Withdrawing troops

[shimmy]

Some theoretical questions:
Assuming the US decides to withdraw from Iraq today: (1) how would this actually br accomplished?
(2) what is the best possible time table for this action, assuming everything,including weather, goes in the US's favor?
(3)at what point is it more advantagous for the US to simply destroy large weapoons rather than ship them out?
(what is the economic cost of the withdrawing?
I can not even imagine how many man-hours planning and/or executing this would require.

 

[kato]

(1) By ship + aircraft, as usual?
(2) 3 years. Minimum, for everything.
(3) When Iran, Turkey, and Saudi-Arabia invade.

 

[riksavage]

According to recent reports the US military is already planning for a hasty withdrawal. The officer responsible has studied in detail the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan as a worst case scenario example.

Any major evacuation of material would most likely be conducted through Basra and across the border to Kuwait, simply because the best MSR’s run north - south. Kuwait is also equipped to deal with a massive influx of men and equipment, which can then be loaded and transported safely by ship.

The British are now planning to withdrawal sooner rather than later from Iraq, the logic being better to win one counter-insurgency campaign (Afghanistan), then lose two (Iraq and Afghanistan). The UK top brass want to dramatically increase the presence in the latter, which can only be achieved through a comprehensive Iraq draw-down. This change in attitude is largely motivated by the continued failure of other NATO members to step-up to the plate and provide more ground troops in Afghanistan. The UK needs more troops to hold ground taken in offensive operations, other wise we get in to a Vietnam scenario – ours by day, there’s by night!

The main issue of a withdrawal from Iraq is as you wind-down numbers you eventually reach a critical level where they can no longer defend themselves and we witness a similar situation to the South Vietnamese Embassy evacuation with the final troops leaving ingloriously via chopper off the roof of some fortified compound. This may appear sensationalist, but this was actually quoted by the commander tasked with planning the withdrawal as a ‘must never happen’ event due to the propaganda value offered to extremist groups.

One of the reasons why Rice is now offering billions in military aid to the ME is as a buffer to a failed Iraqi state controlled by Iranian sponsored militias, this is now a very real possibility.

 

[f-22fan12]

The logistics for withdrawing troops from Iraq would not be terribly hard. This is because the U.S. has many bases in the area. For them to destroy their own equippment, well, that just wouldn't happen. I'm hoping that the U.S. will withdraw by 2009. If George Bush does not withdraw by 2009 then the next U.S. president will. Thats for certain. Rilksavage is right about the possibility of Iraq being controlled by Iranian linked militias.

The situation is really in a bad state in Iraq. However, recent reports say that the U.S. death toll is the lowest in 8 months.

 

[shimmy]

Transfer or Destroy?

Isn't there a point at which the transportantion of a piece of military hardware is greater than its replacement cost?If sucha point is reached, it would be advisable to destroy the hardware.
A piece of hardware that has been in the desert for say, four years may well have little or no value.

 

[shimmy]

War,what is it good for?

It looks bad for the USA now with troops in Iraq.Most of Iraq (i.e. all Iraq except for Kurdistan) just doesn't care enough to be active.Why should American man and women stay there?Why should they die there?Democracy hasn't been there for 6,000 years-why would Bush/Cheney/Rove be able to bging it to Iraq?If anyone should be in Iraq it would be a UN force to keep the peace-but that ain't happening.Ratling and using swords sounds good to some people but when push comes to shove, why?

 

[shimmy]

Not worth the cost

Yes they say they want to be there to give them democracy. The cause has not any justification for what it costs. The fight in Iraq has no value.Yes the world is probably better off w/o Sadaam but not at the cost of even one US life. Democracy is a great thing but only if the people involved want it. The Iraqi Parliament has gone on vacation-that is a vacation from a vacation!The people do not seem to want civility,peace, democracy, education, or work. We Americans would do better to move our soldiers from Iraq to the part of America from SanYsidro, California to Brownsnville ,Texas. But then how many Suburbans would be sold?

 

[shimmy]

Love?

F-15 states that he/she "loves war" I think that statement speaks for itself.

 

[contedicavour]

I'm surprised there isn't more talking about leaving day to day patrolling and security to Iraqi army units. While they are obviously much less efficient than Coalition troops, while they may be sometimes sectarian, etc, at least this would allow US troops to retreat to well defended bases and limit casualties.

The sheer presence of US troops would still limit the chances of putsch against the government or of Iranians taking over. The Iraqi soldiers and police would have to be further trained and better equipped but somehow they would have to succeed in anti guerrilla efforts in at least big portions of Iraqi territory. The US troops would only support them with helos, artillery, occasional COIN/strike missions.

Eventually there would be an equilibrium found, with some no-go areas held by guerrillas remaining, most of Iraq under government control, and US forces safely inside bases making sure the worst doesn't happen.

This sounds much less risky than either staying indefinitively fighting on the front line, or than withdrawing hastily...

cheeres

 

[radiosilence]

I'm surprised there isn't more talking about leaving day to day patrolling and security to Iraqi army units. While they are obviously much less efficient than Coalition troops, while they may be sometimes sectarian, etc, at least this would allow US troops to retreat to well defended bases and limit casualties.

Maybe after the "Surge". General Petraeus will report to Congress in September, how successful/unsucessful the "Surge" has been. My personal feeling is that some sort of withdrawal plan will be implemented after General Petraeus report to Congress.

 

[contedicavour]

Maybe after the "Surge". General Petraeus will report to Congress in September, how successful/unsucessful the "Surge" has been. My personal feeling is that some sort of withdrawal plan will be implemented after General Petraeus report to Congress.

I hope so. AFAIK the "surge" has meant sending more US troops to the front line, instead of the empowering of Iraqi army troops that I have in mind to lower US casualties.
This reminds me a bit of Vietnam, when all the rage in 1972 was to empower South Vietnamese troops to hold the line on their own... though Congress cut funding and ensured defeat for these sorry folks in the South Vietnamese Army. I just hope Congress won't make the mistake twice and ensure both (i) continued presence of US forces, though safely inside well protected bases and (ii) continued funding of Iraqi government troops in their fight against guerrillas

cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

My personal feeling is that some sort of withdrawal plan will be implemented after General Petraeus report to Congress.

I hope so mate, if only for all those young men's lives and limbs that wont be lost.


The whole thing just seems like a lost cause IMO and more American boys are dying for no reason other than an idealogical ideal that the iraqies themselves dont hold. And the "surge" is a half assed tactical solution to a strategic problem that was never going to acheive anything more than limited local improvement. It did nothing to address the fundamental social, religious, historical, economic and political causes for this civil war.

The cold hard truth that this "surge" is of little strategic value will be more than clear to a congress (and a people) who are allready tired of this truely tragic war. I guess we can only hope for the best as to what the future will bring in Iraq, post US.

 

[contedicavour]

I hope so mate, if only for all those young men's lives and limbs that wont be lost.


The whole thing just seems like a lost cause IMO and more American boys are dying for no reason other than an idealogical ideal that the iraqies themselves dont hold. And the "surge" is a half assed tactical solution to a strategic problem that was never going to acheive anything more than limited local improvement. It did nothing to address the fundamental social, religious, historical, economic and political causes for this civil war.

The cold hard truth that this "surge" is of little strategic value will be more than clear to a congress (and a people) who are allready tired of this truely tragic war. I guess we can only hope for the best as to what the future will bring in Iraq, post US.

I share your feelings and hopes.
However the government should do something more than give up... hence my ideas of withdrawing to extremely well defended bases inside Iraq and limiting the role to supporting with artillery/helos/strikes an enhanced Iraqi army.
Just withdrawing without leaving a strengthened Iraqi army behind would be IMHO insulting for all those soldiers who died (I'm not American myself but we did lose 25 Italian soldiers there, and I hope not for nothing...).

cheers

 

[radiosilence]

I hope so. AFAIK the "surge" has meant sending more US troops to the front line, instead of the empowering of Iraqi army troops that I have in mind to lower US casualties.

The Iraqi security forces are comming along very slowly and are infiltrated by various militias. Many of these people allegiances are to their malitia rather than to the Iraqi police/army.

 

[riksavage]

Unfortunately Iraq is a lost cause. I seriously doubt the surge is going to have a lasting impression. The decision to disband the Iraqi security infrastructure greatly contributed to the current mayhem and left a huge void, which was ultimately filled by religiously motivated militia.

Whether we like it or not a predominantly Christian army is never going to truly win hearts and minds over a predominantly Muslim populous infiltrated by a myriad of religious nutcases!

The original allied armies that entered Iraq where configured for war-fighting not nation building, that requires a huge civilian / police infrastructure, which has to hit the ground running on the coattails of the military as witnessed at the end of WWII in both Japan and Germany. In both cases the militaries where not disbanded, but were used to keep law and order.

I note with interest in the US press (NY Times / Washington Post) the current wave of Brit bashing, stating Basra is now a lawless province controlled by criminals. Unfortunately this is true, the Brit’s never had the man-power to police an area which realistically required a division not a battalion battle group. The need for more units in Afghanistan means we will not see the UK commit to a surge in the South.

I can’t see the Iraq security infrastructure coming up to speed either, they are just too politically and religiously split between different factions. We should take a lead from Kitson, arm one religious faction, allow it to exterminate the other then deal with what remains – cruel I know, but counter-insurgency campaigns always are.

Interestingly today in the UK press, British military casualty rates were reported to have exceeded Korea and the Falklands with a 1 in 36 chance of getting killed in combat (Afghanistan), compared to 1 in 46 during the Falklands. Regardless recruitment rates to the army are up as the young get exposed to the heroics of those serving in Sangin et al. Whilst morale in Iraq continues to drop, morale in Afghanistan remains very high, largely due to the nature of operations – search and destroy, rather than mundane patrolling under the constant threat of IED’s RPG’s and mortars.

 

[SaudiArabian]

(1) how would this actually br accomplished?

by recruiting the old Iraqi army and Republican guard personnel whom were fired directly (and which most of the Iraqi resistance are from these fired personnel) , and fire those of the current military personnel whom were prooven to be members of the Death squads or have links to Al Qaeda's terrorists

that will be the greatest step to bring security to Iraq , unfortunately the Iraqi regime will not accept this

(2) what is the best possible time table for this action, assuming everything,including weather, goes in the US's favor?

(what is the economic cost of the withdrawing?

i don't see that very soon , but perhaps if Kerry won the next elections in 2008 then we'll face disaster if he orders quick and full withdrawl from Iraq because such action may trigger a GCC-Iranian war and oil prices will fly high thus severely damaging the US economy.

the US should work quickly to establish a strong Iraqi military by recruiting the hundreds of thousands of the republican guards and ex-Iraqi Military because they are already trained and don't side with a sect over another if the command is patriotic for Iraq and doesn't have agendas for either Sunnis , Shias or Kurds , and that should happen before the elections of 2008

 

[contedicavour]

the US should work quickly to establish a strong Iraqi military by recruiting the hundreds of thousands of the republican guards and ex-Iraqi Military because they are already trained and don't side with a sect over another if the command is patriotic for Iraq and doesn't have agendas for either Sunnis , Shias or Kurds , and that should happen before the elections of 2008

I agree with this. When the Iraqi football team won the Asian cup recently, TV showed thousands of fans with Iraqi flags. The main Sunni group in Parliament is opposed to religious fanaticism and would just like to reestablish order. The largest Shi'ite group (though unfortunately not the one with the strongest militia), the Dawa, is also quite moderate (even if led by a cleric) and opposed to Iran's theocratic dictatorship. Add in the Kurds (provided they calm down the PKK, thus avoiding Turkish invasion), and you do have a majority looking for a stable government again. It would be federal with weak controls over provinces, but at least it would be a good base to start with.

Militarily, reestablishing a few Republican Guard divisions with moderate Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurdish Peshmergas would be the 1st step to having an Iraqi army strong enough to prevent the guerrillas (who lack unity of intent anyway) or Iran from taking over. Enough to get the troops home...

cheers