US military says 3,500 troops set to leave Iraq

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military says 3,500 soldiers sent to Iraq last summer as part of the so-called surge will soon be leaving.

A military statement released late Monday says the soldiers will redeploy to the U.S. in the coming weeks.

The increase in troops — along with the rise of Sunni fighters who turned against al-Qaida and a truce called by Shiite militias — has been credited with helping dramatically cut violence across Iraq in the last 10 months.

All of the troops sent in as part of the surge were expected to leave Iraq by this July, but U.S. commanders are asking for a "pause" in redeployments so they can assess the security situation as soldiers leave.

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIX1z49_ERf3_5iDENnkTDzimJugD90G1KL80

[Doug.Goodall]

1. What a waste. The surge only propped up a government that will quickly fail when we leave

We should pull all of the troops out now and avoid further loss of American lives.

[wmbrew0206]

7. OK, what happens after we pull the troops out

and the government falls?

This is a question you have to be prepared to answer when calling for an immediate withdraw.

The scenarios run anywhere from the government hold a fragile coalition together to complete collapse along ethnic lines and a civil war breaking out. The latter being the more likely what will happen then? Iran will support the Shia and Saudi Arbia and Kuwait will aid the Sunnis in order to avoid having an Iranian proxy that close to their oil fields. This will result in a low to mid-grade Sunni-Shia war fought by foreign government agents in Iraq.

I've done two tours ('05 and '07) in Iraq and can tell you that things are a lot better now than the were in '05 and '06. The unfortunate truth is that in the long run it is better for the US, the Mideast region, and the world for the US to stay in Iraq for the time being. If the government can continue to reconcile the Sunnis and Shia and defeat the JAM militias, then it will be worth it. If the violence returns to the late '05 and '06 levels, it is time to cut our losses and pull out.

I didn't agree with the decision to go into Iraq, but as long as there is a reasonable chance of the Iraqi government taking responsibility for all of its provinces and Iraqi troops being able to secure the country without the help of US ground units, which I believe there is, then we need to stick it out in Iraq.

[Traveling_Home]

10. Thank you for your service!!!!!! May we never forget. eom

[saigon68]

11. Same Argument I heard in Jan 1972

It sure worked out well then didn't it?

Welcome home:-) :-)

[warpigs]

12. Who will pay for this?

If the government only exists because the US is in the IRAQ with over 150K soldiers and 150K mercs. Than what good does staying? Will it magically exist if we stay for 5 years, but dissolve if we leave?

Why should the US pay $Billions to prop up a government in another country that can't sustain itself?

[wmbrew0206]

13. You have a few errors in your question

1. There are not 150K mercs in Iraq. There are probably around 150K contractors. There is a difference between merc and contractors. Conctractors are used to drive trucks in convoys, build roads, rebuild power plants, run chow halls, etc. Mercs do security to protect dignitaries and provide security to convoys, etc.

2. The government will not automatically dissolve when we leave.

3. Iraq will be able to sustain itself if it can achieve its security.

Who will pay for it? I think the Democratic Senators and Congressman had it right when they said it was time for Iraq to start using part of their 80 billion dollars to pay for it. You also have to ask how much will it cost if Iraq fails after we leave and then we have to go back in to stop ethnic cleansing or at least secure the southern oil fields?

This is the exit strategy that people over there are hoping for:

1. Iraq army units and police forces are able to control their areas of responsibility with no assistance from US ground forces. There will be embedded US advisers with Iraqi ground units and US aircraft will still be needed in some areas. Most Iraqi forces are almost at this point. The next big step for the Iraqi Army is being able to support itself logistically and this is where the bulk of US help to the Iraqi Army will be.

2. The government continues to fight to isolate Sadr and keeps AQI on the run. AQI has lost almost all of its support from Iraqis, so handling Sadr is the more important of the two. The Iraqi government is starting to show it is ready to stand up to any threat to its sovereignty. Sadr is seen as closely aligned with Iran, not a puppet, but not independent, and most Iraqis don't want a lot of Iranian influence in Iraq. By challenging Sadr and his JAM militias, the government will be able to show the Sunnis that they are willing to crack down on Shias nor is the government tied to Iran, which a lot of Sunnis worry it is. Finally, Sadr's JAM militias are really the only force in Iraq right now capable of launching an attack that could require a large military operation to put down and the militias are losing that power everyday. If Sadr's forces are one of the last major security threats that the Iraqi Government has to deal with.

3. The third part is continued cooperation of Sunnis and Shia in the government. The Shias have to be willing to spend the oil revenues from Kurd and Shia areas on Sunni areas in order to keep them in the government. Right now Al Anbar is quiet and prosperous but most of the money is coming from US reconstruction funds. The Shias have to be willing to replace this money when the US pulls out and invest in seeing that the 70% of Sunnis in the awakening movements are given economic opportunities with the civil service and are not just turned out on the street.

If the above three things happen, then Iraq will be able to support itself. We'll be able to withdraw most of our BCT's and RCT's and leave the security to the Iraqis. Give it another two years and the Iraqi will be able to do their own fire support, air support, and logistics and then we'll be able to pull the rest of the troops out.

I'll leave it to other to argue whether having an mix cultural democracy in the Mideast achieved by the way we did this is a good thing.

[LynnTheDem]

15. We need to do what THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ want us to do.

And guess what? They want us the fuck out of THEIR country that WE ILLEGALLY INVADED.

But we know so much better what's best for those little brown people. :eyes:

[babylonsister]

2. That's so they can redeploy them to Afghanistan, silly! nt

[soothsayer]

3. or iran

[mcollier]

4. That's about 150,000 Soldiers Short...

The Iraq War is in a sad state of affairs...

[whistle]

5. Where are these 3,500 troops being sent?

[Sabriel]

9. I vote we send them to Myanmar, along with some equipment. n/t

[madrchsod]

6. the war has finally become personal for my family

my daughters boyfriend's brother just left for iraq....

[junior college]

8. I've always wanted us to lose the war in Iraq

To win the war, by the PNAC's standards, would be far worse a proposition.

[LynnTheDem]

16. We never had a chance of "winning". How does anyone "win" by invading an innocent nation

and killing so many men, women & kids? Destroying their cities? Razing their crops and plantations?\

No, we never had any chance of "winning". Aggressors never do, in the end.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. BFD