Iraq War: US pullout for '06?

"I think we are winning.  Okay?  I think we're definitely winning.  I think we've been winning for some time." - Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the Iraq War 04/26/05

"I just wonder if they will ever tell us the truth." - Harold Casey, Louisville, KY, October 2004

Something tells me there is less to this story than meets the eye: American plan for first troop withdrawals within month by Sarah Baxter Sunday Times of London 11/20/05.  At least, we've heard it before.

Baxter reports:

American commanders of the war in Iraq have drawn up a bold plan to start pulling troops out of the country after elections next month.

The plan, which has been submitted to Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, calls for more than 60,000 troops - over a third of the total - to leave by the end of next year.

According to US television reports this weekend, the total number left in Iraq would fall from 161,000 to what defence experts call the "€œmagic number"€ of below 100,000.

Now, I've been saying for a while that with the continuing brilliant successes we keep hearing about from the generals - and all that "good news from Iraq" that FOX News fans are so excited about - it sure seems like we should be able to reduce US force levels in Iraq.

And how many hundreds of thousands of "army and security personnel" have we trained now?   The administration usually claims they are into the hundreds of thousands, give or take a few ten thousands.

It is an interesting bit of news that the Pentagon is apparently claiming 161,000 US soldiers in Iraq now.  That's the largest number I recall hearing anytime recently.

I suspect that this is the real story:

The plan [US commander in Iraq Gen. George Casey] has drawn up withGeneral John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the region, envisages the number of troops falling to 138,000 soon after the December 15 election - a drop of 23,000.

The increase in troops for election security was most likely always planned to be temporary.  The Army probably can't sustain the 161,000 level without a draft or a massive improvement in recruitment.  I'm guessing this is a set-up to claim that an American withdrawal is beginning after Dec. 15, pointing to the post-election reduction as the first installment of the pullout.

And it may be that the Army's personnel situation is getting dire enough that it can't even sustain the 138,000 troops indefinitely, and will have to pull even more out just because they don't have the number of soldiers to maintain that troop level.  Matt Iglesias recently took a look Behind the Numbers (TPM Cafe 11/18/05), and suggests that the real recruitment problems may be more serious than the Pentagon is publicly acknowledging.  He references this New York Times article about a new GAO report on the topic:  Vital Military Jobs Go Unfilled, Report Says by Damien Cave 11/18/05.

Larry Johnson recently gave a sobering glimpse at what would be needed if the "victory" that Dear Leader Bush and that bold Maverick McCain keep talking about were actually a serious goal: Why John Murtha is Right! No Quarter blog 11/18/05

He writes:

The situation in Iraq is clear. The United States does not have enough troops on the ground to contain and destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters. These groups represent a spectrum of beliefs ranging from secular nationalists to hard core jihadists. The only thing they agree on is that they hate the invader; which is us.

To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple - either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.

How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optomistic scenario).

In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don't think so.

So, if this latest leak about troop withdrawals really did represent the beginning of a real exit strategy, that would be good news.  Hopefully a more meaningly "good news" that the FOXists keep talking about.

"Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of." - George McGovern and Jim McGovern 06/06/05