmadinejad.
2) Obama said: 'We need to withdraw from Iraq beginning next year and give them their country back so that we can focus on Afghanistan.' McCain said: 'We won't leave until the job is done, regardless of what the Iraqis think they're ready for.' Result: The Iraqis request the Americans to begin leaving the country by next year, McCain says he'd be open to a withdrawal "time horizon" at the behest of the Iraqis, and would begin sending more troops into Afghanistan.
It's good to change your mind in light of the ever-changing facts, so I'm not calling McCain a "flip-flopper", but I don't understand how he can call Obama's judgment on these matters into question and then wind up agreeing with him by the time all is said and done. He did the same thing on the "tire gauge" topic, first making fun of Obama's assertion that properly inflated tires would improve gas mileage, then agreeing that it was a good idea. It's beyond me at this point.
I guess McCain's campaign strategy is to make fun of all Obama's ideas, and then adopt them as his own. What's so amazing is that it seems to be working for him. It's unreal.
{"commentId":2521219,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"superman2001"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":2520706,"authorDomain":"JoeBpsplk"}
Let me guess -- The Bush administration has concocted this "agreement" solely to win votes for the Republicans in the November U.S. election. They will make a big display of pulling out a token number of troops in front of lots of media coverage. They'll trumpet the words "victory" and "success". They'll attempt to avoid questions concerning how worthwhile the occupation is and its enormous cost.
And after the election... The Republican Bush administration will bring the troops right back to Iraq! Bush won't withdraw any more. But he's finally out of office Jan 20, 2009!
{"commentId":2520706,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"JoeBpsplk"}
- 2 votes
#3 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:55 PM EDT{"commentId":2520782,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
The Bush administration has concocted this "agreement" solely to win votes for the Republicans in the November U.S. election. They will make a big display of pulling out a token number of troops in front of lots of media coverage.
Joe Bpsplk
Did you READ the article?
The security agreements have not even been signed yet, and the first pullout of troops is not to begin until June 2009.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the election will be long over by then, and the new President about 6 months already in office.
{"commentId":2520782,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2520823,"authorDomain":"JoeBpsplk"}
Thanks for pointing that out jazzman. Maybe the point is to just talk about pulling troops out. This agreement would allow the Bush administration to take credit for leaving Iraq without actually requiring them to pull any troops out of Iraq.
Diabolical!
{"commentId":2520823,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"JoeBpsplk"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2520852,"authorDomain":"Profchaos"}
I'm sure bush will totally reneg on a contract that has taken so long to negotiate and that is agreed upon between the two countries. Especially after the election when his power is pretty much diminished and he really is a lame duck. Yeah that's plausible.
The question is now that there is essentially a time line. what would Obama or McCain do? Honor it or try to totally re-negotiage it after the election?
How come bush haters always call him an idiot but then is somehow this political mastermind making contracts to win elections only to send the troops right back in.
{"commentId":2520852,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"Profchaos"}
{"commentId":2523952,"authorDomain":"DirkM"}
How come bush haters always call him an idiot but then is somehow this political mastermind making contracts to win elections only to send the troops right back in.
Perhaps because Bush is an idiot, but his administration also includes Cheney and (previously) Rove, who are the diabolical masterminds pulling the strings behind the curtains. I think most Bush haters don't just hate Bush . . . they pretty much hate his entire administration.
{"commentId":2523952,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"DirkM"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2528496,"authorDomain":"Profchaos"}
Then so many pepole need to clarify cause I rarely see the word administration after the word Bush. I don't think its implied either. The sentimnet I ususally see is calling bush dumb, an idiot, stupid etc, but then in the next breath, he masterminded 9/11, he caused the housing collapse, he's rigging the next election. For people that think he is such an idiot...they give him a lot of credit.
{"commentId":2528496,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"Profchaos"}
{"commentId":2529281,"authorDomain":"DirkM"}
Then so many pepole need to clarify cause I rarely see the word administration after the word Bush.
Perhaps, but this is the wrong place for you to be raising that argument. Because in both of Joe Bpsplk's comments (3.0 & 3.2), he clearly used the term Bush administration . . . not just Bush. Perhaps people are using that term more than you think and you are just not seeing it.
{"commentId":2529281,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"DirkM"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2537371,"authorDomain":"Profchaos"}
It is explicit here and I may have missed it. I was projecting from many other discussion I've had here.
{"commentId":2537371,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"Profchaos"}
{"commentId":2520713,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
If the Iraqis are satisfied they can now maintain security, then this is great. The US can now begin to focus more of it's military resources on Afghanistan.
Hopefully with the new terrorist bombing attacks that have recently occurred in Pakistan, the Pakistani govt will finally allow us access to destroy al queada and the Taliban.
Also, Iraq can now begin to assume more responsibility for its economy, and require less US aid, especially with the $billions they now have in oil money.
{"commentId":2520713,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:56 PM EDT{"commentId":2522321,"authorDomain":"nitewingsg1"}
I would like to follow the money trail left by this war. It won't happen, but it would be interesting.
{"commentId":2522321,"threadId":"335853","contentId":"1766953","authorDomain":"nitewingsg1"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"335853","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
