The 1st Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division would move within weeks as part of a still-developing Pentagon strategy that ends the Iraq war but positions a strong U.S. force just across the border.
As they leave Iraq, they'll stay in Kuwait rather than come home. I wonder if this will be a new normal and we'll see complete brigades rotate through Kuwait. In the 1990s after Desert Storm, we generally had a battalion constantly there, which could be rapidly reinforced to a full brigade with prepositioned equipment. I assume the prepositioned equipment is not related to the 1 CAV brigade.
I also wonder if the 55th brigade which will be sent to Kuwait in early 2012 for convoy security is an additional brigade that will be in Kuwait. Or will we need convoys in Iraq? Will it provide escort for convoys with supplies for our heavy State Department presence? Would that not count as being in Iraq? Or will 55th brigade replace the 1CAV brigade as the rapid reaction force?
All this activity shows why I am not too worried about Iraq being attacked by Iran after we leave. Yes, there is a bit more risk. But we can handle it. Between terrorism and the looming threat of having nuclear weapons, Iran's military sucks.
Nor am I overly worried about Iran influencing Iraq in our absence to the extent that Iraq becomes an Iranian ally rather than an American ally. Our absence increases Iran's ability to meddle, no doubt. But Arab an Kurdish Iraqis--even Iraqi Shias--overwhelmingly don't want to be controlled by Persian Iran. So articles like this belittling that worry mean nothing to me:
As the United States prepares to withdraw its forces from Iraq by year’s end, a chorus of influential voices is insisting that the beneficiary of such a move is Iran. That is, a beleaguered Shiite theocracy overwhelmed by low-simmering opposition at home and growing isolation abroad is said to emerge as the local hegemon. Such views discount how Iran’s contentious vision for the future of Iraq and its divisive tactics have alienated Iraqis across the sectarian spectrum. Iran may have been able to project its influence in an Iraq beset by civil war, but Tehran increasingly is on the margins as Iraq reconstitutes its national institutions.
No, my worry is that our absence will increase the chance that Iraqi political factions will resort to force to settle problems. That last part of the quote above is the problem. Iraq is reconstituting their national institutions to adopt rule of law within democratic processes to resolve differences. Our troops provide a security net that gives Iraqis confidence that they can rely on political processes to settle differences. Without us, will someone resort to force either from opportunity or from fear someone else will strike first? If you don't think Iran's mullahs benefit from the death of democracy in Iraq, you're fooling yourself.
Can even a powerful American Army brigade in Kuwait be close enough to replace one in Baghdad's suburbs able to quickly intervene to squelch armed action by Iraqis against other Iraqis?
I don't know. Which is why I'd rather not take that chance. Washington and Baghdad need to find a way for American combat forces to stay in Iraq.
UPDATE: Kuwait denies this:
Kuwait on Sunday denied reports it would boost the number of US troops in the country as they withdraw from Iraq.
So we leaked this without getting Kuwait's approval? Ah, "smart diplomacy" in action.
Don't even talk to me about how multilateral this administration is when they can't even get bilateral down in a vital region.
