Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Iraq: The 45 day pause
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, April 08, 2008

For whatever reason, the Senate committees which heard from Gen. Petraeus, didn't seem to understand the necessity of a 45 day pause, before doing any further troop withdrawals from Iraq:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, recommended on Tuesday halting any additional withdrawals of American troops after July for at least 45 days and possibly more, telling Congress that progress there was “fragile and reversible.”


During the hearing, General Petraeus warned against removing “too many troops too quickly.” Under stiff questioning, he declined to offer even an estimate of American force levels by the end of this year.

The general’s comments were met by sharp criticism from the Armed Service Committee’s chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, that the Bush administration had adopted “a war plan with no exit strategy.”
Think about it. You've got 20 combat brigades in Iraq. You're going to draw them down to 15. Where I come from that's a 25% reduction in force.

But the job isn't going away. The demands are still there. So you have to ensure that before you pull anyone else out, you can at least maintain the status quo in terms of security. Obviously, if you've pulled 25% of your force out of an area, one of three things have to happen:

A) you have to fill that void with 5 brigades of the ISF, or

B) you try to cover the areas with less troops, or

C) based on your assessment of the situation, you shift your remaining brigades (and perhaps some ISF units) around to cover the area left by the 5 brigades who've moved out.

Then what do you do? You give it a reasonable amount of time to see how it works, adjust as necessary ,and you then resume your mission while assessing the possibility of even more troop withdrawals.

And that reasonable amount of time?

Hey, how does 45 days sound?
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Progress to Americans means withdrawal.

He ia asking for a delay of withdrawal. Therefore, he refuses to accept the premise, mentioned above.

You understand this, McQ. You just won’t acknowlege it.

Grow up.

What is wrong with you?
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"Progress to Americans means withdrawal."

That is not true for most Americans. Progress to most Americans means low levels or zero violence which will then allow withdrawal. We withdrew from Vietnam, but no one is going to call that "progress." They call it "losing" something that most Americans don’t like.

For evidence, opposition to Iraq among the populace mainly started after the violence escalated and it looked "never-ending" (the violence that is.) Support didn’t fall when we increased troops during the surge, in fact it increased as evidence of lower levels of violence showed up in the media (called "winning".) My personal metric was when I started noticing the lack of the usual daily headline of a massive car bombs on Yahoo News.

Or are you going to start telling me how we made no progress in WW II since we have not withdrawn our forces yet from Europe?

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Progress to Americans means withdrawal.
No wonder you’re so screwed up - what a premise.
Written By: McQ
OK, I’ll go for a 45 day pause if it means we’ll finally recognize we need to leave and let the Iraqis decide for themselves what kind of future they want.
Written By: Scott Erb
BTW, I give Petraeus credit for: a) noting that the Basra operation was disappointing, and not trying to spin it into a loss for al-Sadr — he knows better, and was honest about that; b) for acknowledging that there is no ’light at the end of the tunnel’ and that any gains achieved are fragile; and c) in general being pretty straight forward. Ambassador Crocker was not quite so impressive, he did more ’spinning’ of the situation.

I think the war may become a major issue this fall, especially if violence continues to escalate, and that’s bad news for Sen. McCain.
Written By: Scott Erb
it means we’ll finally recognize we need to leave and let the Iraqis decide for themselves what kind of future they want
Then we’ll sign you up for the 45 day plan Scott, because it’s been our goal, all along, to let the Iraqi’s decide for themselves what kind of future they want.

You’d like to turn it over, now, to a small minority of Iraqis to make that decision so you can yell about failure later, and how right you were.
I could be wrong, but you seemed to be kinda gettin emotional about it all yesterday.

And you can forget the war being a main issue in September - the main issue will be $4.00 a gallon for gas, massive government bailing out for idiot lenders and worthless borrowers, and corn at 3 pieces for a dollar on sale.
But I’m sure the Democrats will offer us a ’smarter, better’ plan, just like they did 2 years ago (how’d that work out anyway? Hmmmmmm?)

It’s going to be the economy....(add any word you like here to describe yourself).
Written By: looker
URL: http://
With the Iraqi government applying pressure to the Sadrist movement and Muqtada al Sadr to disband the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s senior Shia cleric has weighed in on the issue. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, backed the government’s position that the Mahdi Army should surrender its weapons and said he never consulted with Sadr on disbanding the Mahdi Army. Instead, the decision to disband the Mahdi Army is Sadr’s to make.
Sistani spoke through Jalal el Din al Saghier, a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival political party to the Sadrist movement. Saghier was clear that Sistani did not sanction the Mahdi Army and called for it to disarm.
There is no need to spin al-Sadr as the loser when no spin is necessary.
The Iraqi Army was less than stellar, but al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army fared worse.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
And dont’ miss this gem.

It’s begs the question .. is McCain just too naunced for the media and the Left ?
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks