This tidbit, via Huffpo, with the full read in the NY Times.
Seems with a fond adios to Gen. Pace, a new plan is taking shape where the Corps would bail out of Iraq and move into Afghanistan.
As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.
At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there.
The first "tangible new thinking" we've seen. That is indeed a crying shame. We've had how long to engage in said use of brain cells, but the modern equivalent of the Best and the Brightest can't really live up to the expectations of either the troops or the American people.
Not sure what this would mean, and it goes on to say the Army and Air Force would have to agree to that, leaving the Army entirely in charge of Iraq, something I'd imagine they're loathe to do at the current moment, under the current Commander-in-Chief.
Hey, how about this idea...round all the troops up and let them return to their loved ones in the US? That's what the poll numbers say the voters of the US would like to see.
VIA
If you enjoyed this post please use the "social bookmark" link below to add it to
Digg, StumbleUpon, Delicious or Reddit to help us spread the word.
HOMEPAGE
2 comments:
Good to see the site up and running again, I look forward to the discussion.
The New York Times continues to repeat a miracle: losing credibility despite having no more to lose.
It headlines a story: "Marines want to remove their troops from Iraq." One would gather from this that either (1) there is growing dissention in the military over the mission in Iraq; or (2) the Marines are losing heart.
Of course, if one bothers to read the article, one sees that the real story is about a reallignment of forces to make them more effective and streamlined. But then, the NYT probably (rightly) assumes that few readers make it past the headline. So it can accomplish two objectives: (1) tell the truth for the record(but in a way that most people won't notice it) while (2) implying a lie (in a way that most people will assume it's the truth).
Move over Joseph Goebbels. You would be envious if you lived today.
Post a Comment