We’re Not Leaving Iraq Anytime Soon
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, WarEven if the Dems do regain power, how could they turn down the pleas from the Iraqi President to stay?
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, in an interview, asked for a long-term US military presence in Iraq, saying his country will need two permanent US air bases to deter “foreign interference.”“I think we will be in need of American forces for a long time — even two military bases to prevent foreign interference,” Talabani told The Washington Post.
“I don’t ask to have 100,000 American soldiers — 10,000 soldiers and two air bases would be enough.”
The president indicated the bases would most welcome in Kurdistan, an autonomous region in northern Iraq that has practiced de facto self-government since the 1991 Gulf War.
But he suggested that the Sunni Arab segment of the Iraqi population would also welcome a long-term US military presence in Iraq.
But first, we have to win the peace. We can’t do that if we draw down the troops to incredibly low levels. Thankfully, it looks like we’re going to increase troop levels next year to stop this growing civil war.
Let’s hope we keep our word to the Iraqi people to win the peace in their country. Otherwise, it’s gonna be a bloodbath. And I don’t use that term lightly.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 25th, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:40 am
My response will come across as blunt and excessively painful – not really meant as a personal attack – but “[t]hankfully, it looks like we’re going to increase troop levels next year to stop this growing civil war� is not a solution.
The plans for victory are dependent on LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS, and LOGISTICS. Too bad people are too focused on tactical victories and cheap slogans as the means for a victory and not really breaking the chains of the paradigm to look for another solution – a permanent force of 10,000 US soldiers is too little; the level will only balloon when more missions are identified for our forces we are currently doing for the local nationals.
In today’s web-news, it seems at least one of the 1AD brigades will be extended to help keep the peace. In yesterday’s NYT article, we are told at least one of the 3ID brigades has already been told their deployment will be moved up (and they have not been in the country for the ‘mandatory’ refitting/resting/reconstitute time of one year).
In addition, there was one report released today that only 25% of the local national troops have been moved into Baghdad to help quell the resistance – at the chagrin of the military officers speaking off the record. After one month of holding the rope in Baghdad, only a quarter of the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, and ICDC are available?
As I have stated in my long-winded response late last week about ambi’s plan, the dependence on US active, reserve, and guard units is starting to show the strain, and has for a while. Adding more troops to Iraq is causing problems elsewhere, but the solution is an easy one for politicians, pundits, and neo-conservatives when they have ABSOLUTELY NO STAKE in the process than a slight tarnish to their reputations.
Adding more troops is not a solution – especially when we are tied elsewhere around the world and across the nation. This whole reforming of the US military to the Roman model of using legionaries, auxiliaries, and mercenaries has failed. We have no more legions (US military) to spread out, the auxiliary units (US allies) are balking, and we are left with the mercenaries.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story
This is not really news because GEN Shoomaker actually spoke about this item back sometime around 23 JUL 06 of this year, at least that is when he went to Congress asking for the monies to be provided to him and the US Army.
“According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army’s budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker’s request a 41% increase over current levels.”
This just goes to show that one cannot just be thankful we have 140,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and able to add more when the needs arise. LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS!
Then, we the citizens have to worry about comments like this in the article,
“Still, some Army officials said Schoomaker expressed concern about recent White House budget moves, such as the decision in May to use $1.9 billion out of the most recent emergency spending bill for border security, including deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops at the Mexican border.”
Stealing from Paul to pay Peter. And it is the US Army that is blue falconed in this whole manuever – the politicans get their slinky slogans, the neo-cons can make strategic decisions, and those we support get the shaft!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
There will always be American troops in Iraq. It’s good for both.