Troops To Stay In Iraq Until President Dean Brings Them Home

MSGOP:

The U.S. Army’s top general said Wednesday he is planning for the possibility that the Army may be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq through 2006.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that "for planning purposes" he has ordered his staff to consider how the Army would replace the force that is now rotating into Iraq with another force of similar size in 2005 — and again in 2006.
...
Of the approximately 105,000 troops going to Iraq this winter and spring to replace the 130,000 who have been there since the start of the war, about 80,000 are Army soldiers. The replacement force, which includes 25,000 Marines, is scheduled to spend a full year in Iraq.

Army officials have said that planning for the 2005 rotation of forces into Iraq will begin in February.

I have no idea if this is really significant or not. On the one hand, I'm glad the Army, DoD, and presumably the administration itself are recognizing that things might not all be rosy and we should plan for contingencies. On the other, I suspect that Bush's political considerations will trump any military concerns just as they did prior to, and during, this war.

Further, how much more will Iraq slip under the radar if we do actually turn over power to the Iraqis in June? We're still going to have a lot of troops there until 2005. If we declare victory, but still don't go home, will the American public fall for the trick as we head into the general election? Who remembers Afghanistan?

ntodd  ¶ 8:52 AM