Reduction in U.S. Troops Eyed for '04
U.S. military commanders have developed a plan to steadily cut back troop levels in Iraq next year, several senior Army officers said in recent interviews. There are now 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The plan...would begin to draw down forces next spring, cutting the number of troops to fewer than 100,000 by next summer and then to 50,000 by mid-2005, officers involved in the planning said.The plan, which amounts to being the first formal military exit strategy for Iraq, is designed to show how the U.S. presence might be reduced without undercutting the stability of the country. Military officials worry that if they do not begin cutting the size of the U.S. force, they could damage troop morale, leave the armed forces shorthanded if crises emerge in North Korea and elsewhere, and help create a long-term personnel shortage in the service.
I commented on this last month, when news of the Pentagon's "plan" ("wish" might be a better word) first appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
The Post's version provides a little more detail, but the general thrust is the same -- as is the obvious objective:
If it is implemented successfully, the troop reductions could reduce political pressure on the Bush administration as the presidential campaign gets fully underway.
Richard M. Nixon couldn't have put it better.
This time, however, the "plan" also seems driven by sheer military necessity: the Army has got to find a way to get its troop commitment down to a more sustainable level (say 40-50k) as quickly as possible. Now that it's clear the multinational cavalry isn't coming (even the Turks are getting cold feet), the choice is simple: forced draft Iraqization, or a forced draft here at home.
If you read the CBO report, even mid-2005 seems like a stretch. But I suppose the practical realities of training, outfitting and fielding a new Iraqi army and a new national police force simply don't allow for a tighter time frame. And there are plenty of military types willing to concede that the "plan" may be a non-starter:
Some of the advocates of the troop drawdown concede that they consider it a "best-case" scenario. The "mid-case," said one defense expert, is that the security situation continues as it is and Iraqi units prove unreliable, requiring more U.S. troops than the drawdown plan would provide, while the worst case is that conditions worsen and Shiite attacks increase, increasing the number of U.S. casualties and possibly requiring U.S. reinforcements.Retired Army Lt. Col. Gordon Rudd, a peacekeeping expert and military historian who worked this spring for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the civilian reconstruction administration in Baghdad, called the projection of major cuts "rosy and optimistic . . . but not beyond the realm of possibility -- nor inappropriate as a goal."
"Not beyond the realm of possibility." Now there's a glowing endorsement. I guess hope really is a plan, after all.
Of course, from the administration's point of view, everything doesn't have to go strictly according to hope/plan. If Bush can point to at least some troop withdrawals by next summer, he can try to make the case that "peace is at hand," which might get him past the election, if the economy continues to accelerate. It worked for Nixon, anyway.
But when you consider that, according to the Post, the new Iraqi army currently has exactly three battalions (2,100 men) and that the new Iraqi National Guard only has about 6,000 more, you begin to get an idea of just how rosy the Pentagon's scenario really is.
This raises two enormous issues. One is the political stability of post-bug out Iraq. As Col. Sam Gardiner (he of the Iraq War stories report) notes:
"The strategic problem, and the problem that will demand keeping a large U.S. presence, is the danger of a fractured Iraq." Without a large number of U.S. troops on Iraqi ground, he said, the country could quickly split into a Kurdish north, a Sunni center and a Shiite south.
The other is the quality of the forces that are supposed to put the "Iraqi" in Iraqization. It strains credulity (actually, it blows a hole clean through credulity) to think the Coalition will able to thoroughly vet its new native army, police force and intelligence service, while still meeting the ridiculously ambitious, if necessary, timetable set by the High Command.
Accordingly, there's every reason to think -- and few reasons not to think -- that the Sunni elements of these new services will be thoroughly penetrated by the resistance. The Shi'a elements, meanwhile, could gravitate towards their respective politico-religious factions -- which may or may not be at each other's throats by this time next year.
As I said, all of this may be good enough to get Shrub and Co. past the next election. But it's easy to imagine a second-term scenario in which the Pentagon has drawn troop strength down to the magic 40-50k level, and Iraq begins to fall -- into rebellion, civil war or just plain anarchy.
Bush would then face the Hobson's choice of withdrawing completely (and accepting the consequences), returning more troops to Iraq (putting the Army right back in the hole it's in now) or simply trying to hang on with a woefully outnumbered garrison force.
Of course, faced with the same set of choices in Vietnam, we know which one the Ford Administration selected:
There it is, folks, the end of the 2nd modern Vietnam War for Independence, the one our politicians, patriots and young adults so willingly participated in - in the role of the enemy.
I can't decide which is more interesting, whether it's this photograph of the defeat of the United States of America by a nation which suffered 3 million dead and how many millions more wounded or whether it's the way the CIA likes to think of it today, namely "US economic and military aid to South Vietnam grew through the 1960s in an attempt to bolster the government, but US armed forces were withdrawn following a cease-fire agreement in 1973. Two years later, North Vietnamese forces overran the South. Hell, they can't even admit there was a WAR we waged in which 3 million people were killed. How's that for self deception?
The bogeyman there was Communism - today the bogeyman is Terrorism. In both cases the bogeyman is essentially a doppenganger which springs from the embarassingly unenlightened support for the imperialism that the fascists in the USA's government practise so religiously by whipping and and scorching the nation's fabric like the meringue on a banana creme pie into something that's even less satisfying as the plain meringue itself.
From Walter Russell Mead's editorial in the L.A. Times today:
"In Iraq, the violence continues, but the lights are now on, kids are returning to school, Turkey has agreed to send troops to the most dangerous part of the country (Sunni Iraq) — and the Bush administration won unanimous support from the U.N. Security Council for its plan for Iraq...The reality is, the United States wants to do exactly what the rest of the world would like it to do in Iraq — hand control back to a freely elected, stable Iraqi government at the earliest possible moment. Iraq is making progress toward forming a new government, and that government will be able to assume more and more security responsibilities. By next spring, the new Iraqi police and army will be deploying, enabling the administration to start pulling out U.S. troops well before the November elections."
This is purest fantasy. I don't know what planet Mead is living on, but it isn't Earth.
I think most of us will agree that withdrawal from Vietnam was the correct action to have taken despite the fact that the North Vietnamese did overrun the South. By analogy, I would like to ask this forum if the correct action to take in Iraq would be immediate, total withdrawal.
Bloodshed would certainly follow. But blood is being shed now. It is highly possible that Iraq would split into at least three different states/nations. But is this such a bad thing? And would the results be any different in the wake of a slow, gradual withdrawal?
I've been reading a lot of editorials which say, in effect, "We should have never invaded Iraq, but now that we have, we must stay the course." I am not yet convinced. I hope somebody out there can convince me, otherwise each day the U.S. spends in Iraq is yet another mistake.
There is a deeper question: do we pull out when WE decide to do it, or do we end up having to make a forced retreat to Kuwait, harrassed on all sides? We could very well be caught in the middle of both an insurgency and a civil war by the first of the year.
The bogeyman there was Communism - today the bogeyman is Terrorism.
In both we dared not attack the true centers of those forces (Moscow and Saudi Arabia) but only those that can be made to seen as proxies for them. Thus giving lie to the notion that these "wars" were about the bogeymen. However, they sure win a lot of elections for the GOP.
If what you're reading seems to be fantasy you're just reading the latest RND propaganda talking points.
Yes, it's just like Stalin and Hitler. The government and their shills endlessley parrot lies. Some always stick.
It's trippy, all right, but we're living in times precisely like 70 years ago that we read in our history books. Should I learn the lindy hop?
marie, i can understand moscow, but saudi arabia? its just a shop set up by the US. we would have to bomb DC. that gives a new meaning to suicide bombing
Isn't this going to make it more dangerous for the poor guys left behind? Their numbers are inadequate to the job now.
I agree that the US has little control over what really happens in Iraq - whether we stay or go, Iraq will probably fall into civil war and split into three countries, or a new dictator will fight his way to power and hold the country together by force. Is the former a bad thing? Iraq is an artificially-drawn country created by the British and French. Boundaries were drawn straight through tribal areas.
Of course, the Turks and Iranians won't like having a Kurdish state, a Sunni rump state might get pushed around by Syria or Jordan, a Shiite state might get swallowed up by Iran or start threatening Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. More instability is what we can look forward to.
I dig the Saigon analogy and suspect that it's what we have to look forward to.
But here's another article that moves away from the "reduction in troops" story line.
We report, you decide.
U.S. general says troops may stay in Iraq until 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20031017-0825-iraq-usa-general.html
REUTERS
8:25 a.m. October 17, 2003
TIKRIT, Iraq – U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq until 2006 to fully secure the country they invaded in March, a top U.S. general said Friday.
marie, i can understand moscow, but saudi arabia?
Was referring to it's position as the center of fundamentalist Islam -- or have we forgotten the nationality of those 15 hijackers so soon? Moscow had nukes and Saudi has oil. Both are protective bubbles.
About a year ago, Rumsfeld was saying that the US could fight two wars at once.
In any event some (in Europe) believe the next islamist attack won't come from the Gulf. It'll be either from Algeria or from the Pacific Basin. We're a fat, stupid, sitting duck being bled by the week while the enemy is reloading.
It's sort of watching the French etat-major congratulate themselves on the Ligne Maginot while shooting those who refuse to fight.
I laugh bitterly when I heard the Repugs are strong on defense. The next crater on US soil -- and its comibg -- will entirely be their fault.
here's another article that moves away from the "reduction in troops" story line.
If you read the Post story, there's no real contradiction. The goal is to get down to 40-50k, then they can stay through 2006, or even longer.
About a year ago, Rumsfeld was saying that the US could fight two wars at once.
We can; they just both have to be in the same place.
A recent CBO study indicated that current troop levels in Iraq will be unsustainable beyond next spring, unless the rules are changed for reserves, and significantly longer tours of duty are ordered. This would IMO destroy the reserves.
If the current situation holds, we will see politically motivated "withdrawals" that are highly publicized by Fox News, but there will be unpublicized callups to offset these withdrawals.
I've been reading a lot of editorials which say, in effect, "We should have never invaded Iraq, but now that we have, we must stay the course." I am not yet convinced. I hope somebody out there can convince me, otherwise each day the U.S. spends in Iraq is yet another mistake.
Not sure that I can since I am conflicted myself, but how is this?
In 1991, we told Iraqis that if they stood up to Saddam we would stick with them and not abandon them. Then, after the war, a large number of Shiites took us up on the offer. But we left them to be slaughtered after encouraging them to rebel. Our planes were flying overhead and our tanks were sitting just outside their cities while they were being killed in the most gruesome ways imaginable. They trusted us and they died for it.
Now we tell the Iraqis that we won't let them down this time; we'll see it through till the end. We promised. If we leave now the one thing that we can be sure of is that the Iraqis who trusted us and worked with us to build a new Iraq will be slaughtered. If there is a chance we can prevent this don't we owe it to those people to not abandon them?
Like I said, I am conflicted. For one thing, I have my doubts we can keep the country together no matter how hard we try. But there is an argument for staying in posted by someone who was against the war.
all of this may be good enough to get Shrub and Co. past the next election. But it's easy to imagine a second-term scenario... [in which things go to hell]
Billmon, this part of your post makes my blood run cold. Surely a minor troop reduction and happy talk won't be enough to fool the paying public into handing the Bush crew another term. Surely we can make them pay the political cost.
Surely a minor troop reduction and happy talk won't be enough to fool the paying public into handing the Bush crew another term.
If the economy is doing well -- lot of new jobs, the Dow at 14,000 -- I suspect it will be enough.
If the economy isn't doing well -- few if any new jobs, the Dow below 10,000 -- then I think it could be a very tight race, and the situation in Iraq could be determinative.
Or, to quote James Carville: It's the economy, stupid.
To answer the person wondering if we should just pull out of Iraq right now, let me try to answer. The biggest reason we can't is we wont like the results. The Kurds have been persecuted for a very long time and wont put up with having it happen again. If the alternative is being ruled by the Shia they'll rebel and separate. The Turks, the other side in that Kurdish battle these long years, wont put up with a separate Kurdish state, since half of what used to be Kurdistan is now part of Turkey. So, leaving means a war between Turkey, our NATO ally, and the Kurds, our biggest allies in Iraq. That alone dictates we can't leave too weak a presence in Iraq, and unlike many here I believe our troops will still be in Iraq 20 years from now.
Meanwhile, in the south the Shia would not allow themselves to be ruled by Sunnis or Kurds, and would gravitate toward their Iranian brothers. An Islamic state in the south would result, and would likely be fiercely anti-American.
In both cases, lots of people die. The Shia kill Sunnis and rival Shia factions in the process of becoming a separate state, and the Turks and Kurds kill each other, and the Kurds kill the Sunnis too. All of that would be on our head.
But it's possible Shrub will try to bring troop levels down to that point; after all, the perfidy of his administration knows no bounds, and it's quite possible he'd accept all those deaths and wars and instability if it got him re-elected. After all, nothing, not even America itself, is more important to these folks than staying in power.
"I suspect that one reason the US went into Iraq with too few troops was to force an increase the size of the US military."
Nope, Rummy wanted to prove that smaller forces could be brought to bear to do jobs even as big as Iraq, so that they could fight more wars at once. After all, the original plan was not just to finish Iraq, but also Syria, Iran, and Lebanon as well. Originally Rummy wanted about 50,000 troops total for Iraq, leaving more for the other wars to come.
Now, it probably will mean a larger military.
Now, it probably will mean a larger military.
except that military recruitment is down these days. it went up after 9/11 but all these stories of pesky killings and extended tours of duty in hot desert climates has caused a decline in the number of people signing up. if they want a larger military, the options are:
(1) further extend the obligations of those who are already signed up (but this is a short-term solution at best. in the long term it will make military service even less desirable)
(2) somehow do a better job to talk the american public into enlisting. i expect a new batch of shiny jingistic advertisements. i also expect that they won't work. as this iraq thing drags on, the steady list of casualties and news from returning soldiers will undermine any madison avenue campaign.
(3) reinstate the draft. but honestly, whoever proposes this would be committing political suicide. at least right now. that could all change if there is another big terrorist attack or similar national trauma. until that happens, i doubt if any politician will make a serious push for it.
because none of the options will work, they won't get a bigger military.
The realists in the Pentagon are announcing that current force levels cannot be maintained in Iraq. Now that Turkey won’t send troops, the withdrawal planning must start.
As these posts indicate there is no good alternative. One big difference between Nixon and Bush II is that Nixon had a semi-viable Vietnamese Army and government. With American air power the South Vietnamese fought the 1972 NVA invasion to a stand still. In 1975 with no money from Congress, President Ford gave up. The Nixon Pardon and Viet Nam Defeat are two good reasons why Ford was never elected President. Bush II doesn’t even have a Iraqi army or government.
A 100,000 troop level this Spring is not viable. The current force level cannot secure Iraq. Either institute the draft and build up US forces, or reconstitute the Iraq Army and police force. Let the Arab League take over the Sunni Triangle and US troops withdraw North and British pull South.
Bush II may not realize it but he doesn’t even have the Nixon muddle through policy to fall back on.
If the economy isn't doing well -- few if any new jobs, the Dow below 10,000 -- then I think it could be a very tight race, and the situation in Iraq could be determinative.
Or, to quote James Carville: It's the economy, stupid.
Bobbi Fleckman's Observation applies too. Boy howdy does it apply.
The Iraqis have a vote in the 'drawdown'. They can work more effectively against smaller occupation forces. So the Iraqis could effectively veto the 'drawdown' by killing and maiming more occupation troops. And they seem to be escalating things with the current force level.
But, mark my words, Bush will not be able to re-introduce any troops to Iraq if the drawdown commences. The reaction at home would put an end to Mr. Bush's election chances along with making a stunning defeat of the GOP very likely.
A defeat of the GOP is likely now, except for the crooked voting machines.
Progressives have a large job to do to send Mr. Bush under his rock in Crawford, but my main fear is not that Iraq will not be an issue in the election, but that a crooked election will keep George 'Robert Mugabe' Bush in office no matter how the electorate votes.
.
On a recent antiwar protest in Trafalgar Sq in London, when (?survelliance) helicopters overhead were drowing out the proceedings, one of the speakers from the platform made everyone feel a whole lot better by alluding to the retreat by helicopter from Viet Nam as in your picture.
"About a year ago, Rumsfeld was saying that the US could fight two wars at once."
Actually, at that time Rummy was right. The military forces, as designed could fight and win two simultaneous wars at least of modest size. The military force structure, however, was never designed to occupy hostile nations for indefinite periods. It's the occupation model, so necessary for Empire, that was never considered as a likely possibility until the always radical "cons" took power and changed our country's role from friend of democracy to schoolyard bully.
It's amazing how many allusions to this administration can be portrayed at the level of childish behavior.
Hard to believe, but the Bush administration rocket scientists have finally found away for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world to lose to the rag tag forces of terrorism.
...until the always radical "cons" took power and changed our country's role from friend of democracy to schoolyard bully
I'm sorry, but if you believe that the United States of America has ever been a friend of democracy, then you really need to a) sober up and b) read up on what we've been doing in (or rather, to) the world for the last fifty years. Assassinations, military coups, and the murder of millions of innocents did not cease under Carter or Clinton. (In the former case, yes, it slowed down; in the latter it did not.)
America did not rise to unprecedented global power on the waves of Virtue. Millions upon millions of victims in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, South Africa, East Timor, and so on would testify otherwise if we hadn't already silenced them forever.
Let us stop all this talk of "democracy" once and for all. The United States of America is not a democracy, but a plutocracy (more recently, a theocratic plutocracy). The last Presidential "election" offered us a "choice" between two long established political dynasties. That is not democracy, but extremely sophisticated mass manipulation.
America is not a democracy, it is an Empire, and no Empire has ever been a "friend of democracy." That it is an Empire with some democratic institutions differentiates it only marginally from the Empires of the past. And even then, not all of them. The same can be said of colonial England and of Imperial Rome....
But forgive me, Keith, I see that I am raving. What can I say? These are tense times, and every now and then I have to let off steam.
Billmon, your finest single malt scotch, please. And keep it coming....
The plan always has been to get the main force out of Iraq by campaign time....remember that the PNAC'ers thought they'd be out already and moved into the next Muslim country. Rove will draw down the troops one way or another before the election. The only thing he cares about is re-election and if that happens, god help us, they will drop New Iraq like a hot potato. They have already realized getting the oil is much more difficult than expected. Anyone that thinks they *really* care about the Iraqi people is kidding themselves.
If the economy is doing well -- lot of new jobs, the Dow at 14,000 -- I suspect it will be enough.
But despite some generally good numbers on the current state of the economy, I've seen nothing to suggest that more than a handful of the 3 million jobs destroyed since Bush's inauguration will reappear in the near future. And it doesn't matter if the Dow goes to 14,000 - if people are scared for their jobs, or if they've been out of work for a while, that forms the basis of how they perceive the economy.
I know you're well-versed in the macroeconomy, certainly moreso than I. What's your take on the prospect for rapid employment gains, Billmon?
What's your take on the prospect for rapid employment gains, Billmon?
Possible, but unlikely. Employers still appear to be digesting the huge number of workers they hired during the '90s boom, even as output growth picks up. So productivity continues to soar.
If this keeps up, firms presumably will reach a point where they need to a lot of hiring -- and probably in a hurry. But before we reach that point, I strongly suspect output growth is going to slow down. So the turn in hiring may not arrive until late next year, too late to help Shrub.
But that's just a guess. The sources and durability of the current productivity boom are extremely obscure, so there's no telling how long it will last, or how abruptly it might end. But if productivity does continue to rise at a 5-6% rate over the next few quarters, we may very well see more job losses before the election.
I've thought for a long time that the Bushies would welcome the disintegration of Iraq into three helpless mini-states, just as Yugoslavia was destroyed. For one thing, it would be much easier to extract oil from small, impoverished provinces which would lack any resources for rebuilding their own infrastructure. So what if there is civil war and horrendous bloodshed? All the oil companies would have to do would be to bribe the local rulers - no more expenditures for face-saving assistance in building schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Iraq would sink into total poverty and fundamentalist oppression. Our military forces would be assigned only to protect the oil fields and pipelines. This is where we're heading, anyway. Remember Gen. Shinseko, who was forced out for telling the truth, namely that it would take several hundred thousand troops to control Iraq? Rumsfeld forced him out, of course. This is becoming more like a wildfire that a quagmire. No acceptable end in sight.
Reason that this won't happen:
"a Shiite state might get swallowed up by Iran.."
is Iran is not Arab. That is the only reason.
Bushies would welcome the disintegration of Iraq into three helpless mini-states
Wouldn't last for long. Turkey will not allow a Kurdish state on its border, especially not one which was rich with oil revenues and would aid and support Turkish Kurds to rebel. This situation would end up a bloodbath on both sides. Much to the dismay of the howling "born-again" hyenas in Washington, Turkey could end up another influential oil-rich Muslim state (and NATO member) which perhaps would no longer be so friendly to us since it wouldn't need America's aid money anymore.
I suspect that one reason the US went into Iraq with too few troops was to force an increase the size of the US military. With a larger military, US will no longer need allies in order to go to war. It will be free to go to war at any time without all those pesky people asking questions.