Now the president appears to be determined to bug out from Iraq. At least that’s the only way we can interpret the report that the administration will ask to keep just 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq after the end of this year.
That is far below the figure recommended by U.S. Forces-Iraq under the command of General Lloyd Austin. It has been reported that Gen. Austin asked for 14,000 to 18,000 personnel—enough to allow his command to train and support Iraqi security forces, conduct intelligence gathering, carry out counterterrorism strikes, support U.S. diplomatic initiatives, prevent open bloodshed between Arabs and Kurds, and deter Iranian aggression. To perform, in other words, at least a few of the crucial tasks that U.S. troops have been carrying out in Iraq since the success of the surge in 2007 and 2008.
But keeping nearly 20,000 troops in Iraq was judged by State and Defense department officials too politically volatile in both Iraq and the United States. So they whittled down Gen. Austin’s request to 10,000 personnel. That’s still a substantial force package—amounting to two Brigade Combat Teams plus enablers—and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Admiral Mullen, and other senior leaders signed off.
It is possible that 3,000 troops is worse than nothing--hostages rather than protectors. But I guess I'd rather have 3,000 than nothing.
We still have four months to go. I hope saner heads prevail.
Boot at least explains part of my question back in July of what 10,000 would include. Two combat brigades (Say, 5,600 total) and then enablers. Would this include any special forces to fight alongside the Iraqis? Trainers? Or would we have to get creative by relying solely on civilian contractors for many functions that our troops would have done if we retained 25,000 as I wanted. Certainly, I have to believe that convoys would be run out of troops formally based in Kuwait and not considered part of the Iraq ceiling. Perhaps others could technically be based outside of Iraq if they rotated through Iraq quickly enough not to count under agreed definitions. Or maybe with extended overlaps between entering and departing troops we could squeeze more numbers into the ceiling.
But all those tricks fall apart if the number is as low as 3,000. And the whole thing could fall apart.
I will simply never forgive the Democratic Party for losing the second war within my lifetime after we had won on the battlefield just to settle scores with Republicans. When Von Clausewitz said war is an extension of politics by other means, I don't think this is what he had in mind.
