Pentagon's second thoughts on Iraq withdrawal

Chockstock

The Stars and Stripes Forever
10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
827
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_iraq_second_thoughts

Pentagon's second thoughts on Iraq withdrawal

WASHINGTON – Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates' visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

How big a military commitment might the U.S. be willing to make beyond 2011? "It just depends on what the Iraqis want and what we're able to provide and afford," Gates said Thursday at a U.S. base in the northern city of Mosul where U.S. soldiers advise and mentor Iraqi forces. He said the U.S. would consider a range of possibilities, from staying an extra couple of years to remaining in Iraq as permanent partners.

Less clear is whether the Iraqis will ask for any extension.

Powerful political winds are blowing against such a move even as U.S. officials assert that Iraqi leaders — Sunni, Shiite and Kurd — are saying privately they see a need for help developing their air defenses and other military capabilities. U.S. training of Iraqi forces up to now has focused on combating an internal enemy, including al-Qaida, rather than external threats.

If the Iraqis choose not to ask for more help, then Dec. 31 probably will mark the end of U.S. military intervention that was so close to failing when Gates became Pentagon chief in December 2006. He once said the U.S. faced the prospect of a "strategic disaster" at the heart of the Middle East.

Meghan O'Sullivan, a top adviser on Iraq to President George W. Bush when his administration negotiated the 2008 security agreement that set upcoming deadline for a final U.S. military withdrawal, said time is too short to negotiate a full reworking of that legal pact.

"The question is, can both sides agree on something more modest but which still provides an adequate legal basis for a smaller number of American troops to stay in Iraq, with quite defined missions?" she said in an email exchange last week. O'Sullivan is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School.

There are now about 47,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, less than one-third the total at the peak of the war four years ago.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a leading skeptic of the Obama administration's plan to turn over the Iraq mission to the State Department in January, has called this a formula for failure. Graham, R-S.C., says the U.S. needs to keep at least 10,000 troops in Iraq into 2012.

"If we're not smart enough to work with the Iraqis to have 10,000 to 15,000 American troops in Iraq in 2012, Iraq could go to hell," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation" on April 4. He said it was imperative that the U.S. remain to "make sure Iran doesn't interfere with the Iraqi sovereignty" and to help develop an Iraq that emerged from decades of oppressive rule by Saddam Hussein with no army, a crippled economy and a corrupted political order.

Hmm...I wonder if they will be saying something like this again come 2012.
 
Would it be worth it to just dump all the work we've done in Iraq like Sen. Lindsey Graham says?
 
Would it be worth it to just dump all the work we've done in Iraq like Sen. Lindsey Graham says?

Yet, at the same time, can we afford to keep it? With our own budget issues, mission in Afghanistan, and a third front, can we keep spending billions? Would you stay in Iraq 10 more years? 20? 50? 100? "till the job is done?" We've taken an advisory role, do we need to keep 43K soldiers on the ground? Would it be incredibly difficult to mini-"surge" if absolutely necessary?

Look, spending in FY11 for Iraq is going to be $55B. Afghanistan will be $120B. Congress nearly shut the gov't down for $38B, and that wasn't considered MONUMENTAL. Current U.S. debt is $14T, the wars have so far cost us $1.2T. So, yes, I think it's a good question to ask if it is worth staying. What we've done so far is a sunk cost. In treasure and blood. A good investor, gambler, and business man knows when to fold their hand before losing it.

Can we afford to stay? And do we need to? I'm not wholly confident in Sen Graham's thoughts on the topic.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
In a January 2010 update, the Congressional Budget Office projected that additional war costs for FY2012-FY2020 could range from $274 billion if troop levels fell to 30,000 by early 2013 to $588 billion if troop levels fell to 60,000 by about 2015. Under these CBO projections, funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror could total from about $1.56 trillion to about $1.88 trillion for FY2001-FY2020 depending on the scenario.
 
Thanks for your comment very good points! I hope other people do it as well its very interesting.
 
I see it as pay now or pay later

We could save on our current defense spending by not keeping troops in Iraq. However, what are we going to do if things get bad in Iraq after our total withdrawl? It didn't take too much for us to get involved in Libya.

The DoD could be smart about how we keep troops in Iraq, based on the political settlement. We could ask Iraq to contribute (as we do in Korea, Japan, Kuwait) to cost of maintaining our troops. We are planning to downsize our overseas committments, so accelerating or restationing some of troops from Korea, Japan, and Europe to Iraq/Kuwait should work. We could also try to reenage other nations to send troops to Iraq again,

Can't just address Iraq issue without considering everything else.
 
We could ask Iraq to contribute (as we do in Korea, Japan, Kuwait) to cost of maintaining our troops.

Have you imagined the outcome?

I have heard many stories about the U.S. wanting to rise in Iraq a pro-U.S. government (for evident reasons). But I believe it would look ridiculously over the top in the eyes of the Iraqis and International to, well, charge a country that we have invaded?

I know what you mean with that suggestion. But superficially speaking (which I was, on purpose, doing above) - what most people would see I believe -, this is a very strange plan of action... Know what I mean?
 
Have you imagined the outcome?

I have heard many stories about the U.S. wanting to rise in Iraq a pro-U.S. government (for evident reasons). But I believe it would look ridiculously over the top in the eyes of the Iraqis and International to, well, charge a country that we have invaded?

I know what you mean with that suggestion. But superficially speaking (which I was, on purpose, doing above) - what most people would see I believe -, this is a very strange plan of action... Know what I mean?

Yes, I do know what you mean. I think that's the challenge we face today. Instead of applying logic and common sense, most people apply anything but to make decisions.

- Bush is long gone
- Can't undo the past
- Iraq will be better off with some U.S. military presence (my opinion is that unrest created by U.S. military presense will be less than the unrest created by absence of U.S. military in Iraq).
- Nothing is free.
 
- Iraq will be better off with some U.S. military presence (my opinion is that unrest created by U.S. military presense will be less than the unrest created by absence of U.S. military in Iraq).
- Nothing is free.

Yes I agree - but staying there are charging people for something they do not want (obviously, we need data on that - I am not confirming everything, just stating the idea) is absurd - I mean having a military presence. It is not their army or their police force we are talking about. We are talking about our army. We do not want to be seen as mercenaries by the Iraqis and the World. As a matter of fact, "charging" could serve as another reason for Jihad. I don't know.

I do not see how charging would help the situation.
 
Yes I agree - but staying there are charging people for something they do not want (obviously, we need data on that - I am not confirming everything, just stating the idea) is absurd - I mean having a military presence. It is not their army or their police force we are talking about. We are talking about our army. We do not want to be seen as mercenaries by the Iraqis and the World. As a matter of fact, "charging" could serve as another reason for Jihad. I don't know.

I do not see how charging would help the situation.

wording do matter, but instead of charging, things like "cost sharing," "partial contribution" comes to mind.

It really doesn't matter what our intention is as rest of the world will form their own opinions.

We always have to consider the views of others, but ultimately our decisions needs to be based on what serves our interest the most.

Let us not confuse Jihad vs excuses to attack Amercians. You already gave in to terroists if you acknowledge their activities as Jihad.
 
Back
Top