Posted on 06/11/2006 5:37:30 PM PDT by blam
US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years'
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 12/06/2006)
America plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports.
The revelation came as George W Bush summoned his top political, military and intelligence aides to a summit on Iraq's future today at the presidential retreat at Camp David.
America has indicated that it may raise troop levels in Iraq in the short-term
Tomorrow the Americans will talk by video link to Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, and members of his cabinet, as well as American military commanders in Iraq.
The meeting marks the highest profile discussion of Iraq's future so far, and reflects the Bush administration's determination to exploit the two most promising developments in Iraq for many months - the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa'eda in Iraq, and the completion of the first permanent post-war cabinet.
Mr Bush said the meeting would decide "how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself".
But despite fierce domestic pressure to reduce troop levels before November's critical mid-term elections, there were growing signals that Gen George Casey, America's Iraq commander, may raise troop levels in the short-term.
Mr Bush said in his weekend radio address that "violence in Iraq may escalate" as terrorists tried to prove that they had survived the loss of their leader.
American commanders are also worried by the situation in the Sunni areas at the heart of the insurgency, where American units have complained of a shortage of men.
Mr Maliki pledged in a Washington Post article to confront the Shia militia, but his plan to "re-establish a state monopoly on weapons" could well generate a confrontation between ultra-religious gunmen and the fledgling Iraq security forces.
America's military would be drawn into any defining battle over who rules Iraq.
Gen Casey has already summoned his main reserve unit, a 3,500-man armoured brigade based in Kuwait and has alerted a Germany-based brigade that it may be needed soon.
Military planners have begun to assess the costs of keeping a 50,000-man force in Iraq for a protracted period of time. At present the total number of serving American troops is about 500,000.
The plan has not yet received presidential approval. But it would fit with the administration's belief that while troops numbers will fall, American forces will have to remain in Iraq beyond Mr Bush's departure from the White House in early 2009.
Military analysts have noted that significant American spending is already being committed to permanent bases in Iraq. They say Iraq's military may soon be able to fight by itself, but it cannot feed or supply itself and it has no air force to speak of.
The Camp David meeting will be attended by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, Gen Michael Hayden, the CIA director and Gen Peter Pace, America's top soldier.
Looks like Al-Sadr's time is coming.
Well, we still don't have an exit strategy for Germany and Japan, and we won those wars over sixty years ago!
This loon says according to "media sources" who if I can recall are not a branch of any of our armed forces.
We ain't goin! There's work to be done and honor to be maintained.
God bless all of our fine members of the armed forces serving throughout the world.
Having a significant presence makes sense until Iran, SA, Syria and the Palis have a change of heart.
If Iraq were to become the lynchpen of stability in the Middle-East, wouldn't it be worth it to keep 50k troops there?
We've had them in Korea for decades. We've had them in Germany for decades. We've had small contingents in a myriad of places around the planet.
Don't forget Korea. How many troops do we have on the DMZ?
50,000 troops to remain in Iraq?The author sounds kind of disappointed.
That'll provide the toe hold we need to invade Iran.
The next time some liberal starts bitching about the US not having an exit strategy, ask them for their exit strategy from Germany. I mean, we went in there, we didn't have an exit strategy, and we got stuck into a quagmire! :)
Good one.
Can't believe I left Japan out of that short list of nations with significant U.S. troops.
OK, ok, I'm an economist at heart.
(Don't respond to me if you are faint of heart).
5.56mm
The Iraqi army without logistics and air power will in essesnse become the auxillary infantry for the US. Wait till the Iraqi forces reach 500,000 to 600,000 in strength. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia better change their tune or else.
I think alot of people do not realize the long term implications of the power shift that we have made in the most troubled regions in the world.
Bases = an fast exertion of power and intimidation = inhibition of problem countries to cross regional chaos=Less war.
It is american policy to protect our allies. Correct? Israel is one of americas closest allies. Correct?
Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors. Before how many bases did we have in the region? A few in saudi that we were
asked to leave. Some in the UAE, turkey, qtar. Turkey was turning on us.
Now guess how many bases we now have in the middle east, east asia, eastern europe, in countries we would have never had a hoot in hell of getting real secure power bases in those regions. How much is that worth to a super power????
Sheesh. Priceless.
Remember when Reagan asked the French for permission to fly over france to bomb kadafi and they said... NO! Our guys had to fly like 8 more hours around? Or when turkey screwed us at the last minute?
You know how many BILLIONS of dollars in assetts were wasted ,let alone crucial time?
Now Iran doesn't have an invadable superpower thousands of miles away, they now have one On their freaking boarder with their oldest enemy.
What's that worth? Priceless.
Now all those snot nosed oil slob counties that thought they could bitch slap around israel are going to think twice about trying another war with our friends.
THAT is pretty freaking amazing. I have criticized bush domestically but that man has parlayed his opprotunities SO much no one could have seen the bennefits to the US power in the region... NO one.
Yep. We've a training mission (for the Iraqis) in Ramadi that will address the remaining Syrian-based support for the insurgency and after that, the Iranian-based support in the person of Mookie. It can't be just the Iraqis on that mission or it risks civil war, but it won't be just the U.S. either. Basra needs a little visit as well. All just IMHO, of course.
Too bad that fact will never be mentioned by the MSM.
the US is already on record for leaving when asked...how do they figure 50k will stick arounb if the Iraqi's say no?
The Israeli army could not be slapped around by a "snot nosed" Arab country, it's one of the most strongest armies on Earth. I think Israel can protect itself fine. The reason we need to be in the M.E is for our interests, not Israel's. Granted, there is much intersection in the interests of Israel and the United States, but still, we should conduct foreign policy based on our national interests.
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.