US could withdraw up to 50,000 troops

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4240318.stm

US 'could cut 50,000 Iraq troops'

The US could withdraw up to 50,000 of its troops from Iraq by the end of the year, Iraq's president has said.

"At least from 40,000 to 50,000 American troops can be [withdrawn] by the end of this year," Jalal Talabani told the Washington Post newspaper.

Mr Talabani said the possible pullout was prompted by the progress made in preparing Iraq's own forces.

Mr Talabani is in Washington for talks with President Bush, in which he said troops reduction would be discussed.

"We think that America has the full right to move some forces from Iraq to their country because I think we can replace them [with] our forces," Mr Talabani said.

The Iraqi president says that those new security forces currently stand at 60,000 and should grow to 100,000 by the end of the year.

However, many observers say that the Iraqi forces are still far from capable of dealing with the ongoing insurgency.

Mr Talabani's statement is the first time either a US or Iraqi political leader has set any timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

Shortly after the Iraqi president gave the interview, a senior aide called the Washington Post to say that Mr Talabani had not meant to imply a specific timetable.

"He is afraid... this might put the notion of a timetable on this thing. The exact figure of what would be required will undeniably depend on the level of insurgency [and] the level of Iraqi capability," the aide said.

In other developments:


US and Iraqi forces launch an attack on the insurgent stronghold of Haditha capturing one and killing at least four militants, according to the Associated Press news agency

Two Iraqi civilians are killed and seven others injured when a minibus explodes in Hilla, 100 km (60 miles) south of Baghdad

In Baghdad a lorry driver and his assistant are shot dead while trying to deliver concrete walls to fortify polling stations for next month's referendum on the draft constitution

In a separate incident in Baghdad, five mortar rounds are fired, two of which land in the Green Zone, although they are not reported to have caused any injuries.
Najaf transfer

The US currently has about 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

Despite sliding public support for the US presence in Iraq, Mr Bush has refused to set a schedule for a withdrawal. He has repeated the message that the US must stay the course.

The US has been training home-grown Iraqi troops to take over from their forces to allow a phased withdrawal.

Earlier this month the US officially handed over military control of the southern city of Najaf to Iraqi forces.

The move was the first of a planned series of security transfers across Iraq, paving the way for an eventual withdrawal of foreign forces.

[GAsux]

Yeah. I liked it better when it was called "Vietnamization". Since that plan worked so well, I'm 110% sure that this will as well. IMO if you remove 50,000 by years end, it will only further imperil the 100,000 or so left, and increase the opportunity for insurgents.

bin Laden and the Al Qaeda types are well versed. Not to say that the insurgency is entirely bin laden driven, but with success in Somalia and Spain, they've come to believe that even with limited resources, if they just keep slowly bleeding the life out of the U.S., they'll eventually grow tired and leave.

The jihadists did it to the Soviets in Afghanistan and they intend to do it again to the U.S. in Iraq.

I don't see there being any easy answer at this point. Stay and bleed to death or pull out concede the largest victory every awarded the jihadists. Pretty lose-lose if you ask me.

[Sethomas]

Good point. Maybe this was a bad idea after all.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

Yeah. I liked it better when it was called "Vietnamization". Since that plan worked so well, I'm 110% sure that this will as well. IMO if you remove 50,000 by years end, it will only further imperil the 100,000 or so left, and increase the opportunity for insurgents.

You may be right, but what's the alternative? Do we keep all of our troops there indefinitely, or do we devise a plan for eventually giving the Iraqis some more autonomy?

I agree that they're not entirely ready for that autonomy, and I even think that we sort of need to stay there in order to win, not just build a new Iraq. The point is to defeat extremists, right?? The problem with that is that we have a leader who hasn't clearly defined how we're going to do that, thus leaving us in like a state of limbo.

I think plans are a good thing. This plan could be good. We need to have faith in Iraqi troops at some point, right?

bin Laden and the Al Qaeda types are well versed. Not to say that the insurgency is entirely bin laden driven, but with success in Somalia and Spain, they've come to believe that even with limited resources, if they just keep slowly bleeding the life out of the U.S., they'll eventually grow tired and leave.

The jihadists did it to the Soviets in Afghanistan and they intend to do it again to the U.S. in Iraq.

I don't see there being any easy answer at this point. Stay and bleed to death or pull out concede the largest victory every awarded the jihadists. Pretty lose-lose if you ask me.

I think you've hit the unfortunate nail on the head here. But the one difference in those places is that we were withdrawing from anarchic situations, with no slight semblance of democracy. We truly were abandoning those places, not merely withdrawing.

I think with Iraq, if the constitution can hold, and the govt. can hold, and we remain tied to their security, Iraq may have a shot at curbing the extremism (not too unlike what the Pakistanis are managing to do right now).

[GAsux]

Kev,
With regards to your question, I guess my hang up with regards to the Iraqi police/army is the matter of "faith". I don't beleive faith in their ability is going to cut it. There needs to be some clear evidence that they can sustain a force capable of quelling the insurgency on their own and quite frankly I don't see that happening in the near term. Not to name drop but I don't know a single person who's come home from there saying they were remotely impressed with or comforted by the capabilities of the Iraqi forces.

But regardless, as for the solution question, I don't intend to be a no it all. I wasn't challenging the gradual troo withdrawl plan because I believe I know a better way. I certainly don't. Again my point is that perhaps at this point I've become a bit of a skeptic and beleive that at least in a conventional sense, this will not be war we "win". Either method, stay or go will have serious ramifications and come at great sacrifice for someone either now or in the near future.

At times I almost think perhaps we need more, not less troops, in order to get the Iraqis up to speed. The initial argument against it was that we didn't want to seem like "occuppiers" but at this point the people involved in the insurgency already think that anyway.

Just a my theory here but as much as I'd love to see everyone come home, I believe that if the 50,000 by 2006 plan comes to fruition, you'll see things get worse. I honestly believe the "bad guys" will wait us out as long as they have to believing that they can tolerate the death toll in much higher numbers and for a lot longer then we can.