U.S. planning long committment to Iraq - left fumes
Some on the left are having the vapors over this article about a long term U.S. commitment in Iraq, and this story about the Bush administration comparing the longevity of our presence in Iraq to the one in Korea. As I’ve been saying since I started this blog over a year ago - the U.S. isn’t leaving Iraq anytime soon.
Even if the loony left gets its way, and the war was de-funded TODAY, here’s what it would take to pack everyone up and move out of Iraq.
The immediate all-or-nothing debate in Washington over troop levels represents a false dilemma, some military officials said. Even if a total pullout is the goal, it could take a year to execute a full withdrawal. One official estimated that with only one major route from the country — through southern Iraq to Kuwait — it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation.
“We’re not going to go from where we’re at now to zero overnight,” said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno,the U.S. commander for day-to-day operations in Iraq.
And do you think that would end the insurgent and terrorist attacks on U.S. forces? Not hardly. While I was in Iraq, a FOB nearby was closing down as part of the overall U.S. plan to reduce our footprint in the country. The insurgents picked up on it and unmercifully shelled the base with mortar and rocket fire right up until the time that the U.S. forces and contractors had finally left. Hey, we’re pulling out of an area - they should be happy, right? No, they knew the base would have a harder time defending itself, and they wanted the propaganda “victory” to say that they had “driven” the infidels and apostates out of the area. What do you think will happen when those long trains of convoys starting heading south?
According to the linked Washington Post article, U.S. forces are more willing to gamble than they have in the past.
U.S. officials, both political and military, say they are more willing to take chances than before. The clearest gamble was the decision in January to move U.S. troops off big, isolated bases and into 60 small, relatively vulnerable outposts across Baghdad. However, the risk-taking also includes reaching out to people once declared enemies of the United States, such as Sadr, the Shiite cleric. “Some people say he might be ready to negotiate behind the scenes,” Odierno said in an interview.
In addition, commanders will be forced to lean heavily in coming months on Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been mixed at best. The U.S. strategy in Baghdad of “clear, hold and build” calls for clearing neighborhoods of enemy forces, then holding them with a sustained military presence while reconstruction efforts get underway. Yet by itself, the United States does not have enough troops to “hold,” so that mission must be executed by Iraqis.
“My nightmare — the thing that keeps me up at night — is a failure of Iraqi security forces, somehow, catastrophically, mixed with a major Samarra-mosque-type catastrophe,” Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, said last week, referring to the February 2006 bombing of a mosque in Samarra that sparked renewed civil strife.
Even as they focus on the realities in Iraq, officials here are also keeping an eye on Washington politics. Despite the talk in the U.S. capital that Petraeus has only until September to stabilize the situation in Iraq, some officers here are quietly suggesting that they really may have until Jan. 20, 2009 — when President Bush leaves office — to put the smaller, revised force in place. They doubt that Bush will pull the plug on the war or that Congress will ultimately force his hand.
When I was in Iraq, the plan was to reduce our presence there to something like 12 “enduring” FOBs. Which FOBs those were going to be changed every so often as priorities morphed. That was in 2006. Even then, I remember one MNC-I officer saying that Iraq was the new Korea. How things have changed since then, I don’t know, but it’s sounding fairly similar in scope.
I always like to check in on the loony left when articles like this come out, and they never fail to entertain. This from the Democratic Underground and, as usual, I had to censor some of it:
The Soviets were not attacked when they high-tailed their asses out of Afghanistan and neither will we when we do the same and get out of Iraq at a high rate of speed. Most of the equipment we can leave behind as a gift to our puppets in the Iraqi government. The equipment is in bad need of repairs and a lot of it is not salvageable.
This bulls**t talk about a “residual force” that is unfortunately echoed by the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, is nothing more than lowering the profile of the war and occupation. The killings and violence will continue for as long as we keep an imperialist footprint on Iraqi soil.
Ask the Israelis how well their 40-year occupation of Palestine has gone, and ask yourselves if you want American troops cast in the same role in Iraq that the IDF is in Occupied Palestine.
- Indiana Green
Actually, the Soviets were attacked coming out of Afghanistan. According to the book “The Hidden War” (1990) by then Soviet journalist Artyom Borovik, the convoys leaving Afghanistan were regular attacked, along with the remaining outposts. Since IndianaGreen uses a picture of Karl Marx as his forum post avatar, we all know where he’s coming from.
On the other hand, one poster at DU does seem to understand the truth of the matter:
DUer’s who think that a Democrat will be able to pull all of our troops out of Iraq on the day they are sworn in needs to look to the magic pixie party for what they want. This includes Kucinich.
- onehandle
Category :
Tags :
Similar Posts:
- Army staying in Iraq? No big surprise here!
- US Marines propose moving force from Iraq to Afghanistan
- Iraq is a "quagmire", longer war in Afghanistan seems politically-correct
- More bad news for the anti-war left
- U.S. fighter inadvertantly bombs Britons
- Finally! A war liberals can get behind!
- Liberals show their ignorance about the military
- Fake memo has the left in a tizzy
- Good news out of Iraq = bad news for the anti-war crowd
- U.S. soldiers acknowledge killing Iranian in firefight
I heard Adam Smth (D-WA) interviewed - he’s a cut and run guy. He explained that he wants to leave forces in Iraq, but they are to “stay out of the civil war and focus on Al Quada.” He also said we need more troops in Afghanistan, Africa and SE Asia.
I would have liked to have asked just exactly how the troops would know who was shooting at them to know whether they could fire back.