How many US Troops will remain in Iraq

This is from VOA hardly a hard leftist source! The US seems to be doing nothing to build up the Iraqi Air Force. I expect this is deliberate so that control of air space remains in US hands. In fact I gather all air traffic in Iraq is under US control!
As this article points out withdrawal of troops from Iraq means combat troops but there could still be many thousands of troops remaining. This is often overlooked when talking about bringing home the troops. A sovereign Iraq needs a big complement of US troops to look after US interests, the pampered in the embassy mansion, contractors, and so forth.

VOICE OF AMERICA
VOA Home

As Surge Ends, How Many US Troops Will Remain in Iraq?
By Al Pessin Pentagon24 July 2008
Pessin report - Download (MP3) Pessin report - Listen (MP3)
The U.S. troop surge in Iraq has now ended, with the top general's spokesman confirming to VOA that all the combat troops sent in last year to bolster security efforts have ended their tours of duty and left the country. But according to the Pentagon there are about 16,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq now than there were before the surge started early last year. VOA Pentagon Correspondent Al Pessin got out his calculator to try to figure out the discrepancy.
US Troops participating in assault mission, 3 Jul 2008Students of mathematics will tell you there is a traditional approach called Old Math, and there are concepts known as New Math. But they probably don't know about something that falls into neither category. That is Pentagon Math.Before the surge, there were about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Now the Pentagon says there are 148,000. That's a substantial increase, more than 12 percent. Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman was asked to explain."We've always said that we know there are certain capabilities that the United States military is going to have to continue to provide until the Iraqis can establish their own organic ability to do those things - medical, logistics, maintenance, air support," he responded. So these are support troops, not combat troops, and the support troops are staying - or being replaced by fresh reinforcements - to provide the same capabilities to the increasingly active Iraqi Army and Police.
Boosting Iraq's Security
Iraqi soldier practices 'dime drills' to improve trigger squeezeThe Iraqis have demonstrated considerable combat ability in several recent operations, including the expulsion of insurgent and militia forces from Basra and Mosul. But they still can not provide all their own logistics support, and they lack air power, the ability to do medical evacuations and other important capabilities.Indeed, the increased need for support troops was predicted back in February by Lieutenant General Carter Ham, who was the chief of operations for the senior U.S. military staff, when he predicted that about 8,000 of the surge forces would stay after the surge combat troops left."It also takes into account, as our forces look to transition from leading to partnering and then to over-watch, the need to retain some key enabling capabilities, to help the Iraqi forces with their capabilities," he explained, "such capabilities as command and control headquarters, logistics, aviation, detainee operations and the like."In the end, the Pentagon says the extra support troops number about 10,000. But there are 16,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq than before the surge. The Pentagon says some of the other 6,000 extra U.S. troops are in the process of taking over for departing troops, so the overall number should go down by a few thousand in the coming weeks. But that still leaves at least a couple of thousand troops not exactly accounted for.
US Troop WithdrawalThe Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, says some may be leaving in the coming weeks, if their services are not needed by the Iraqis. In addition, he says U.S. commanders routinely request additional capabilities, such as bomb squads and intelligence units, which results in the deployment of small groups, or even individuals, which can add up over time."The onesies and twosies become dozens, and the dozens become a few hundred, and a few hundred become a thousand sometimes," Whitman said. "It's just the way it does. Commanders have appetites for capabilities."And he says commanders are always reluctant to give up capabilities once they have them. "It's hard to give up capability. If you're a commander on the ground and you've got something that's working well, it's always a little bit hard to say, 'Well, we can do with less of this or less of that.' It's hard, I'm sure," he noted.
Combat Troops vs. Support TroopsThe number crunching this week over the post-surge U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, raises a question - when Iraqi leaders call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2010, are they talking about all the troops or just the combat troops? Or put another way, if the end of the surge left 16,000 troops behind, how many troops would a so-called complete U.S. withdrawal leave behind?Experts say the Iraqi need for air support and other capabilities will not go away by 2010, and neither will the needs to protect American diplomats and reconstruction teams and to use high-end U.S. military capability to pursue any remaining hard-core terrorists and insurgents.
Senator Barack Obama listens as General David H. Petraeus discusses security improvements in Baghdad, 21 Jul 2008The Democratic Party's presidential candidate, Barack Obama, also wants U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2010, but he is careful to specify that he's talking about combat troops, as he did during a news conference in Jordan on Tuesday, shortly after ending a visit to Iraq. "Once we redeploy our combat brigades, we're still going to retain a capability to protect our personnel, to target terrorists and to train Iraqi security forces, if there is political progress," Obama said.In Pentagon Math, even by a candidate who has pledged to end the war, if you deploy troops and then bring the troops home, you're still likely to have a substantial number of troops remaining. But no one is saying exactly how many will be, as we used to say in Old Math, 'left over.'

Bipartisan Consensus: Iraq, Many More Years of War

This analysis sounds reasonably accurate to me. Unless the public gets much more active and demanding things will probably transpire much as predicted by Smith. HOwever, an attack on Iran may alter the situation considerably much for the worse I expect.

Bipartisan Consensus: Iraq, Many More Years of War


by Jack A. Smith

Global Research, October 24, 2007





After a few skirmishes, congressional Democrats have fled the field of battle with the Republicans over the matter of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq. Ending the war itself was never a serious part of the several-month debate, although many Americans thought it was.

A consensus seems to be building in Washington that views a long term U.S. military presence in Iraq as a valuable geostrategic asset in the quest for regional and global hegemony. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is now talking about an occupation of an unlimited number of years with a minimum of 40,000 U.S. troops. The Democratic Party and the majority of its politicians in Congress are expected to go along with this.

The Democratic leadership has declared it now seeks compromise with the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress, and isn¹t willing to force the issue of troop withdrawal. Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards ‹ leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination ‹ have all been quoted as suggesting that the war will not end for at least five-and-a-half more years (the end of the new presidential term). According to a Sept. 29 article in the Washington Post, the important question for these candidates "is no longer whether U.S. forces will remain in Iraq but what size, mission and length a post-buildup [post-surge], post-Bush force would take on."

It also appears that the centrist majority of the Democratic delegation in the House and Senate is committed to keeping a large contingent of American troops in Iraq at least as long as Clinton, Obama and Edwards predict. Public opinion polls in September showed that only 5% of the American people want the troops to remain that long, but they will be ignored unless a great deal more pressure is exerted by the American people and the U.S. peace movement.

Democratic leaders will make efforts to convince the voters throughout the year leading to the 2008 elections that they are doing their best to bring U.S. troops home. But it will be for show, in order to propel a Democrat into the White House on the basis of antiwar opinion.

Democratic House and Senate leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, claim that the threat of a Republican filibuster and a veto from President George W. Bush constitute a double whammy preventing the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress from passing legislation to withdraw the U.S. Army of Occupation from Iraq.

At best, this argument is disingenuous. All the Democrats in Congress need do is exercise their constitutional right to withhold funds to continue the war, allocating monies only for the swift withdrawal of all American troops. A majority can do it. In the Senate, if the Democrats can¹t accumulate 51 votes, all they¹d need is 41 to mount a filibuster which would prevent the funding bill from being called for a vote. The refusal to attempt such action is an indication that the Democrats have other plans in mind. The Democratic congressional leadership insists de-funding would be unpopular with the voters and may cost them the election. But that is misleading.

Once the March 2003 invasion began, the Democratic Party has been as committed as the Republicans to winning the Iraq war, despite the antiwar views of a small minority of legislators within its ranks. Democratic leaders think they can conduct the war better than the blundering Bush Administration. Winning in Iraq was their position in the 2004 election with John Kerry and it is their position now. The difference is that Democratic leaders said it openly then and conceal it now because public opinion has changed.

The "peace party," as the Dems have positioned themselves in the election, talks about withdrawal but the fact is that its most extreme proposal has been for a gradual and partial withdrawal that would keep up to 50,000 American troops in Iraq for many years. With them would be a huge number of mercenaries and tens of thousands of civilians now providing services that the military used to handle just a decade ago.

The U.S. will wind up spending some $2 trillion dollars on the Iraq project if it ends in a couple of years, and much more if it lasts a decade or so, as seems likely. Washington will not simply walk away from an investment of this size. There is too much at stake, including control over one of the largest reserves of petroleum under the Earth, and America¹s domination of the entire Middle East.

Here, in our view, is the Democratic leadership¹s simultaneous two-stage prescription for "victory" in Iraq:

1. After a Democrat becomes the next president, they will begin the process of partial withdrawal over several years. This will reduce popular opposition, even as hostilities continue. After a year or two, as Iraqi troops play more of a front-line role, the number of US. casualities will drop considerably, further eroding the demand for an end to the war.

2. During this time, the U.S. will fund, train, field and control the huge Iraqi army so that it does most of the fighting. The Pentagon will back it up with tens of thousands of U.S. Special Forces and other troops stationed in impregnable bases and supported by a vast expansion of American air power. Buy off as much of the opposition as possible. Promise to invest in rebuilding part of the infrastructure. Create an informal but effective separation of Iraq into three parts ‹ Kurd, Shia, Sunni ‹ to reduce communal strife. Maintain control over whatever Iraq government it is convenient to put in power and direct affairs, as now, from Washington. Bring in the UN as cover.

There are other aspects to Washington¹s triumph in an unjust war, but these are key. If it works, the U.S. military will remain in Iraq for many years. How many? How about 10 to 50 years?

The U.S. has stationed almost 40,000 troops, missiles, bombers and nuclear weapons in South Korea for over a half century, and they are not about to leave despite the so-called "shortage" of American troops in Iraq. "Protecting" South Korea is not the reason. The existence of substantial U.S. military power an hour or two away from China, Russia and Japan is a major forward thrust in the geostrategic drive for world hegemony.

Maintaining a powerful military force in the client state of Iraq for decades will be an even more important geostrategic maneuver, if it works out. One reason, as former Federal Reserve boss Alan Greenspan let slip in his new book, is that ³the Iraq war is largely about oil.² Of course it is, but there¹s more.

The U.S. seeks to become so powerfully entrenched in Iraq that it is given first grabs at the oil for a reasonable price, plus influence over who else gets the oil. This is why the Congress and the White House are demanding that Baghdad agree to the ³benchmark² about de-nationalizing the oil fields and allowing U.S. companies to earn super profits for extracting and delivering this strategic commodity. When the corporations get in and the oil starts flowing, naturally they will have to be protected by reliable American forces.

The geostrategic reason for Washington to remain a politically and militarily dominant force in Iraq is to facilitate the extension of U.S. hegemony throughout the Middle East, with Russia and China very much in mind.

The U.S. is engaged in am undeclared new cold war with both China and the revived, Putin-era Russia. The principal area of contention between Beijing and Moscow on the one hand, and Washington on the other, is that both China and Russia are aligned in opposing the concept of a unipolar world order wherein the United States operates as the dominating superpower and world cop, as it has done since the Soviet downfall.

The alternative is a multipolar system where several countries or regions operate as essentially equal powers, with the UN playing a larger role. Washington rejects, and suggests it will fight against, any erosion in its dominant unipolar position. This contradiction will be resolved in the next decades, one way or the other. In an important speech Oct. 15, Chinese President Hu Jintao declared that the ³trend toward a multipolar world is irreversible.²

The U.S. will be empowered significantly in this geostrategic struggle if it can sufficiently control the oil-rich states of the Middle East to the point of influencing which outside states can and cannot purchase or drill for the region¹s oil. With influence such as this, first in Iraq and then the region, the U.S. will guarantee itself abundant supplies of this vital but diminishing energy resource for many decades to come. In the process this will reduce its own dependence on certain politically problematic sources such as Venezuela.

Washington believes that its European allies are becoming too dependant on oil and natural gas from Russia. Should America¹s plans for the Middle East succeed, enough oil could be made available to the European Union/NATO countries at attractive prices to draw them away from Moscow. Naturally such a circumstance would make the Europeans more dependent on America in exchange.

China comes into the picture because of a desperate need for energy resources to continue its role as the world¹s manufacturing resource, as well as a requirement to satisfy the domestic needs of a population four times larger than the United States. With decisive influence over the disposition of the world¹s largest oil fields, Washington could threaten to prevent China¹s access to Middle East oil should push come to shove over Beijing¹s economic power and the unipolar issue. China seeks Russian oil, but would be reluctant to become principally dependent on Moscow¹s energy supplies. Each is a proud and important nation seeking an independent place in the sun, and wary of falling under the other¹s shadow.

A large, permanent garrison in Iraq will transport Washington closer to its geopolitical goals. A presence of this magnitude will allow the U.S. to militarily threaten Iran, Syria, and Lebanon whenever "necessary" It will further bolster Israel, and enhance U.S. control of the region while extending its reach closer to southern Russia.

These are the main reasons we believe Washington¹s intention is a long occupation in Iraq and why there will be little real opposition from the Democratic or Republican parties. The war has been bipartisan from the day it began and, aside from salvos of unpleasant rhetoric, probably will remain so under a somewhat different configuration with a Democratic president in the White House.

Washington may never attain its long range objectives, of course. The Pentagon¹s Army of Occupation and it¹s creation, the ³Iraqi² army, may never be able to ³stabilize² Iraq, and the situation will continue to worsen. The American people, already sick of the war, may see through the phased, partial withdrawal scheme, and recognize it for what it is: a mechanism for continuing the war for years to come.

The U.S. antiwar movement, in combination with pubic opinion, may be able to frustrate the plans for a long occupation. But its many components will have to be far more politically savvy, united in action, independent of the two ruling parties, and willing to escalate its confrontation with whoever the powers may be. At this stage it appears that a large sector of the peace forces, While still calling for withdrawal, will mainly spend next year seeking to elect Democrats in the 2008 elections.

The author is the editor of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. He is the former editor of the U.S. left weekly, the Guardian. He may be reached at jacdon@earthlink.net.

Bush: Troop cuts in a while-maybe!

Bush is transparent. He is simply attempting to stave off the attempt to force him to make a commitment now. He has left it open to actually decide on a drawback of forces in September but who knows what he will decide then. It remains to be seen whether the recent rebellion within Republican ranks will go anywhere.

Bush deploys idea of troop cut "in a while"
Facing a GOP rebellion, president signals he may be open to a course shift in Iraq
By Jeff Zeleny and Sheryl Gay Stolberg The New York Times

Washington - Fearful of a Republican rebellion over Iraq that his own aides believe could force him to change course, President Bush said Tuesday that the United States would be able to pull back troops "in a while," but asked Congress to wait until September to pass judgment on a future military presence there.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., freshly back from a trip to Iraq, joined in the call for patience, imploring lawmakers not to "let fatigue dictate our policies."

As the Senate began a two-week debate over a major military spending bill, the White House dispatched Cabinet officials and advisers to urge other Republicans to stand by Bush.

The administration's message was spelled out in remarks Bush delivered in Ohio, in which the president signaled more clearly than before that he might be open to shifting toward a smaller, more-limited mission in Iraq in the future - without stating precisely when.

"I'll be glad to discuss different options," Bush said to a business group in Cleveland. He went on, "I believe we can be in a different position in a while, and that would be to have enough troops there to guard the territorial integrity of that country, enough troops there to make sure that al-Qaeda doesn't gain safe haven."

With Republicans divided in their support of Bush, it remains an open question whether a series of proposals in Congress, including those calling for troop-withdrawal deadlines, will gain the 60 votes needed for initial passage in the Senate when the measures are scheduled to be considered next week.

As the debate began Tuesday, Bush's national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and his new Iraq coordinator, Lt. Gen. Doug las Lute, arrived on Capitol Hill to lobby senators, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates was fielding phone calls from lawmakers in both parties.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she received a call on Tuesday morning from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, urging her to wait until September before criticizing the Bush policy.

But "the tide has turned," Snowe said. "They obviously would prefer that we wait until September, but my view is that we should send a very strong message now."

Among the proposals to be considered over the next two weeks is a plan requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days and be completed by the end of April 2008. The sponsors, Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the legislation would allow troops to remain in Iraq for a limited mission of combating terrorism, training Iraqi forces and protecting U.S. forces.

Bush's words on Tuesday signaled the beginning of a White House counteroffensive aimed at emphasizing that, like Americans around the country, he too wants to bring troops home.

"I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, 'Is it worth it; can we accomplish an objective?"' Bush said. "Well, first I want to tell you, yes, we can accomplish this fight and win in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must, for the sake of our children and grandchildren."

While Bush hinted in his remarks that he was open to exploring different options in the future, he did not expound upon them in any significant detail.

In a White House memorandum circulated on Capitol Hill and beyond, the administration said it was "too early to declare the surge a success or failure" but highlighted what it called signs of progress, including "a substantial drop in sectarian murders in Baghdad since January."

Administration officials sought to downplay the review of the benchmarks of progress in Iraq. The document, required by congressional budget legislation, is based on reports from senior commanders and diplomats in Iraq.

"This week started to take on greater importance than anyone in the administration had intended," said one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "September is our window."

The GOP senators who believe September is too late for a new strategy began huddling privately Tuesday to begin discussing compromise legislation to change course in Iraq. Sens. Rich ard Lugar of Indiana and John Warner of Virginia are among those crafting such proposals.

At the same time, a string of Republicans stepped forward and voiced support for the president, while Democratic leaders accused Republicans of using procedural maneuvering to delay votes on the Iraq legislation.

Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., said the critics were being hasty.

"Do we not have the patience to see a totally new strategy, which is appearing to work, given a chance?" he asked.

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_6344389