« Previous | Main | Next »

Gates' 'Hope': 100,000 Troops in Iraq in Jan '09

Share

September 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)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Because of GWB you have been spared a WWIII my friend Ron above.

What will happen when he leaves office is anyone's guess.

What GWB has done is remarkable, you should thank him.

Posted by: Kottaras | Sep 15, 2007 12:52:25 AM

This war is not about freedom for the Iraqi people. This war is about money pure and simple. The United States can not and will not leave Iraq until the Iraqi government is stable and can defend itself against itself against its neighbors. Pelosi and Reid know this and that’s why they talk about one thing and do something else. Our government (since Carter was President) believes that we must have a “balance of power” in the area. This is why Ronald Regan sent weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran, we didn’t want Iraq to win but didn’t want them to lose either. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and our new congress believe that if we leave Iraq now, Iran will surely go into Iraq and Israel destroying the economies of the western world. Consider our world if gasoline was $12.00 a gallon, heating oil prices increased three to five fold, and everything we touch or eat increase proportionately. George Bush’s error was disrupting the “balance of power” in the first place, now that we are there our children and grandchildren can not afford for us to leave until this balance if restored. It does not matter who is elected to congress or the white house in 2008, the US will be in Iraq for years.

Posted by: Johnny | Sep 15, 2007 1:53:51 AM

Find it funny about a few things.
All of you that want to start with this war thing.
Obviously you forgot how the so called "war" (oil for food oh wait just oil for bush to sell to offshore clients) started. We were lied to people. This is not war, it is a pathetic attempt for bush to get revenge for the war his father started, second, last time I checked this so called war was because we were attacked by some odd group called al Qaeda or however you spell it. In Afghanistan. And some guy claiming responsibility, named bin laden wasn’t it? How THE HELL does that have anything to do with Iraq?
Like I said you keep thinking it’s the war, and there will be people laughing at you. By the way give up on the political stuff. This is America; last time I checked it was 1 country. You have played right into the gov and bush being their little left to right puppets. Wake Up. This is America not 2 countries. We the people. We must all stand as one and come together with one nation and stop letting gov and the president try to take our land and country away from us.
Who are we at war with?
Seems to me the Iraq (bath party) military was defeated in the first 3 weeks. We are battling now right? Who are we battling? Let me get this right almost all terrorists are coming from different countries to Iraq correct? So we are funding a "war" in a country that we are trying to rebuild? How does that work again? Billions for a country we are having people coming to to blow up./ nice. Where are they coming from? Afghanistan and Iran? Oh yeah. So why are we not invading them since that’s where they are? Oh because no oil to give bush? nah couldn’t be./ so let’s keep funding something called a "war" that is not a war at all, only to invite terrorists to come in and blow it up and kill innocent people, and to keep runing the buildings we rebuild only to spend more money rebuilding it so we can say we have a mission in Iraq? ahahahahahahaha! Bring our troops home for a break and let’s do the right thing go after terrorists where they are not by war, but by secret missions like it should be done. Get real, stop telling bush he is right by standing down to his bs. WE THE PEOPLE! One as a nation, standing in unity under one nation. Do not let the gov take over our lives, we the people own this country, let’s take it back.
Oh and one other thing. If you check the news one year before the war, Bush talked about starting a war with Iraq long before he was president, as well he wanted to start this war to escalate the missiles he was already shooting into Bagdad along with Britain almost 1 year before the 9/11, between April to June 2001. Look it up. So does that seem a bit odd? That a war did start but for so called different reasons. Who blew up the wtc again? And like I said who are we suppose to be at war with?
The Smart One

Posted by: life | Sep 15, 2007 9:42:17 AM

Thank you GWB - for sending the U.S. back to the 1950s but broker. Happy now, Kotaras?

Posted by: Ron | Sep 15, 2007 4:29:40 PM

I watched several of the media pundits shows and in the table discussions even the people at Fox, were so fed up with the war that they didnot have an answer and wanted to pass on their 30 second sound bites to others in the discussion.

Stephanopolis, and Company did no better at trying to stay the course in
a failed policy. Ron Paul said it best
when he said just bring them home, and he did not mean just Iraq, 50 years in
Europe, Korea, Japan and anywhere more than enough for embassies.

It is time for nation building here in
our Constitutional Republic, where half
the voting public does not want to vote.
Where over 70% of the Public does not like our representitives. Where the people are tired of voting for the same
type of Elitist stooges that give us the
same results after promising change. They know something is right and do not wwant to partisipate in insanity! For doing the samething over and over again is the deffinition of insanity if you
expect a different result. Wake up
and take your country back! Vote for the only sane policy, Vote for Ron Paul
for assured change. Look at your grocery bills and the price of gas. Pprosperity does not have a 20% rise in pprice. Cheers,


Posted by: Ronald Murphy | Sep 16, 2007 12:56:06 PM

Post a comment