"The military and the security forces have become able to take the responsibility, to maintain the security and to work with professionalism and patriotism. We will continue to enhance our combat abilities and capabilities while equipping (forces) with the latest weapons and equipment," the premier told Mullen, according to a statement released on the prime minister's website.
U.S. officials have said repeatedly that they would consider having American forces in Iraq past the year-end date but only if the Iraqis asked. Privately, many Iraqi officials say they are worried about what will happen in Iraq after the U.S. withdrawals but publicly they maintain that all American forces will leave as scheduled.
Asking American forces to stay past 2011 would be politically risky for al-Maliki, whose closest allies in government are the virulently anti-American followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiite cleric, who spends much of his time in neighboring Iran, has threatened violence if American troops stay in Iraq.
This is frustrating. Sadr will revolt again if he is allowed to run free. His Iranian enablers will be delighted. Even if Sadr isn't a puppet of Iran as the Iranians hope, Sadr will certainly be anti-American. Why he isn't in prison or a wooden box for his past crimes and waging of war against the Iraqi government and Coalition forces is beyond me. Would the Iraqi government rather confront Sadr a fourth time with or without our troops in Iraq?
There is hope, however:
In his statement, al-Maliki emphasized that he would like to continue cooperation with the U.S. in the fields of training and armaments.
This could provide an opening for Maliki to argue that Iraq needs that assistance and only America can provide it.
And there are military-to-military talks on the subject:
Senior U.S. and Iraqi military officials have been in negotiations about keeping some 10,000 American troops in Iraq beyond the scheduled withdrawal of all U.S. forces at year's end, according to officials familiar with the talks. ...
If an agreement to keep 10,000 troops is reached, they would be tasked with helping Iraq maintain air sovereignty, providing medical evacuation assistance and training, and gathering intelligence on insurgents and Iranian agents. The extension could also let the U.S. keep advisers with Iraqi brigades. ...
The 10,000-troop deal under discussion represents a significant cut from an initial request made by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd Austin. Gen. Austin had talked privately of wanting to keep at least 16,000 troops in Iraq, according to U.S. officials. But other military officials believed that figure would be too large for Baghdad to accept, and unpalatable to Mr. Obama, the officials said.
I'd rather have 25,000 US forces as a minimum:
Perhaps we can draw down to three [combat] brigades (one near Basra, one near Baghdad, and one near Mosul and Kirkuk), with a total of 10,000. Perhaps we get down to 12,000 support personnel and a few thousand special forces. That would total 25,000.
Civilian contractors would supplement, and forces based outside of Iraq would be able to rapidly reinforce Iraq in a crisis.
I'll assume the low end of 10,000 represents pure support personnel and that the 16,000 figure would include a combat brigade to tamp down tensions in the north along the Kurdish-Arab "border" plus a couple thousand special forces to assist in counter terrorism operations. But that is an assumption on my part based on my guess for what the composition of 25,000 would look like.
It is frustrating that we would risk what we've achieved for the hollow goal of just getting out of Iraq. If we lose Iraq with our troops out of the country, will it be any less of a loss? Invest in the relatively small amount of additional work to help defend what we've gained after so much effort over the last two decades.
UPDATE: Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says Iraq has "weeks" to initiate a request for US forces to stay:
Asked what Iraq's deadline was for deciding, Mullen said: "I think the timeline is in the next few weeks."
"Because there, for the withdrawal, there is what I call a physics problem with 47,000 troops here, lots of equipment and physically it just takes time to move them."
Mullen did not speculate how many troops would be irreversibly committed to withdrawing after that time, saying only the Pentagon would need to make some "irrevocable" logistics and operational decisions.
I find it hard to believe that our military couldn't cobble something together in the short run even late in the day, but it would be better to have months to negotiate the form of our continued presence and then plan for it so it doesn't disrupt the elaborate training and global deployment cycles that our troops operate under.
Let's hope a sense of reality sets in.
Oh, and this continues to torque me off:
Any decision by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to extend the presence of U.S. troops is risky. Anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Sadrist bloc is part of Maliki's government, will unleash his Mehdi Army militia if U.S. troops fail to leave Iraq by year-end, his aides said earlier this month.
Mullen criticized those comments as "irresponsible."
Irresponsible? I'd say treasonous is more like it. Why Sadr's pro-Iran gang is tolerated by the Iraqi government is beyond me. (Although yes, I understand that Sadr's small bloc was needed in parliament.) After three insurrections, why not take Sadr at his word this time and take him down? Sadr will remain a threat to Iraqi democracy as long as he is breathing. I assume Maliki understands this and hope he is waiting for an opportunity to take Sadr down for good.
