Asked if there would come a day when there would be no more U.S. forces in Iraq, Bush said, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Pressed on whether that meant a complete withdrawal would not happen during his presidency, Bush said, "I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say."
While there is some buzz about this statement I don't understand why stating the obvious should be earth shaking. But since reporters who don't know anything about military history or war are asking the questions, I don't expect much better. Because the concept is new to them they think they've discovered something profound.
Here's what I wrote about the subject in November (and I'm sure I've written before on it since I've assumed this progression for a long time):
America will be in Iraq a long time to ensure success. But as new missions become primary, our presence will evolve in numbers and nature. These changes in missions will overlap and many will go on at the same time, though with evolving priorities.
I go into the progression in more detail. In time, our troops will be in garrison in Iraq the way they are in Germany, Italy, and Japan today. Even in South Korea we are just a garrison force that is not in active combat.
So we can be in Iraq for years. Not fighting. Just protecting. And once the Iraqi armed forces are capable of defeating the Iranians, we can draw down even more or completely.
