We still want to keep some troops in Iraq after this year and are waiting for the Iraqi government--which knows it needs us--to ask. Iran is trying to kill American troops to persuade us to leave for good:
The Obama administration is still willing to keep thousands of American troops in Iraq next year if requested, despite a series of deadly attacks on soldiers by Shiite militiamen, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad said Saturday.
Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said no decision on the issue has been made by Washington. Baghdad's Shiite-led government has not asked to extend the U.S. troop presence, though it is widely expected to do so.
"We're not going to be intimidated by people attacking us," Jeffrey told reporters.
The figure being raised is 10,000 American troops. I'd rather have 25,000 stay, but perhaps the historical precedent when in conflict with the Persians is being heeded and we need to march around through Iraq.
I figured my 25,000 would include 3 combat brigades and several thousand special forces plus supply and logistic troops.
Could we fit in three combat brigades if we stripped them down to their line elements and a few thousand special forces under this 10K ceiling? We could base the brigades' support elements in Kuwait, perhaps.
Could we also formally base other logistic support elements in Kuwait and have them rotate through Iraq on short 3 month tours so they are not formally part of the Iraq-based contingent? Could we do the same with training teams? And convoy escorts could be based in Kuwait and not be counted as they hit the roads to and from our bases in Iraq, I guess.
Or could we simply not count anyone helping the Iraqis with training or maintaining equipment we sell to them as part of our contingent? Could we replace some of the troops I think we need with contractors if we can't get away with rotating them through Iraq without counting them under the ceiling?
Is it possible that we could arrange overlap between units rotating into Iraq and those leaving to be so long that we effectively have many more in Iraq despite not having more than 10,000 on paper?
And could Marine security for State Department missions be outside the ceiling?
I think we need more than 10,000, though at this point any number is better than nothing. But remember, the original ten thousand were really more like 30,000. But on paper they are just the Ten Thousand. So we have historical precedent for fudging, too.
UPDATE: We've offered 10,000 trainers who would mostly be deployed around Baghdad. I'll give President Obama some credit for attempting this over his most rabid followers' objections. I get the feeling that they'd love to snatch a well-deserved defeat from the jaws of victory, even at this late stage.
We probably can't expect any real response from Iraq before September. Would "trainers" be flexible enough of a concept to include what I mentioned above?
I'd still rather have 25,000, including three combat brigades and special forces plus the trainers, support, and logistics people, but I'll take what we can get.
UPDATE: Of course, we can't just leave troops in Iraq to be targets for Iranian aggression. We'd need an agreement with Iraq to deal with the Iranians, too:
Admiral Mike Mullen, speaking at a luncheon with reporters, said Iranians -- with full knowledge of Iran's leadership -- were providing Iraqi Shi'ite groups with high-tech rocket-assisted weapons and shaped explosives effective at penetrating armor.
"Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shia groups which are killing our troops," said Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ...
He said Iran made a conscious decision in 2008 to curb its involvement in Iraq, but had now resumed sending supplies to extremist groups, evidently positioning itself to be able to say that it had helped to drive U.S. forces from the region. ...
Mullen said he believed any agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year "has to be done in conjunction with control of Iran in that regard." He said Baghdad was aware of U.S. concerns about the issue.
Iran is at war with us. They have been for over 30 years since they attacked our embassy and took our diplomats hostage.
But I guess we're being all sporting about it and waiting until Iran gets nuclear weapons so we'll be on a level playing field. That is the basis of our smart foreign policy these days, isn't it?
