We will eventually see US troops draw down in Iraq as the Iraqi security forces get better:
Army Gen. George Casey said a growing number of Iraqi army units were capable of leading the battle against the insurgency with U.S. logistical support and he expected almost all of them to develop this capability by the end of this year.
"As long as the Iraqi security forces continue to progress and as long as this national unity government continues to operate that way and move the country forward, I think we're to be able to see continued gradual reduction of coalition forces over the coming months and into next year," Casey said on the CBS show "Face the Nation."
I don't understand why some insist we must have more troops in Iraq to win.
We had enough troops to topple Saddam in about three weeks of combat.
We've had enough troops to shield Iraq in the face of well-funded and vicious terrorists so that the Iraqis could hold elections, build a government, and field security forces.
If we'd had insufficient troops these last three years we wouldn't have accomplished these objectives.
So where is the perception of a need for more troops coming from? Because we did not win in one year of counter-insurgency? Give me a break. These things unfortunately take time and the best way to win them is to get the locals to fight. They can't get tired and go home as we might. They must win or die.
We have enough troops. I've addressed this again and again over the last couple years. Once again, let's call it 8 million Iraqis in the Shia south. Ignore the 3 million Kurds in the north who are well protected by Kurdish militias. The main battle is the center where 14 million people live--Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis mixed together.
To fight this insurgency, we have 265,000 Iraqi army and police; 150,000 Iraqi facility protection troops; 135,000 Americans, 22,000 Coalition; and 10,000 contract security personnel. There are 582,000 troops total to protect 22 million people. That is over 2.6%. The accepted minimum number of troops to defeat an insurgency is 2% of the population based on historical examples.
Now, the Shia south doesn't need nearly as many troops. Normal police levels are about 0.2% of population. But the Shia south isn't this tranquil. Let's just call it at 1%--half the level needed to defeat an insurgency over time. And I think I'm being conservative here. Eight million Shia would need 80,000 security personnel, leaving 502,000 troops for the mixed central area. This is nearly 3.6%. This is well above the 2% minimum.
Yes, I think we need more troops in Baghdad. But given the number of troops available in Iraq, I don't know why we can't put more troops into the capital city area.
Even with sufficient troops, it will take time to grind down the enemy.
Even when we draw down to 100,000 American troops with half the combat brigades we have now in a garrison role and not a combat role (and the rest in support roles to enable the Iraqi combat units to fight), we should have 325,000 Iraqi army and police plus 150,000 facility protection troops. Ten thousand contract guys would probably remain. And even if all 22,000 Coalition troops leave when we draw down, we'd still have 575,000 total security forces inside Iraq.
We have the troops to win in Iraq. We just need the time to use them. And the patience to keep from panicking because we didn't win last week.
