Staying in Iraq?
Gates: U.S. troops could stay in Iraq for years
It would depend, he said, on what the Iraqis want and what Washington is willing to give.
Time will tell, but there certainly are precedents. Personally, I dunno if it’s a good idea, or would even have a point. Said another way… Just what would keeping an even smaller force in Iraq accomplish? Who would it deter?
In Korea the phrase ‘tripwire’ has been used with some accuracy, for instance. In Iraq I’m afraid ‘target’ would be the word?
Gates added: “Well, I think that would be part of any negotiation,” Gates answered, “… whether it would be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role that we have in a number of countries that just becomes part of a regular military-to-military relationship.”
Let’s hope the NCA can approach any negotiations with a clearer focus than the recent past might suggest.
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has weighed in.
Category: Military issues, Politics
No real surprises here. It’s been long, if quietly, acknowledged in the longterm planning for contingent of US special operations forces and advisors to stay in Iraq for the longterm. They won’t function as a trip wire but more to provide training and high priority counter-terrorism capabilities. As an added benefit they’ll help with keeping the Shitte dominated security forces close which helps push back against Iranian influence in the area.
If the object of the drill were to bring Syria over to our side, I can see staying. Given our President’s policy of supporting dictators, more likely we’re just there to shut the door on Syrian dissidents.
U.S. military presence in Iraq has many benefits. Not only are we the “adult supervision” in the area, thereby deterring a possible Iraq/Iran war, we also acquire proximity/monitoring of Georgia, several former Soviet republics and Russia. During the Cold War, we were happy just to have Turkey as an ally because of strategic positioning. Now, Iraq gives us what Turkey used to represent and much more. I believe our presence in Iraq provides benefits beyond defeating jihadists and protecting oil fields.
I worked the Iraq drawdown plan at MNF-I. Guidance was 0 troops, planning factor wasn’t. If you think that Dept of State is going to cruise the Iraqi streets without an advise and assist brigade on hot standby, you haven’t been to Foggy Bottom lately.
Iraq has exposed the Diplomatic Security Service as completely ineffectual at actual physical security. It’s all good when you’re doing PowerPoints on extremist groups in Japan and bugging you MSGs but a no-BS hostile environmental is completely outside their capabilities.
At least Korea had juicy monsters!!
#5 NSOM – agree about the security service. The flipside being my personal dislike for the mercs DOS hired in Afghanistan, DynCorp. One of the more nauseating tidbits of info coming from WikiLeaks concerned the behaviour of the mercs celebrating a new contract with the Afghans. The company provided prepubescent boys to be rented out as sex slaves to the Afghans who just inked a contract.
American military is, if anything, accountable. DOS security contractors are not.
DaveO,
Don’t get me started on the mercs. I don’t have an issue with contracting out physical security work on principle but the oversight and standards have been abysmal. Worse, it reflects poorly on our uniformed service members who unfairly get lumped in with these guys. You’d think the DoS would be the most sensitive to how their security contingent is affecting public opinion. Turns out most of them are too busy crapping their $400 pants in the back of a Suburban while cursing being pulled from their cush post in Milan as a couple contractors whisk them around the war zone.
The only place our troops haven’t stayed is Vietnam….but I digress…
streetsweeper: Uhhhhh, not officially.
@ #10- streetsweeper: Uhhhhh, not officially.
Touche’. You got me there, guardian! 😉