- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Gates' 'Hope': 100,000 Troops in Iraq in Jan '09
Email
ShareSeptember 14, 2007 6:16 PM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Even in a best-case scenario, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says there would still be about 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq when the next president of the United States is sworn in on January 20, 2009.
"My hope is that when he does his assessment in March, that General [David] Petraeus will be able to say that he thinks that the pace of drawdowns can continue at the same rate in the second half of the year, as in the first half of the year," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon Friday. "That's my hope."
Asked if that means "about 100,000 for the next president" Gates replied, "That would be the math."
The plan announced by the president would reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by about 20,000 to 30,000, leaving more than 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by July 2008.
Drawing down another 30,000 for the following six months would leave 100,000 troops there by January 2009, when the next president is sworn in.
Gates made it clear that further drawdowns are not guaranteed, however, and it is possible there could be considerably more than 100,000 troops in Iraq by January 2009.
"One of the sad aspects of war is there is no script," Gates said. "That history hasn't been written yet. And the enemy has a vote. I can tell you what my hope is."
Democrats quickly seized on Secretary Gates' comments to call for a quicker drawdown.
"It's more evidence that it's the president plan to leave this mess for the next president to deal with," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "If that's a strategy, it's beyond me."
"It is well within both the president's authority and ability to redeploy more of our forces and at a faster pace than he announced last night, which means that a year from now we would simply be back to the same troop level we were at a year ago," said Philippe Reines, spokesman for Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
September 14, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (25)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is token drawdown intended to quiet the critics. Pathetic. This administration makes me want to puke!
Posted by: bob | Sep 14, 2007 6:44:08 PM
This is the most corrupt administration in US history.
There should be NO US combat troops in Iraq doing anything. The "war on terror" is the biggest fraud in US history. And, is the largest bank (US Treasury) heist in world history.
US taxpayers have no obligation to prop up a non-functioning government in Iraq or anywhere else.
Bush and his entire administration are a greater menace to the US & world than OBL and al qaida.
Posted by: tuckerndfw | Sep 14, 2007 6:44:22 PM
Bobby Gates is just as deluded as the imperial presidency he serves.We will be in Iraq well into the next presidency of her imperial highness queen Hillary and her white trash husband,king Bill.A lot of high ideals at the Pentagon and at CIA when he was DCI:lots of idealism with no substance.
Posted by: Luis Rodriguez | Sep 14, 2007 7:08:18 PM
Stop this unjust war so these extremeists can re group and re organize, then we can fight them in LA and NY after they are properly armed. Or we could all just convert now!
Posted by: Yafi | Sep 14, 2007 7:26:59 PM
I can't count how many times the White House has promised a troop reduction. And not a single one has happened outside of required combat deployment rotations.
Posted by: kvonl | Sep 14, 2007 7:48:39 PM
Yafi - you are just plain wrong. There will never be any fighting over here. Are they going to arrive in battleships? You have a paranoid perception, and evokes the "pre-emptive war" approach favored by neocons, and certainly is no excuse for this war. Give it up. Your reasoning is insane.
Posted by: jeff j | Sep 14, 2007 8:01:31 PM
We've been con by con man Bush & Cheney. There were 130,000 men before the surge and added 30,000 during the surge. Now he wants to withdraw the 30,000 and leave 130,000. What a con artist. He is a corrupt businessman and war profiteer. We're staying because of oil and Haliburton. I said before the war, it was for oil and I say it is still for oil.
Posted by: marc | Sep 14, 2007 8:07:49 PM
January 20, 2009 seems like it will never come........
Posted by: kishor | Sep 14, 2007 8:33:31 PM
Listen to all the diatride coming from the leftists here.
Who do they think they are trying to impose their ideologies here?
The US president whoever he or she may be
has an obligation to defend freedom of Americans both at home and abroad. If that means fighting terror abroad than let it be.
Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 14, 2007 8:43:12 PM
yeah, keep believing that this war is about terror.
Posted by: a.copley | Sep 14, 2007 8:47:09 PM
Pity that only a bunch of MoveOn.org sheep post here.
Posted by: Scott | Sep 14, 2007 8:55:30 PM
If this war is not about terror then what is it about?
9/11 was one example and many before it and many after it....you want us to believe anything else please explain those terrorist acts.
Get a life you complete and utter .....!
Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 14, 2007 9:00:29 PM
One million civilians dead in Iraq...obsurd.
Almost as bad as the survey done by Lancet.
Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 14, 2007 9:20:04 PM
Why don't the Democrats try proposing a SOLUTION then? A quick pullout is definitely not a solution. It's that simple. Whether we like it or not, we have to fix what Democrats as well as Republicans started when they voted for the invasion, including the Presidential candidates. I don't hear any Democrat saying anything other than pullout.
Posted by: donheinz | Sep 14, 2007 9:27:41 PM
The Democrats do not have a solution. They want to quit and run and not worry what will follow. They forget the "killing fields" and the aftermath of Vietnam's surrender.
Let us listen to the Democrats shall we?
Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 14, 2007 9:33:03 PM
Please lets "cut and run". That is the only solution to this mess.
Posted by: bob | Sep 14, 2007 9:36:24 PM
"Cut and run" is precisely what the enemies of the US are hoping for.
Sometimes one wonders who these enemies really are?
Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 14, 2007 9:56:01 PM
If this is a just and noble war, let Mitt Rommney's kids and George Bush's daughters get on board. Why don't we have a draft? Certainly seems like a small price to pay for freedom, if that is what this is really all about.
Posted by: bob | Sep 14, 2007 10:00:24 PM
I hate to see our kids go to war. But what choices do we have? Some day we may all have to fight in one way or another.
The British Royals were not exempt from harms way. Rommney's kids, Bush's kids or Clinton's kids are not necessarily exempt.
Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 14, 2007 10:14:03 PM
If this is this administration's best case scenario for 2009, I don't want them to tell us what the worst case would be. They have screwed the world up so bad we will probably be in a 3rd world war soon because of GWB.
Posted by: Ron | Sep 15, 2007 12:17:31 AM
Post a comment
