Posted on 05/30/2006 1:02:32 AM PDT by neverdem
U.S. troop levels in Iraq will likely stay around the 133,000 mark in the coming months even if an Army brigade or two is cut from the current number of 15 total combat brigades, defense officials say.
The officials said Army Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, may decide he does not need a replacement brigade for one going home. Yet the overall force level will likely stay the same because new training teams are entering the country to embed with units of the Iraq Security Force (ISF).
Gen. Casey is also periodically tapping an Army "call-forward" brigade of about 4,000 soldiers in Kuwait for periodic duty in Iraq, most recently in Baghdad. Such moves, when coupled with the influx of trainers, also increases the overall force level.
Still, Pentagon planners hope to see the actual combat brigade numbers decrease from 15 in the coming months. Even though the force level would remain the same, such a trade-off means fewer American troops are in direct combat and more are in the training mission.
"The broad message is the numbers are going to fluctuate even if the brigade numbers come down," one senior official said. "Brigades will likely continue to come down, but it won't mean all the numbers will come down. The bottom line is fewer brigades means less direct combat for American troops."
The 15 combat brigades are down from 20 during Iraq's elections last
--snip--
The U.S. command has decided it will be the ISF, not U.S. forces, who will lead a campaign to retake the city.
"It isn't a situation that we can resolve. ... The Iraqis have got to take the lead in solving this one," said Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the Pentagon's deputy director for regional operations.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ok. We're liberators, not occupiers, right? So, here's a simple question: Has Iraq been liberated or not? If no, any idea when it might be? If yes, what the hell are we doing there if we're done liberating?
You know, seeing as how hundreds of thousands of US troops were stationed there for decades.
Only Communist losers referred to the strong US presence in Germany as "occupation."
We defeated Germany, but we LIBERATED France. The truth is, Iraq is closer to being Germany than it is France. I never hear anyone refer to the "liberation" of Nazi Germany. We refer to the liberation of France, though. And of Holland. I don't think we had to occupy and run those countries for them afterwards.
And by the way, those troops were stationed in Germany all those years because of our WW2 ally, the USSR, not because of roadside bombs or insurgency. It was a cold war stance that served our own interests. The troops in Iraq are trying to complete a mission so we can leave. No one is saying staying there for decades is in our interest.
"And by the way, those troops were stationed in Germany all those years because of our WW2 ally, the USSR, not because of roadside bombs or insurgency. It was a cold war stance that served our own interests. The troops in Iraq are trying to complete a mission so we can leave. No one is saying staying there for decades is in our interest."
True, but we didn't lose some 2000+ troops after defeating Germany in 1945 during our 'occupation'.
Given the size of the new Vatican-sized US Embassy in Iraq, I think we can count on American troops occupying and dying in Iraq for decades to come. We're not leaving anytime soon.
Trying to not make the mistake Russia made with Afghanistan, leaving it a chaotic breeding ground for the Taliban. Your complaint is with not defeating the enemy before rebuilding the nation, not with staying to defend an infant democracy from that enemy.
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.