Saturday
May092009
US Troops Staying in Iraqi Cities Past June Deadline (and to 2024?)
Saturday, May 9, 2009 at 10:32
Related Post: Transcript of General Odierno Briefing on Iraq (8 May)
For months we have been noting how General Raymond Odierno, commander of US forces in Iraq, has been pushing --- and even undercutting --- President Obama to ensure some American combat troops remain in the country, despite the deadlines set by last December's Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi Government and Obama's own promises.
Odierno has been quieter recently, preferring to let the continuing violence in Iraq make his case that only a US presence can provide security. Yesterday, however, he returned to the attack at a briefing in Washington: up to one-fifth of American combat troops may stay in Iraqi cities beyond the 30 June deadline.
The General was cagey, or political enough, not to put out a specific figure: “I mean, I could give you a number today. It will be different tomorrow, it will be different the next day. O.K.?” He had, however, made his point.
Indeed, the size of the remaining US force could be beyond media estimates. The New York Times, for example, calculates 1/5 of the current US combat brigades of 50,000 to 70,000 personnel. Combat personnel, however, cannot operate without support and logistics forces, so a better number would be 1/5 of the total of 134,000 US troops in Iraq.
That possibility is supported by the far-from-hard-to-see presence of Camp Victory, 15 minutes from the centre of Baghdad. Holding more than 20,000 troops, the camp straddles the Baghdad boundary, which means US officials may claim that the soldiers remaining there after 30 June are not in the city.
Odierno isn't just talking troop numbers; he's also talking time --- a very long time before US forces withdraw fully. He bluntly said he expected violence to continue until 2024, planting the seed that the Iraqis could never be self-reliant:
There is the little issue that, under the December agreement, the Iraqi Government has to agree to any extended stay for US forces, but Odierno handled that obstacle easily. The US and Iraq were "currently negotiating precisely how American combat troops might be redeployed inside the cities". And, of course, "combat troops could leave a city on one day but then be asked by Iraqis to return the next".
More intriguing, and unmentioned yesterday, was Odierno's other potential foe. President Obama, who has set Afghanistan and Pakistan as his priority for US military activity, who faces the continuing drain on American resources amidst an economic crisis, is being told by the General that he has to maintain a sizeable commitment in Iraq.
Forget the insurgents. Does the President fight back against his military commander?
For months we have been noting how General Raymond Odierno, commander of US forces in Iraq, has been pushing --- and even undercutting --- President Obama to ensure some American combat troops remain in the country, despite the deadlines set by last December's Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi Government and Obama's own promises.Odierno has been quieter recently, preferring to let the continuing violence in Iraq make his case that only a US presence can provide security. Yesterday, however, he returned to the attack at a briefing in Washington: up to one-fifth of American combat troops may stay in Iraqi cities beyond the 30 June deadline.
The General was cagey, or political enough, not to put out a specific figure: “I mean, I could give you a number today. It will be different tomorrow, it will be different the next day. O.K.?” He had, however, made his point.
Indeed, the size of the remaining US force could be beyond media estimates. The New York Times, for example, calculates 1/5 of the current US combat brigades of 50,000 to 70,000 personnel. Combat personnel, however, cannot operate without support and logistics forces, so a better number would be 1/5 of the total of 134,000 US troops in Iraq.
That possibility is supported by the far-from-hard-to-see presence of Camp Victory, 15 minutes from the centre of Baghdad. Holding more than 20,000 troops, the camp straddles the Baghdad boundary, which means US officials may claim that the soldiers remaining there after 30 June are not in the city.
Odierno isn't just talking troop numbers; he's also talking time --- a very long time before US forces withdraw fully. He bluntly said he expected violence to continue until 2024, planting the seed that the Iraqis could never be self-reliant:
[The violence is] not going to end, O.K.? There’ll always be some sort of low-level insurgency in Iraq for the next 5, 10, 15 years. The issue is, what is the level of that insurgency? And can Iraqis handle it with their own forces and their own government?
There is the little issue that, under the December agreement, the Iraqi Government has to agree to any extended stay for US forces, but Odierno handled that obstacle easily. The US and Iraq were "currently negotiating precisely how American combat troops might be redeployed inside the cities". And, of course, "combat troops could leave a city on one day but then be asked by Iraqis to return the next".
More intriguing, and unmentioned yesterday, was Odierno's other potential foe. President Obama, who has set Afghanistan and Pakistan as his priority for US military activity, who faces the continuing drain on American resources amidst an economic crisis, is being told by the General that he has to maintain a sizeable commitment in Iraq.
Forget the insurgents. Does the President fight back against his military commander?