Last combat troops pulled out of Iraq

[Jack21222]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38744453/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

The final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., began entering Kuwait about 1:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. Wednesday ET), carrying the last of the 14,000 U.S. combat forces in Iraq, said NBC’s Richard Engel, who has been traveling with the brigade as it moved out this week.

To me, this seems like a mere technicality, since we're keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq. Removing 14k and keeping 50k hardly seems like "ending the war" as the state department says.

“We are ending the war ... but we are not ending our work in Iraq,” he said. “We have a long-term commitment to Iraq.”

Thoughts?

 

[russ_watters]

It's a good step, but I'm not clear on what the role of those remaining 50,000 troops are. Are they MPs? Supply groups? Traing and organizational advisors? Engineers?

Still, I wouldn't call it a technicality because it (I assume) means an end to actual combat patrols.

(Caveat: I'd be shocked if we don't still have special forces doing search-and-destory missions.)

 

[rootX]

It would be a mistake according to Aziz:

"I was encouraged when [Obama] was elected president, because I thought he was going to correct some of the mistakes of Bush. But Obama is a hypocrite. He is leaving Iraq to the wolves."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10888385

 

[rootX]

It's a good step, but I'm not clear on what the role of those remaining 50,000 troops are. Are they MPs? Supply groups? Traing and organizational advisors? Engineers?

Still, I wouldn't call it a technicality because it (I assume) means an end to actual combat patrols.

(Caveat: I'd be shocked if we don't still have special forces doing search-and-destory missions.)

I believe they are there to train Iraq military.

Some 56,000 US troops are set to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11020270

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure why anyone would care what Aziz has to say, but certainly Obama is not being hypocritical here. IMO this is one of the biggest successes of his job as Cinc so far and he's certainly been consistent since the campaign that he was going to follow the withdrawal plan Bush laid out for him.

Of course he wants to believe that Iraq was better off when he himself was in power there, but due to the lifiting of sanctions and pumping of American money into rebuilding, Iraq's GDP is something like 5x what it was 10 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#After_the_Fall_of_Saddam_Hussein

 

[rootX]

Not sure why anyone would care what Aziz has to say, but certainly Obama is not being hypocritical here. This is one of the biggest successes of his job as Cinc so far and he's been consistent since the campaign that he was going to follow the withdrawal plan Bush laid out for him.

He is Former Iraqi deputy PM and has far more knowledge of Iraq than Americans. Who would qualify more?

Of course he wants to believe that Iraq was better off when he himself was in power there, but due to the lifiting of sanctions and pumping of American money into rebuilding, Iraq's GDP is something like 5x what it was 10 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...Saddam_Hussein

GDP does not measure quality of life.

 

[loseyourname]

The new SOFA in effect at this point has the remaining troops serving in an advisory role only. No more combat patrols. No more leaving the FOB for the most part, although I guess horizontal construction units, contractor pay units, civil affairs units, and personnel like that will still need to go out in the cities to more directly teach the Iraqis how to build roads and what not.

I spent some time in training with a signal intelligence platoon at Ft. Carson last summer about to deploy and they were mostly fairly irked about the pointlessness of their own deployment. They can't do their regular jobs because intel collection has been handed over to the Iraqis, and the equipment they use is all classified and can't be shared, so they can't really teach them anything, either.

 

[russ_watters]

He is Former Iraqi deputy PM and has far more knowledge of Iraq than Americans. Who would qualify more?

Oh, he's absolutely the most qualified to answer questions about how Iraq was before the war, but being a criminal who took part in the various atrocities of that oppressive dictatorship also makes him perhaps the least credible witness on the planet on the subject! And as far as conditions today are concerned, he's only really qualified to speak about how the inside of his jail cell has deteriorated over the past 7 years.

GDP does not measure quality of life.

It is one way to measure quality of life, yes - though an indirect one.

 

[rootX]

but being a criminal who took part in the various atrocities of that oppressive dictatorship also makes him perhaps the .

Does that have anything to do with his opinion on the matter we are discussing in this thread: pulling troops out of Iraq?

It is one way to measure quality of life, yes - though an indirect one.

GDP would naturally go up with American (the biggest economy) involvement in Iraq.It seems like Iraq government is not confident and democracy is not a right thing for Iraq at least at this moment.

Iraq Military opinion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10947918

Iraq's top army officer has criticised as premature the planned US troop withdrawal by the end of next year.

The general's remarks echo a warning from Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, who said the US would be "leaving Iraq to the wolves" - meaning al-Qaeda in Iraq and their ex-Saddamist allies.

The "wolves" are certainly active. Al-Qaeda is believed to have been responsible for a triple bombing in a market in Basra on Saturday.

And it's thought to be al-Qaeda men going around Baghdad shooting traffic policemen. The previously unarmed traffic police now have armed guards.

 

[Gokul43201]

Does that have anything to do with his opinion on the matter we are discussing in this thread: pulling troops out of Iraq?

It certainly does! He has perhaps the most biased opinion (from the Baathist side) of anyone alive today (being Saddam's closest aide and highest ranking Govt official), and has the most to gain (in public empathy) by convincing people that they were better off under the Baathists. Not to mention that Aziz's only knowledge of post-Saddam conditions in Iraq comes from whatever little access he has to TV/radio news from the inside of a US Army base prison.

 

[russ_watters]

GDP would naturally go up with American (the biggest economy) involvement in Iraq.

Lol, no. What we spend on our troops in Iraq does not get counted as part of Iraq's GDP. As the link I provided shows, the rise in GDP is due primarily to the fact that they can now sell a lot more oil than they could before.

It seems like Iraq government is not confident and democracy is not a right thing for Iraq at least at this moment.

That article says nothing about the government's confidence in democracy. Where are you getting that idea from?

Look, the risk when removing an occyping force is always the same: if you remove the troops too soon, you risk allowing whatever force they were fighting against to rise back up and be disruptive again. But so far, fears of that happening have not panned-out. IMO, it is unreasonable to believe the insurgents are being so well disciplined that they have been biding their time for the past 2 years waiting to suddenly spring back to life.

 

[Jack21222]

Look, the risk when removing an occyping force is always the same: if you remove the troops too soon, you risk allowing whatever force they were fighting against to rise back up and be disruptive again. But so far, fears of that happening have not panned-out. IMO, it is unreasonable to believe the insurgents are being so well disciplined that they have been biding their time for the past 2 years waiting to suddenly spring back to life.

Of course, if things do get worse again, we still have over 50,000 troops over there to help out. I have no doubt that the US would re-start combat operations if the insurgents flared up. That's why I think it's a bit meaningless to declare this to be the "end of the war."

 

[russ_watters]

I think you misunderstand and I tried to explain but must not have done a good job.

Those 50,000 "troops" are not, for the most part, combat troops. Most are not equiped, trained or organized into units capable of "restart[ing] combat operations". Though I don't know what the disposition is, I suspect it is largely:

-Mid-level enlisted for training new soldiers.
-Senior enlisted and officers for training noncoms and officers.
-Desk-jockies from the Pentagon working on developing a proper organizational structure and other various planning tasks.
-MP's for guarding bases and otherwise providing security.
-Perhaps combat infantry for additional security support.
-Engineering units for helping build infrastructure.
-Supply units, medical personnel, administrative personnel, etc.
-Intelligence and surveilance units.
-Air transport units.

The only group of those that is even close to being capable of combat are the MP's, but they aren't equipped for power projection, only defense of bases. Perhaps the base defense includes light infantry as well, and they would be capable of very limited combat, but I doubt there are more than a few thousand of them.

 

[mheslep]

Of course, if things do get worse again, we still have over 50,000 troops over there to help out. "

As posted above, those remaining 50,000 will also be gone in 18 months, meaning some will start to leave in ~8 months.

all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

 

[mheslep]

I think you misunderstand and I tried to explain but must not have done a good job.

Those 50,000 "troops" are not, for the most part, combat troops. ...

Probably, but do you know that for certain? There is still a good reason for keeping heavy armor combat troops in theater ready to go: the external threat from Iraq's neighbors. A successful, sovereign democracy in Iraq/Kurdistan is a threat in varying ways to all the neighboring regimes including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which I read are working covertly to subvert Iraq. Keeping a few heavy US brigades in theater sends the message "dont even think about sending in troops". Taking them out means a fast response with ground troops can only be done with airborne units. Then there's the political message of the last well armed boot leaving the ground. Iraq's neighbors would be rational in making the political calculation that, once the US pulls out the last combat ready soldier, the US will not respond adequately to a small bite of an invasion here and there, especially with the current administration in place.

 

[Jack21222]

Those 50,000 "troops" are not, for the most part, combat troops. Most are not equiped, trained or organized into units capable of "restart[ing] combat operations".

Hey, that's the exact opposite of what I heard on the news today when they quoted a pentagon official stating that "if need be," the troops left can assist in combat operations.

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, that's the exact opposite of what I heard on the news today when they quoted a pentagon official stating that "if need be," the troops left can assist in combat operations.

Source, please.

 

[Jack21222]

Source, please.

I didn't video tape the local news report for you. I'd find a different source, but it's midnight and I'm going to bed. That said, I'm surprised that you don't believe well-trained soldiers can't perform combat operations.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't video tape the local news report for you. I'd find a different source, but it's midnight and I'm going to bed.

Fair enough. For my part, I think you misheard of the media mischaracterized the issue.

That said, I'm surprised that you don't believe well-trained soldiers can't perform combat operations.

I'm former Navy. I understand that being ready for combat requires constant training for combat and equipent tailored to a combat role. "Combat troops" aren't just a bunch of guys handed M-16s who practice using them on a firing range once a year. And even in the middle of an active war, the ratio of combat troops to support troops is surprisingly (to most people) low. Here is a link that suggests that even during the active combat phase, the ratio of support personnel to combat troops was around 7:1. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/combat-ratio-1.htm
Even assuming that ratio held now (it wouldn't), that would put the number of combat troops at about 7,000.

 

[rootX]

Look, the risk when removing an occyping force is always the same: if you remove the troops too soon, you risk allowing whatever force they were fighting against to rise back up and be disruptive again. But so far, fears of that happening have not panned-out. IMO, it is unreasonable to believe the insurgents are being so well disciplined that they have been biding their time for the past 2 years waiting to suddenly spring back to life.

I used Iraq government and military confidence in handling the matter. I have provided Iraq military opinion on this matter. There have been many articles about low confidence among Iraq politicians and I have not seen any source yet claiming that Iraq government is capable.

No, it does not have to do with insurgents springing out of nowhere but rather the sudden change in the forces that are acting against the insurgents.

 

[rootX]

It certainly does! He has perhaps the most biased opinion (from the Baathist side) of anyone alive today (being Saddam's closest aide and highest ranking Govt official), and has the most to gain (in public empathy) by convincing people that they were better off under the Baathists. Not to mention that Aziz's only knowledge of post-Saddam conditions in Iraq comes from whatever little access he has to TV/radio news from the inside of a US Army base prison.

His past and his opinion on what is required to stabilize Iraq are not related. Do you believe TV/radio are not presenting credible information in Iraq?

 

[rootX]

Lol, no. What we spend on our troops in Iraq does not get counted as part of Iraq's GDP. As the link I provided shows, the rise in GDP is due primarily to the fact that they can now sell a lot more oil than they could before.

Despite concerns over continued insurgent activity and the stability of the
interim government that have scared away much foreign investment by major
corporations, the Bush Administration officials and others report that Iraq’s economy
is booming. The U.S. government is engaged in efforts to attract small and medium
U.S. businesses to work and invest in the country as subcontractors on U.S.
government contracts and in the private sector. The United States has lifted most
international trade sanctions with respect to Iraq in keeping with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1483, and has designated Iraq as a beneficiary
developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32025.pdf

I have only gone through the summary yet.

edit: Note, I was not putting expenditure on the US military by the US under Iraq GDP.

 

[CRGreathouse]

rootX, I'm unsure of the purpose of (what I assume to be) your bolding. Are you showing that russ' analysis was correct?

 

[rootX]

rootX, I'm unsure of the purpose of (what I assume to be) your bolding. Are you showing that russ' analysis was correct?

Russ claims that Iraq people are better off now than they were during the pre-war period because GDP now is 5 times and the GDP is indirectly telling the better living standards.

However, my claim is that the GDP is high because the US is involved in the Iraq economy or Iraq is under the US occupation as I highlighted the US government efforts. Iraq people living standards and current GDP are not linked. It is hard to determine the current living standards of people relative to pre war standards. While, I agree Iraq will be better off eventually at some moment but not with the present instability.

 

[Gokul43201]

His past and his opinion on what is required to stabilize Iraq are not related.

I do think they are, but in any case, it's a lot more than just his past. His prospects for an appeal, his safety after release, his influence after appeal, his legacy for the history books, etc. - all of these depend on people feeling empathetic towards him (and he has made previous attempts to elicit such empathy¹). It is therefore very much in his interest to portray the situation now as being worse than the situation when he was in power. How can you not see the obvious conflict of interests here?

1. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2005/05/28/letters.pdf

Do you believe TV/radio are not presenting credible information in Iraq?

Do you believe someone whose only access to the happenings in the country (for the last 7 years) is whatever time he is allowed to watch TV or listen to the radio is likely to be more of an expert on the present situation that any of the scores of people that are actually living in Iraqi society and experiencing those conditions first hand. Why would you look for expert advice from someone who has not seen the outside of a prison cell since after the invasion, and only has limited access to second-hand or third-hand information? Do you really believe he has a more valuable assessment of the present day situation than any number of Iraqi experts (who are not sitting in jail)?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Russ claims that Iraq people are better off now than they were during the pre-war period because GDP now is 5 times and the GDP is indirectly telling the better living standards.

However, my claim is that the GDP is high because the US is involved in the Iraq economy or Iraq is under the US occupation as I highlighted the US government efforts. Iraq people living standards and current GDP are not linked. It is hard to determine the current living standards of people relative to pre war standards. While, I agree Iraq will be better off eventually at some moment but not with the present instability.

The three parts you highlighted:
1. The Iraq economy is booming, according to the Bush administration.
2. The US government is involved in attracting small & medium businesses to Iraq
3. The US lifted sanctions on Iraq

The first has essentially nothing to do with the US. The second is a structural change that will be in effect even if the US leaves immediately (to what extent it works at all, but I digress). The third is a structural change that will remain after a US pullout.

Of the three, only one involves the US in any major way (the third). None involve the US injecting cash into the Iraqi economy. I'm really not sold on your point.

 

[rootX]

The second is a structural change that will be in effect even if the US leaves immediately (to what extent it works at all, but I digress). The third is a structural change that will remain after a US pullout.

Of the three, only one involves the US in any major way (the third). None involve the US injecting cash into the Iraqi economy. I'm really not sold on your point.

I don't think we are on the same page thus I don't see the point in selling you apples when you are asking for oranges My argument has nothing to do with the affect on the Iraq economy due to the US pullout.

 

[CRGreathouse]

My argument has nothing to do with the affect on the Iraq economy due to the US pullout.

That's why I'm asking for clarification, because what I understand of what you posted does rely quite heavily on that. (I have to ask for clarification a lot; don't take this personally.)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The only significance IMO of the current withdrawal of troops is that it reduces the number of US troops in Iraq. As combat troops, they weren't in combat except as needed. The remaining troops can engage in combat "if need be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops

 

[rootX]

That's why I'm asking for clarification, because what I understand of what you posted does rely quite heavily on that.

For simplifying I would ask you to make an argument. I cannot clarify more than that US pullout and Iraq GDP-people living standards are two separate discussions. The GDP discussion was started when I posted Aziz article which had two opinions of him: America is leaving Iraq to wolves and second that Iraq people were better off during the pre-war period.

 

[CRGreathouse]

For simplifying I would ask you to make an argument.

??

I have no argument, I'm merely trying to follow the thread.

 

[mheslep]

The only significance IMO of the current withdrawal of troops is that it reduces the number of US troops in Iraq. As combat troops, they weren't in combat except as needed. The remaining troops can engage in combat "if need be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops

Sounds like these guys are light infantry and support troops, though I don't really know. If so, that's fine for fighting counter insurgents, but not the preferred force to oppose, say, the Iranians crossing the border in force and attempting to annex Basrah. In other words, all combat troops are not the same.

 

[Jack21222]

The only significance IMO of the current withdrawal of troops is that it reduces the number of US troops in Iraq. As combat troops, they weren't in combat except as needed. The remaining troops can engage in combat "if need be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops

Hey russ, this link basically states what I heard on the news the other night. Thanks, SW VandeCarr

 

[Supercritical]

I strongly suggest folks peruse the http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx if you haven't already. It can answer a lot of questions brought up here, and will probably soon see an update in light of current events.

Sure, they're a think-tank, but I maintain that their index is probably the single best resource on Iraq (they have indices for Afghanistan and Pakistan as well). And you can read on wikipedia on how various media entities have attempted to place them politically.

 

[mheslep]

I strongly suggest folks peruse the http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx

Thanks. Per Brookings the Iraqi civilian fatality rate is about 10 per 100,000 now, which compares to a homicide rate of ~5 per 100,000 in the in US.