Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (224921)	3/21/2007 4:50:55 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The House first confirmed Petraeus to implement the surge then Pelosi came out in favor of an immediate withdrawal of troops, the exact opposite of the Surge. To wit, In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions. Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment. This is a recipe for immediate retreat. Excuse me, how does anyone read this as anything but "we've already lost, get out now, the Iraqis will have to handle this on their own, I'm only going to care about the 'strain' on our troops, not the success of their mission"