Korean Job Discussion Forums

[some waygug-in]

According to this article/report:

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051110-125019-8225r

U.S. 'can't maintain Iraq troop levels'
By JOHN P. GRAMLICH
UPI Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Unless the Bush administration significantly cuts American troop levels in Iraq next year, the U.S. military's roughly 140,000-strong presence there will become a detriment to America's national security, according to a report released this week.

In the latest instance of foreign policy experts calling for the Bush administration to set a timetable for U.S. troop reductions in Iraq, the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, Wednesday said the future of America's military hangs in the balance.

"It has become clear that if we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer army," said the a report written by the center's Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. Korb served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.

The United States must reduce troop levels in Iraq, ideally with 80,000 leaving the country in 2006 and most of the rest leaving by the end of 2007, to avoid losing a broader "struggle against violent extremists" that goes beyond Iraq, the report says.

A timetable for U.S. troop reductions would carry the additional benefit of putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to stabilize the country quickly, Korb said during a panel discussion at the center on Wednesday -- an argument recently used by Democrats including Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.

[manlyboy]

There are plenty of other places besides Iraq where they can easily afford to reduce troop levels and re-deploy them accordingly. Do they really need 73 500 troops in Germany?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/deploy.htm

[Red]

Wow. Talk about "self-fulfilling"