U.S. May Begin Iraq Troop Drawdown in '06

WASHINGTON - Major reductions in U.S. troop levels in Iraq next year appear increasingly likely, although Pentagon officials said Monday it is too early to predict the specific size and timing. The Pentagon is eager to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006, partly because the counterinsurgency is stretching the Army and Marine Corps perilously thin as casualties mount and partly because officials believe the presence of a large U.S. force is generating tacit support for anti-American violence.

The Pentagon is eager to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006, partly because the counterinsurgency is stretching the Army and Marine Corps perilously thin as casualties mount and partly because officials believe the presence of a large U.S. force is generating tacit support for anti-American violence.

It appears highly unlikely that any significant numbers will be withdrawn before the end of the year. U.S. commanders expect the insurgency to remain at or near its current strength at least until after a scheduled October referendum on a new Iraqi constitution, followed by December elections for a new government.

Attempts by U.S. officials to predict the course of the insurgency have been off the mark, and officials have been forced more than once to scrap plans to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq. The force peaked at about 160,000 in January, when extra troops were needed to bolster security for the elections.

Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst who closely follows progress in Iraq and visited the country last month, said in an interview that he agrees with U.S. commanders that troop reductions next year are a reasonable goal.

"The probabilities are reasonable," Cordesman said. "Is there a reasonable chance that you can begin a systematic reduction of coalition forces toward the end of the year and watch it move forward in 2006? The answer is yes. But we just don't as yet know" how political and economic progress will unfold.

Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment directly on a leaked British military assessment that raises the possibility of drastically cutting British troop strength in Iraq by the end of next year as well as sharply cutting the overall number of U.S. and allied troops by the middle of next year to 66,000.

"It's not for me to speculate on when there might be a reduction in U.S. forces," he said, adding that U.S. officials have said repeatedly for months that their goal is to begin reductions in 2006 if conditions permit.

"We look at the conditions as being the determining factor as to what the U.S. presence there needs to be, and we have contingencies for an increased presence, a steady state, and also a decreased presence," Whitman said.

The Pentagon missed a Monday deadline for submitting a report to Congress on progress in shifting security responsibilities to the Iraqis and projecting how many U.S. troops would be needed there next year. Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Congress was informed that the report is still in the works.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that President Bush is relying on commanders in Iraq to judge when the time is right to adjust the level of U.S. forces, based in part on an assessment of how capable the U.S.-trained Iraqi government forces are of fighting the insurgency on their own.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the training of Iraqi forces has progressed to the point when they will be capable of taking on a greater part of the responsibility.

"If you think in terms of simple tasks and hard tasks, and tougher and easier parts of the country, I think you can see a much greater role for the Iraqis starting next year, even if they also will have a long ways to go then," he said.

O'Hanlon said he is hopeful that the 135,000-strong U.S. force could be cut by as much as 50 percent by mid-2006.

Bush administration officials and U.S. commanders are eager to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq as soon as possible — not least because of the psychological burden imposed by the presence of an occupation force.

Lt. Gen. John Vines, the commander in charge of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, told reporters last month there is a "certain element of tacit support" for anti-U.S. feeling among Iraqis that is derived from the presence of foreign forces. He suggested the U.S. might reduce by 20,00-25,000 troops sometime in 2006.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has made the point recently that ultimately it will fall to the Iraqis themselves to defeat the insurgency.

"Insurgencies by their nature need to be defeated by the country, the people of the country," he said in a radio interview July 5. "A foreign occupying force really can't do that as effectively."

Thanks for post. But let us remember, much is going to depend on just how well the Iraqi army/security forces perform in independent operations. Some of their units are displaying quite a bit of profesionalism at this point. Perhaps some fifty thousand plus will soon after completing their secondary or greater training courses be ready to enter the fray. One thing never discussed is the need for the Iraqi forces to regain a measure of air and mobile support they simply lost due to our removing the Iraqi armies capabilities to wage war. They must be re-equiped. Their budding airforce and navy must be equiped with equipment, taking many forms. Their army security arm must increase in it's effectiveness as how operations are planned then given down to G3 to carry out etc..
To little is discussed as how the multi-national forces can downsize. So I take these news clips with a grain of salt.
If the insurgency does not fizzle out after their federal elections are done, we may have to stay around for another half year or more above what the 2006 predictions indicate.
Bottom line is, lots remains to build the Iraqis up to the point they can not only protect their interior and finally remove all traces of all the various flavors of insurgency, but be able to protect their borders with ground/air forces.
And that is simply hard to do in a short time.

I think the US plan is to eventually build a 600 000 man ground force with heavy weapons (tanks, APC and artillery), but a small air force. We will use this force as our Arab Legion to deal with Syria and Iran. In a time of conflict, the Iraqis will rely on our SOF, target designation teams, logistics and air power to fill in the rest of the needed capabilities. This will insure that Iraq will not go rogue with a large army. The terrorist attacks have created enough bad blood between Iraq and their tormentors - Syria and Iran. We are just fighting the first battles for our long range objectives in the Middle East. If the MSM paid attention to the Pentagon hints six months after the invasion of Iraq, they will catch a glimpse of our plans to develop Iraqi forces to serve our long term needs. We never intended to maintain a large ground force in Iraq like West Germany. We want our forces home and ready to deploy to other hotspots in the world. IMHO we are on schedule with our overall objectives. Unlike the South Vietmanese Army, the Iraqi Army and Police is a volunteer force. My contacts in Iraq tell me there is no shortages of motivated recruits. My contacts also tell me that after two years of fighting, a core of experience junior combat officers and soldiers are emerging in the free Iraqi forces. Iraqi and police units caught off guard by attacking insurgents no longer run or surrender, instead they keep fighing until rescued or relieved. These are good signs.

We're losing 60-80 troops per month, wounded about 400 month, half of whom return to duty within 72 hours (link here).. This is out of a force of 130,000. That's not why we'd be bringing forces home. Their mission will be accomplished by then. The Iraqis will have responsibility for their own security. The blood, sweat and tears of the US Army & Marines gave the Iraqi people a chance for freedom. Last January they grabbed onto that chance. This December they will have another opportunity to demonstrate their resolve.

This time the Sunnis will participate in the elections. Once they have representative power in the government they will have no use for either the insurgency or the guest terrorist suicide bomber program. They will turn on their invaders very quickly. This could end abruptly.

Fee, every thing you said is based on known facts and for some of us very plausible to come to past. I had with similiar words in posts over the past few months illuminated the same plan. We have been training and slowly equiping their fledgin airforce. Seldom do we see reports on their little navy, but it is being trained as I write. There where ariticles at the Marine web site in the OIF sections that featured who is doing the training. Your 600K is very reasonable. And may proof to be right on. I have with no firm feedback from anyone always felt it would be 1/2 million or greater, when including regular police, special police units such as SWAT squads etc., and various specialized divisons of the army. Surely they will maintain a few special ops Bns. And the strategic cooperative plan you set forth is quite reasonable to expect. It would not make much sense if such a future strategy is in the workings. They must be able to protect their borders as well as project enough strengh to keep their less then honorable scum bag neighbors from getting any ideas for the next twenty years plus. The future oil projects alone are adequate reason to build them up as you specified. Of course it truly does appear Syria is so inept at dealing with any real military force, we must remember they took Lebanon over because it had no choice, the only real threat comes from Iran. And Iran though a basic natural enemy of Iraq and Saudi Arabia etc, lest we forget Iran is not Arabic and the minority Arabs in their country are at best tolerated, and as we see on and off kick around as they try to stir up trouble in some areas of Iran. But Iran is not so foolish as to invade Iraq. It was Saddam in his foolishness that tried to take them out. Iran has plenty of it's on natural gas and oil. It wants to be self sufficient, and get on better terms with the western world. If it was not for it's stupidity in wanting to destroy Israel, it would have been better postured to join in the spoils regardless of its' rather evil cadr of 50 Mullahs controlling the government institutions and military.

To keep a large foot print in Iraq would only prove to the Muslim world we are conqueres and want their oil, without paying for it. But surely as you indicated, and I have some time back, a small foot print SOPS, and spook shops must be allowed to be set up. The CIA needs Baghdad to gain foothold into the mideast. If you remember we used to have a US Army facility at Sinop Turkey for instance, the ASA (army security agency). Don't know if it is still there. But likewise it is vital we maintain a small footprint in Iraq.
To think otherwise is foolish. And if Iraq is to embrace democracy and western ways, then there should be little harm in doing so. After all we do so in Kuwait, Qatar etc..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.