US 'may stay in Iraq for four years'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.General Peter Schoomaker, the Army's Chief of Staff, said such a protracted troop deployment was a "worst-case scenario" but that he and other planners were already considering their options up to 2009.
It was not immediately clear whether the remarks by General Schoomaker, made in an interview with the Associated Press, had been sanctioned by the White House, which has sought to minimise public discussion of the problems in Iraq and suggested at every turn that the country was well on the way to self-determination.
The general's comments drew the ire of Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who is critical of the Iraq war, who described the contingency plan as "complete folly".
"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Senator Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years. It would bog us down, it would further destabilise the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offered a more conciliatory assessment, saying that one thing worse than General Schoomaker's worst-case scenario would be to leave Iraq with a "dysfunctional, repressive government".
The debate was indicative of several things: the continuing precarious situation on the ground in Iraq, a dramatic fall-off in public support for the US presence there, and a growing power struggle in the Republican Party to find a successor to President George Bush.
Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that the public are increasingly questioning President Bush's decision in going to war in Iraq in the first place and are concerned over his honesty in presenting the case for war. Recently there has been widepsread sympathy for Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in action in the Middle East who was camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch for most of August demanding an explanation from him for why her son had to die.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments