I think that the Iraq drawdown plan announced today seems quasi-reasonable. I think that the robust number of troops left in country (35-50K) to continue in an advisory, training, and counter-terrorism role until the end of 2011 will go a long ways to help the Iraqis make the transition to doing the heavy lifting for their own security, as opposed to a total withdrawal. I would also hazard a guess that there will be a large USAF and USN air presence to help them out as well. It would appear that President Obama listened to his military advisors, who have been saying all along that you simply can’t responsibly pull out every last troop in 16 months…good for him.
I personally can’t stand O, but even I will admit that this was a reasonable plan. My only fear is that his words actually don’t mean shit. He only says what he thinks people want to hear. Lets hope its not like the plan to post all legislation for 5 days prior to voting. Or no lobbists in his administration. All really good words, but only words.
I think that the Iraq drawdown plan announced today seems quasi-reasonable. I think that the robust number of troops left in country (35-50K) to continue in an advisory, training, and counter-terrorism role until the end of 2011 will go a long ways to help the Iraqis make the transition to doing the heavy lifting for their own security, as opposed to a total withdrawal. I would also hazard a guess that there will be a large USAF and USN air presence to help them out as well. It would appear that President Obama listened to his military advisors, who have been saying all along that you simply can’t responsibly pull out every last troop in 16 months…good for him.
Spot
I agree, but the big issue here is that “pulling out” is a lot more than just pulling out troops. It’s not well publicized, but a huge reason for the success of The Surge was the “Anbar Awakening” in which Sunni militias turned on the insurgent leaders they’d previously been working for. Why did they do that? Because we paid them to. With cash. It was a good move by Petraeous. But it’s not clear if we’ve stopped paying them, and what happens once we do. We won that round because we can outspend any of the sponsors of Al Qaeda. But if we pull our subsidizing of the militias, who’s going to take our place. Hopefully the Iraqi government. Hopefully not Iran and Syria, or else the Iraq government could be in a world of hurt. Iran would be loathe to enlist Sunnis, so it may all work out. I don’t know. It’s just immensely complicated.
Petraeous seems extemely intelligent so I hope our Pentagon brain trust knows what its doing, and have counseled the new White House appropriately.
It’s not well publicized, but a huge reason for the success of The Surge was the “Anbar Awakening” in which Sunni militias turned on the insurgent leaders they’d previously been working for. Why did they do that? Because we paid them to. With cash. It was a good move by Petraeous. But it’s not clear if we’ve stopped paying them, and what happens once we do.
Actually, from what I’ve read, the Sunnis turned against AQI before we started paying them. The book “Tell Me How This Ends” is a very good read about Gen Petraeus, the surge, and the COIN strategy he implemented, along with the Sunni insurgency turning against the jihadis. IIRC, Petraeus and US troops capitalized on Sunni dissatisfaction with AQI and the future they represented by paying them, but only after the Sunni insurgents turned on the fundamentalists.
Actually, from what I’ve read, the Sunnis turned against AQI before we started paying them. The book “Tell Me How This Ends” is a very good read about Gen Petraeus, the surge, and the COIN strategy he implemented, along with the Sunni insurgency turning against the jihadis. IIRC, Petraeus and US troops capitalized on Sunni dissatisfaction with AQI and the future they represented by paying them, but only after the Sunni insurgents turned on the fundamentalists.
Spot
OK, that’s possible. But, still, there’s nothing more dangerous to a weak state than an unpaid soldier. Job #1 during the withdrawal would be to make sure most soldiers/militiamen are adopted into government police/army. Even if it means having to conveniently overlook their pasts. It seems like that was the mistake made early in the conflict - summarily firing Hussein’s army. It might have been satisfying in a moral sense, but boy did that ever backfire. It seems like a quick read of the unintended consequences of like a ton of past CIA operations would have taught us…
Looks like another "technical" fulfillment of a campaign promise. The reality will probably not change much from the slow draw-down, started by GWB, already in place. Good on him for not doing the immediate and total withdrawal that he allowed the left to believe would take place.
Yeah, don’t disagree with any of that, and I believe that is the intent…to fold the former Sunni insurgents into the security forces. In fact, the book I mentioned talked about the lengths to which Ambassador Ryan Crocker was going to get the Shia-led government to do just that. It wasn’t easy, and I hope the next ambassador is as capable as Mr. Crocker, who deserves a lot of the credit for our gains in Iraq.