February 9th, 2009
04:47 AM ET
6 years ago

Sources: Iraq, Afghanistan withdrawals delayed

A U.S. soldier stands guard as policemen destroy poppy fields in Nadi Ali district, February 5, 2009.
A U.S. soldier stands guard as policemen destroy poppy fields in Nadi Ali district, February 5, 2009.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Decisions about withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan have been delayed until the Pentagon provides President Barack Obama with more detail about the risks and implications of the issues confronting him, according to two senior Pentagon officials.

Both officials, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, have a direct understanding of the discussion regarding troop withdrawals. They said the military is not concerned about the delays, but that there is concern about the deteriorating levels of security in Afghanistan.

The officials confirmed that the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are now working on three Iraq combat troop withdrawal options for the president: 16 months, 19 months and 23 months.

Full story


Filed under: Afghanistan • Iraq
soundoff (23 Responses)
  1. S Callahan

    It's reasonable to say it would take two or so years to do a satisfactory withdrawl, even reasonable to have a measure in place to maintain a small troop presence for at least five years. The goal is withdrawl, but one with a logical and non emotional withdrawl. We are not just considering the brave soliders of the United States but the everyday citizens of Iraq.

    February 9, 2009 08:54 am at 8:54 am |
  2. Independent Paul from Phoenix

    Wow, what a shocker (sarcasm). Looks like Obama is going to be on the same schedule Bush was.

    On Aug. 22, Bush accepted a timetable of having all combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June '09, and all troops out by the end of 2011. Obama (and Hillary) campaigned hard on the promise of removing troops immediately as one of the first priorities (with Obama moving a portion of the troops back to Afghanistan).

    I voted for change. I guess this goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    February 9, 2009 08:55 am at 8:55 am |
  3. Spider

    Enough already!!!

    Does anyone still believe Barack Obama is going to pull the troops out of Iraq?

    Get a grip!

    The Iraqi government has already said that they will take over the security of their own nation next year, 2010. They made a governmental decree of such last year, while Dubya was still President.

    Why would Barry risk pulling troops out early? If he pulls them out on his schedule and Iraq falls, which it will as soon as we pull out, then the entire world will blame him. If he waits until the Iraqi government says they are ready, then they're on their own.

    February 9, 2009 08:57 am at 8:57 am |
  4. BB

    Hey – what's $10 or $20 billion a month for a few more months? What's a few more lost lives?

    Bring them all home and leave the war-mongers in that area fighting each other. They've done it for thousands of years.

    February 9, 2009 08:57 am at 8:57 am |
  5. Lush Limprick is the REAL RNC Chairman

    The timeline is not as important as the fact we are leaving Iraq.

    February 9, 2009 09:00 am at 9:00 am |
  6. naqib

    Well maybe Bammer should have asked for that information prior to making big promises to the American people...

    But hey... he's breaking them left and right in the first three weeks... so I didn't expect much here either

    February 9, 2009 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  7. JD

    Wow... not such an easy decision after all, eh? You almost had me on the powerfully-delivered, well-worded rhetoric of your campaign.

    February 9, 2009 09:14 am at 9:14 am |
  8. obama-mama

    It's really a shame that clown Bush and Cheyney started the war in Iraq...I feel sorry for the men and women over there. I've heard horrid stories about what they go through and I hope they will get some relief soon.

    February 9, 2009 09:15 am at 9:15 am |
  9. Freed_From_W

    How about NOW!?

    Considering the Iraq "war" never should have happened....

    February 9, 2009 09:23 am at 9:23 am |
  10. Laura, Boston

    I guess most troops won't be home to watch the next superbowl game as President Obama said when asked on superbowl sunday.

    I supported President Obama and I now feel slightly hung over (I haven't been drinking the kool aid any longer). I believe many Hillary supporters were correct in their comments that experience should have been looked at with more consideration.

    I hope President Obama does well I really do but he doesn't seem to be getting off to a good start. First cabinet issues now keeping troops in IRAQ longer. What will be next. Let me guess...no Universal Healthcare.

    February 9, 2009 09:24 am at 9:24 am |
  11. wasabe kid

    Here we have an example of intelligent decision making. This story suggests that the Obama Administration is making decisions based on gathering facts. This is much better than making decisions based on the platitudes and proverbs of Conservatism.

    If the facts suggest that we can pull our troops out sooner or later, then we should go with the facts.

    February 9, 2009 09:25 am at 9:25 am |
  12. Sue in MI

    We need to get out of both countries, ASAP, before we spend any more money there. These are sovereign states, and we do not belong there.

    February 9, 2009 09:28 am at 9:28 am |
  13. Desmond Sequeira

    If Pakistan will not demolish ALL terrorist outfits including Lashkar-e Toiba and others, then the USA MUST. India would, but that could spark a war with Pakistan which is in the control of terrorists, despite the pretence of a democratic government

    February 9, 2009 09:30 am at 9:30 am |
  14. demwit

    We need to do this right people..

    February 9, 2009 09:32 am at 9:32 am |
  15. Joe

    Is Obama CONTINUING to reneg on his campaign promises? First a bipartisan stimulus plan and now this?????

    February 9, 2009 09:37 am at 9:37 am |
  16. Scott the Independent

    In other words obstruction is taking place in the arm forces. Are the republicans indirectly in support of a coo? Is the country about to band and outlaw the republican party in what seems to be an attempt to undermine our system of law?

    February 9, 2009 09:39 am at 9:39 am |
  17. karen-Phoenix

    Just NO MORE money for Iraq or anywhere else UNTIL we bail out the American worker who has paid the high price of this illegal war!!! Not to mention the 4000 soldiers dead and 100,000 dead Iraqis!

    February 9, 2009 09:40 am at 9:40 am |
  18. brandon

    Lol, so much for the time line barack.

    February 9, 2009 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  19. Former Obama Supporter

    Obama lied, people died!

    Come on people say it with me!

    February 9, 2009 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  20. southerncousin

    Less than a year ago, it was the first thing they were going to do if elected.

    February 9, 2009 09:45 am at 9:45 am |
  21. Tony

    The more things "change", the more they stay the same.

    February 9, 2009 09:48 am at 9:48 am |
  22. The lonely Libertarian of Liverpool

    And where is it written the the U.S.A. has to be the world's police force? Wasn't it a major campaign promise of our new President to bring our troops home?

    February 9, 2009 09:49 am at 9:49 am |
  23. darryn

    We have to let the Persians, go soon as possible, we have giving them over 50 billion dollars and 4 thousand lives. BABYLON is BABYLON. As for Afghanistan, you hang with nine Broke friends you are about to become the TENTH.

    February 9, 2009 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |