Specifically, she says: "The remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible." See Pelosi's full statement below:
President Obama's announcement of a withdrawal schedule for US combat troops in Iraq is good news because it signals that the war is coming to an end. I join the President in commending our troops for the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice which has characterized their service in Iraq.Pelosi told Rachel Maddow this week that up to 50,000 troops didn't sit that well with her. Having only heard reports of what Obama's plan might entail, Pelosi told Maddow, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000...I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000 [is necessary]...I don't know what purpose he has in keeping them there, whether it is to fight terrorism, train whatever -- the training of the Iraqis, which seems to have been going on forever."
As President Obama's Iraq policy is implemented, the remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible. The President's decision means that the time has come at last for Iraq's own security forces to have the prime responsibility for Iraq's security.
An ardent opponent of the war (and one whom anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan threatened to challenge from the left in a primary), Pelosi has vociferously called for an immediate withdrawal for years. Today, she tamped down the anti-war rhetoric a bit in her response Obama's announcement, while making it clear that she wants as few troops as possible in Iraq.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/02/pelosi-troop-levels-should-be-as-small-as-possible/1072/
