When the Iraqis push up on their elbows, the US will hunch down a little.
In the title I was aiming for a play on the tired "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" line but I think I missed. Rawstory is reporting a coming announcement of an Iraq troop drawdown, from 133,000 to 100,000.
From the sound of it, the US will not actually be turning over any significant amount of populated territory to the Iraqi foces, just reducing US numbers.
And, I like the bit about how they're going to get al Maliki, the New Iraqi PM, to ask for the drawdown. Think he's been out of the American protected Green Zone yet?
UPDATE: Interesting, here's the London Times story that prompted Rawstory to check out the American end. It has a very different colouring than the Rawstory version beyond just focusing on British troops. Al Maliki's statement here is "that he expected as many as 16 of the 18 provinces to be "Iraqi-ised" - under the control of Iraqi forces - by the end of this year."
That's a long way from the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace last week saying that the US could not pull completely out of any provinces this year. Read 'em both, judge for yourself.
Also, the NYTimes has a story on all this that seems to say Maliki should be praised for his strengths(whatever they are) but then goes on to imply that he's biting off far more than he can chew and that coalition forces hope to be fully out by 2009.
From the sound of it, the US will not actually be turning over any significant amount of populated territory to the Iraqi foces, just reducing US numbers.
And, I like the bit about how they're going to get al Maliki, the New Iraqi PM, to ask for the drawdown. Think he's been out of the American protected Green Zone yet?
UPDATE: Interesting, here's the London Times story that prompted Rawstory to check out the American end. It has a very different colouring than the Rawstory version beyond just focusing on British troops. Al Maliki's statement here is "that he expected as many as 16 of the 18 provinces to be "Iraqi-ised" - under the control of Iraqi forces - by the end of this year."
That's a long way from the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace last week saying that the US could not pull completely out of any provinces this year. Read 'em both, judge for yourself.
Also, the NYTimes has a story on all this that seems to say Maliki should be praised for his strengths(whatever they are) but then goes on to imply that he's biting off far more than he can chew and that coalition forces hope to be fully out by 2009.
posted by mikevotes at
1:51 PM
6 Comments:
I guess, reduced forces or not, the US are in this deep now with Britain planning to withdraw.
Britain has had significant deployment in the South of Iraq and it is hard to see who can fill that gap when the time comes.
By
Cartledge, at 2:33 PM
That's a good point, IT's not like other countries are stepping up to fill the gap, and the US doesn't have the personnel.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:39 PM
We've heard these stories of drawdown for sometime.
Didn't I recently (like last week?) see a story that the number of troops actually increased recently despite promises that they would be drawing down?
As the Iraqization fails, and it will fail, the Bush boys will feel they have to stay. Plus they haven't given up on those permanent bases yet.
We'll not have any significant change unless a Democratic Congress forces the issue (unlikely) or a new President.
By
Greyhair, at 3:01 PM
The Non-Iraqised provinces would be al Anbar and Baghdad, where most of the fighting has gone on and where few of the Kurdish or Shiite militias can hold ground.
The drawdown to 100,000 is underway. One brigade was held in Germany in early May, to lower the numbers to 130,000. The numbers will continue to dip throughout the spring and summer.
But, the fact is more troops are needed to secure the area. Check out Michael Ware in this week's TIME.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 4:13 PM
Yes, you did read that. They didn't up the theater numbers but rolled in something like 3,500 trrops from Kuwait to greater Ramadi(Anbar province) to back up the marines.
I'm beginning to find myself wondering if they might do a partial drawdown just for 2006 political purposes. I still favor a modified Murtha plan ceding region by region on a firm schedule, but the very worst thing you could do, I think, is to reduce troops and not give up territory stretching forces even thinner.
My fear is that politics is about to force that situation. But, like you say, it's nothing but words until we actually see it.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 4:18 PM
Sorry, copy editor, your post wasn't up when I was responding. They "delayed deployment" out of Germany (their words, although I agree with your interpretation.) But at the same time, pulled in the extra 3,500 from Kuwait. So, I don't know.
Frankly, if force levels are wobbling between 125,000 and 135,000, I'm not ready to call it a drawdown because alot would depend on the kinds of troops being deployed.
You could pull out 1,000 engineers working with contractors on rebuilding projects that have been abandoned and not substantially change the pointed edge of the spear, or you could bring home a couple thousand of the community liason folks, turning that over to the Iraqis and not substantially alter the force structure. So, I'm gonna wait and see if we drop preciptously before I call it a drawdown because as the lofty goals go by the wayside, significant numbers of soldiers in non combat MOS's may leave Iraq without really changing the fighting force.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 4:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home