But could we really be thinking about largely cancelling the deployments of two brigade combat teams to Iraq and one to Afghansitan?
That's what this article says:
Under the plan, deployment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., would be canceled. Instead, for the first time, portions of the brigade would be divided into 10- or 11-member military transition teams that would be sent separately into Iraq to work with Iraqi security forces.
Also, some other members of the brigade would go to Iraq to do security duty, such as guarding high profile targets.
The second unit that would not deploy to Iraq is the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, which is currently in Kuwait and is usually based in Germany. Under the plan, up to two-thirds of the brigade would return to Germany, while the rest would stay in Kuwait, prepared to respond to any emergency in Iraq.
The 4th Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Polk, La., would not go to Afghanistan.
Since critics of the administration have been predicting President Bush would bug out of Iraq since the hand over to an interim Iraqi government in mid-2004, I like to think that all decisions are solidly based. Still, I'm nervous as long as we are still on the offensive in al Anbar.
But the cancellation of troops deployments to Iraq are based on perhaps the best-case election reaction. So I won't assume this contingency plan is likely.
And what would the deployment to Afghanistan have to do with Iraqi elections? Or is the NATO expansion--including a Canadian battalion--going to reduce the need for our troops?
Interesting, to be sure. But any leaked contingency plan would be interesting.
