About The Troop Numbers In Iraq

[Annie]

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003853.html

November 21, 2005
Unspinning the Troop Rotations
Greyhawk

Last week's congressional shenanigans regarding American troops in Iraq successfully obscured the real news about that topic. In an under-reported story earlier this month the DoD announced the units designated to deploy in the next rotation for Operation Iraqi Freedom. DoD Press Release, 7 November 2005:

DoD Announces Units for Next Operation Iraqi Freedom Rotation

The Department of Defense announced today the major units scheduled to deploy as part of the next Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation. This announcement involves several combat brigades, headquarters elements, and combat support and combat service support units and approximately 92,000 service members as presently envisioned. The scheduled rotation for these forces will begin in mid-2006. Decisions made by the Secretary of Defense at the recommendation of military commanders in Iraq may result in changes to this rotation and may affect units now being identified and advised to prepare to deploy.​

There's a key number in the above quote; "92,000 service members" - that's down significantly from this year's figure, approximately 140,000 with boosts to 160,000 for election periods (created by overlapping deployments).

But don't start thinking "drawdown" just yet. Because there's another key phrase that follows that number: "92,000 service members as presently envisioned". Here's what's happening. The DoD says they want to see how things go through December's elections in Iraq, then give commanders on the ground an opportunity to make deisions on who's needed where.

It's the obvious strategy, although it opens Don Rumsfeld to accusations of "passing the buck" from the same folks who accuse him of being a "micromanager". And if additional numbers are added later they will likely be labeled as an increase in the number of troops due to initial requirements being set too low - and the "no end in sight" argument will be invoked. Likewise there's always the possibility that if things go wrong the troop strength levels (Too high! Too low! Too late!) will be cited as primary cause. But conversely, if things go right they'll be declared wrong anyway - so the above arguments are essentially moot. And besides, torture is wrong!

Now back to the grown-up discussion. These numbers could result in a "drawdown". But the SecDef is cautioning any who will listen that that's not the correct interpretation. In fact, he chastised the AP reporting of the story, as they themselves noted here:

The number of troops in future rotations will depend on conditions, including the severity of the insurgency and the strength of Iraqi security forces, as well as the recommendations of U.S. commanders, Rumsfeld said.

"We know we're going to bulk up for the elections, and we know we're going to go back down to some level after the elections," Rumsfeld said in a telephone call to The Associated Press. During the call, Rumsfeld complained that an AP report gave the mistaken impression that the Pentagon has already decided to reduce troop levels below 138,000 next year.
<...>
"We're aware of the interest in the press in the mid-to-longer-term levels of U.S. forces and coalition forces in Iraq, but I would caution that it would be a mistake to draw conclusions about such matters when reviewing the force rotation announcements that will be made later today," Rumsfeld said.

"We continue to transition and transfer additional responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces, and the people of Iraq continue to meet the political milestones that they have established," he added. "As these and other conditions are met, Gen. (George) Casey will continue to assess the capabilities that he believes he will need and make recommendations as to the levels he believes will be needed in the period over the coming months."​

On one level that can be labeled Pentagon doublespeak, but I'm inclined to take the report at face value - there might be less troops in Iraq next year, it's situationally dependent. Not very satisfying to those who want instant answers to tough problems, but this isn't a TV drama with neat solutions at the end of the hour.

There are good reason to be optimistic though. In the same AP article linked above, General David Patraeus cites indicators of progress in the development of the Iraq security forces - and expectations for the future.

Separately, a senior Army general said there is a growing momentum in the training of Iraqi security forces, which now total about 100,000 army soldiers and about 111,000 police forces. In a detailed briefing before a group organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus said the goal is to have a combined total of 230,00 army and police by the December election.

Petraeus left Iraq last summer after a year in command of training programs for the Iraqi security forces. His briefing charts said training and equipping of the Iraqi army should be done by January 2007, and by March 2007 for the Iraqi police services. The total number of forces is to reach 325,000 by July 2007.
​

Iraq's civilian leaders are expressing optimism too. You might have missed this recent quote from Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi:

The United States and coalition forces will likely reduce the number of troops in Iraq next year, Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Saturday.
<...>
"I've discussed the pullout possibilities with Secretary Rumsfeld and we agree on the future course. We are optimistic about the buildup of Iraqi forces to cope with the situation," he said.

"We have been preparing ourselves, politically, for a pullout of the troops. We have a very solid political situation and we don't want to have a security vacuum of any kind," Mahdi added.
​

He was speaking in Detroit, Michigan at the time, but his words went mostly unreported in major media.

Likewise President of Iraq Jalal Talabani's comments in Britain received scant notice:

British troops could leave Iraq by the end of next year, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Sunday. “We don’t want British forces forever in Iraq. Within one year – I think at the end of 2006 – Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British forces in the South,” Talabani told ITV’s Jonathan Dimbleby program.

Talabani also said, however, that an immediate withdrawal of foreign forces would be a “catastrophe” for Iraq and would lead to civil war. Iraqis are working on training their own soldiers and police to take full control of security of their country and fight a Sunni Arab insurgency that has killed thousands of people since 2003’s US-led invasion.
​

The Pentagon numbers and the AP report were released on November 7, Mahdi's remarks were quoted on the 12th and Talabani's on the 15th. So there you have it, the background situation against which last week's political drama was played. Given these developments it's not entirely surprising (although it is entirely disappointing) that there are those in congress who are in a bit of a panic over the possibility of upward trends in the situation in Iraq. Success there is far from assured, but that success is unfortunately political doom (or perhaps just a minor setback, if they're from the right district) for those who've chosen to oppose the effort. Seeing the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel has forced them to act.

We can each make our own determination as to exactly what they are acting like.

 

[Annie]

http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/archives/000621.html

November 12, 2005
I scooped the New York Times: We start pulling out in 2006

So the entire blogosphere missed the biggest story of the week, as did all of the newspapers, and both Senators Kerry and McCain: The Pentagon announced on November 8th that they would be reducing the number of American troops in 2006 down to about 92,000.

I more or less expected the papers to miss this. They've never quite gotten the war on terror, or understood exactly how the “rotation plan” works; the Pentagon was able to slip a troop increase of about 30,000 troops past them this quarter. But two of the most famous Senators spent the week arguing back and forth about what troop levels should be. Much ado about nothing? No, much ado about ignorance! I've always assumed that Senators had access to better (classified) information then me. I guess I was wrong...

Kerry said we should cut troop levels by 30,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the year. Um, Senator, there are currently 170,000 troops in Iraq, up from 140,000 prior to September. The Pentagon quietly raised the number of troops in Iraq for the October and December elections by overlapping the OIF-4 rotations against the OIF-3 rotations. That overlap ends in the first quarter of 2006, so the US was already going to reduce forces by 30,000 troops. This is so typical of Kerry. I think he has CEO disease; he gets a briefing and thinks it is his idea. “Bush should be doing exactly what he..er..is doing”, he'll thunder.

Meanwhile, McCain gave a speech to counter Kerry, saying we needed more troops in Iraq. Well, I agree with that, I just don't think they should be US troops, they should be Iraqi troops. We're training 7-10,000 new troops a month in Iraqi. Those troops are about 3-4 times more effective then our own troops; after all, its their country. So by the end of the year, when we rotate those 30,000 troops home, there will be more then enough Iraqi troops to replace them. By August, we'll have 270,000 Iraqi troops in Iraq, which compares well to the previous regime which had more troops, but they were inadequately trained. Saddam didn't even provide food or uniforms for half of them.

As for how I caught this when the press missed it, remember how I suspected that we were planning on reducing forces in Iraq in 2006? Then there was this announcement by the DOD of the new troop rotations? And then I noticed that the UN mandate has been extended through 2006, but that the Iraqis have the ability to cut it short if they want?

At first, I thought maybe I was getting it wrong, so I talked to a couple of people and they just sort of shrugged. Then I watched a newsreport by the internal DOD news channel saying it and I thought “aha!”. Finally, I asked the DOD directly and they confirmed it:

The story about the 92,000 troop rotation for 2006 seems to be implying that we'll be drawing down our troops in 2006.

This briefing makes it more explicit.

Can I have confirmation that this is true? This seems like pretty big news.

We can confirm that the plan is, in fact, to reduce the size of Coalition Forces in country in 2006. It's big news inasmuch as the Iraqis are increasing the size and strength of their footprint and, by the same token, we're reducing ours.

As we've stated in the past, rotation planning is flexible, conditions-based and operationally focused; it is not based on timetables or political pressures. The coalition is committed to assisting Iraq while Iraq works to achieve political stability and the maintenance of a secure environment.

How was I able to read the tea leaves that the New York Times and the Washington Post missed? Simple. I've always understood the war plan.

The war plan, for good or ill has never been to occupy the country. It's always been the plan for the Iraqis to provide security in their own country. In other words, do the exact opposite of what we did in Vietnam:

* Instead of installing a puppet government, we've spent 2.5 years building up an Iraqi one.
* Instead of having 500,000 troops and 60,000 casualties from trying to take over Vietnam, we've 170,000 troops but only 2,000 casualties because we weren't trying to take over.

In other words, instead of going into Iraq and trying to run the country like we did in Vietnam (Step 1 install a Christian leader in a Buddhist country? What idiot thought up that one?), we've done the minimal amount of work to keep Iraq in a holding pattern until the Iraqis could run it.

It's pretty simple really, and it's actually not a bad plan. I think the US has learned the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia; let people run their own countries. The main mistake we made in this whole war was thinking that it wouldn't take most of 2004 to train the Iraqi Police and Army. It just takes time to do that kind of thing.

Once you understand the war plan, the minute the number of Iraqi Police started to pass the number of US troops, it was obvious we were going to be able to draw our own troops down. With the 210,000 Iraqis, plus the 170,000 US troops, there are 380,000 troops working towards security in Iraq, the most we've ever had. So I was looking for troop reductions, and I found it. By August, with 270,000 Iraqi troops and 92,000 US troops, 3/4 of the troops in Iraq will be Iraqis, and the US may not be needed at all. Hence the provision in the 2006 mandate to end the presence of coalition forces early if need be.

So there you go, spread the word. Be sure to read Defining the Victory Conditions so you can realize that our pulling out troops is a sure sign of success in Iraq, and you can read: Route Irish has Improved if you want to see how much more effective the Iraqis are then our own troops. For one thing, not only do all Iraqis speak the language, but they can recognize someone who doesn't belong the same way a Flagstaff resident can see a Phoenician a mile away. (Phoenician being a tourist from Phoenix.)

Update:

Welcome Instapundit readers. As you can see, I originally noticed this on the 12th of November, so its been a weird week for me listening to the debates about all this. Looks like the media has caught up though. Here's an interesting interview with the Marine commander in Fallujah, he says the Iraqis could take over there in 6 months.

Posted by the at November 12, 2005 08:21 AM