In addition to his unexpected visit to the Anbar province in Baghdad, President Bush made the surprising statement that it may be possible to begin a gradual reduction in troop numbers. Bush was not, however, inferring that there would be a phased withdrawal in the sense that the mission had failed. Rather Bush explicitly stated that any troop withdrawals would be from a position of strength as opposed to bowing to any political, international or media pressure.
According to Reuters, Bush had expressed the sentiment that if military commanders deemed it possible to maintain the current levels of security with smaller numbers of troops, the president would consider reducing troop levels as it would be from a position of strength and not weakness. Once again, the president would make the decision based upon the recommendation of military commanders and not any sources of external pressure.
It would seem that yet another showdown between the President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over funding for the troops is looming. Much of the upcoming debate will surely revolve around the current situation where the Iraqi government has proven to be woefully incompetent and unable to provide the necessary political solutions such as passing the oft delayed oil revenue sharing bill required to aid in stabilizing the country.


Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. troop reductions will have to come eventually as we just don't have enough troops to continue the surge indefinitely. But there's a difference between reducing troops as some republicans might like and reducing troops AND changing the mission that the democrats want. I think the "changing the mission" is the most important part. Lets fight whatever al-qaeda is in Iraq, but stay out of the civil war there and further more take the fight back to bin-Laden in Afghanistan.
for political commentary & blogs, visit:
http://www.politidose.com/
Patrick at 7:38AM on Sep 4th 2007