Imagine what Bush must be thinking about now...

[akhalteke]

I should say that I would love it if there were only that many people in Iraq... If I got to pick what units were there. I am guessing that the units who really need to be there after the main effort pullout will be engaged elsewhere leaving conventional forces to sit around in full MOP gear for the next 10-20 years.

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, I don't call 50,000 soldiers a "residual force." He has realized that pulling out of Iraq now is lunacy and that he has to do what he can to stabilize Iraq while appeasing his constituency.

 

This, is the truth of the matter. 50,000 soldiers. That is a lot of motherfuckers.

 

You may not call 50,000 a residual force, but that's what it's called.

 

For comparison, here are some other current troop deployment numbers for US Troops stationed in:

 

Germany: 70,000

Japan: 33,000

South Korea: 29,000

 

Recommended deployment required for stabilizing an insurgency, given Iraq's population, (famously, at this point) is in the several hundred thousand range.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

So then, what is the point of leaving Iraq and keeping 50,000 troops there? So that we ensure there are more US casualties while at the same time asserting that our mission is an abject failure? This reeks of idiocy. If you are going to abandon the mission (which he has) then do it right and get the fuck out of Dodge.

 

You aren't listening. If a significant pull out occurs it'll be because conditions allow it, otherwise it either won't happen or they'll pull out everybody (the former is much more probable considering the prize). No need to start playing your little violin about Obama putting soldiers' lives in danger. Leaving a large force behind precisely means they aren't abandonning the "mission".

[akhalteke]

Try and keep up Tvash. If 100's of thousands are necessary, then what are 50,000 going to do? Have you ever seen 50,000 soldiers before? That is more than the entirity of Fort Bragg ( the largest military base in the US). It is a lot of motherfuckers. Not enough to do jack shit in Iraq (unless it is the right people) but still a bunch of motherfuckers.

 

So this brings us back to our conundrum: What the fuck good is it to bring a knife to a gunfight (what we are essentially going to be doing)?

[akhalteke]

So then, what is the point of leaving Iraq and keeping 50,000 troops there? So that we ensure there are more US casualties while at the same time asserting that our mission is an abject failure? This reeks of idiocy. If you are going to abandon the mission (which he has) then do it right and get the fuck out of Dodge.

 

You aren't listening. If a significant pull out occurs it'll be because conditions allow it, otherwise it either won't happen or they'll pull out everybody (the former is much more probable considering the prize). No need to start playing your little violin about Obama putting soldiers' lives in danger. Leaving a large force behind precisely means they aren't abandonning the "mission".

 

Uhm... so how is this any different than what John McCain said? Oh wait! It isn't! As I have said all along, all politicians are all alike. Promises are already showing themselves to be facade.

 

So, we went from out in two months, to 16 months, to out in 2 years with a residual force (of 50,000), to out whenever conditions on the ground warrant a pull out (with a residual force).

 

Precisely what John McCain stated he would do when Biden implied he was planning a permanent occupation of Iraq.

 

So where is the difference? Just because it was said with eloquence doesn't make it any different.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I should note, however that the absolute minimum troop levels for maintaining stability, assuming a relatively inactive insurgency, is 20 per 1000 population.

 

Magically, that equates to 50,000 troops for Iraq.

 

So, that leaves two questions: 1) how stable is Iraq right now? Some here have argued that it is more stable than reported, some less. As far as we're concerned here, those differences in opinion reqpresnt more differences in perception than reality. And 2) How many troops will Iraq provide for stabilization? This has been conveniently omitted from AKA's posts.

 

If, in fact, Obama does decide to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq for a while, that would indicate that he believes that Iraq still has the lowest level of insurgency, and that he believes we should provide the minimum recommended level of stabilization, with Iraq providing the remainder. I may not agree with our overall presence in Iraq, but this course of action seems to prudently navigate the political and military realities that prevail.

 

And yes, I've seen 50,000 people. I've seen 200,000 people in one place at one time, actually. Um, yeah, that's a few. How that's supposed to inform this discussion remains a mystery, however.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[akhalteke]

BTW Tvash. I think even you can see the difference between Stuttgardt Germany and Baghdad.

[akhalteke]

I should note, however that the absolute minimum troop levels for maintaining stability, assuming a relatively inactive insurgency, is 20 per 1000 population.

 

Magically, that equates to 50,000 troops for Iraq.

 

Oh, I would love to hear the background on this fantastic data.

[ivan]

BTW Tvash. I think even you can see the difference between Stuttgardt Germany and Baghdad.

hey, i used to live in stuttgart - lemme see if i can remember - umm....one has a gaint mercedes-benz ninja-star emblem on a 5000 foot high tower down-town and the other doesn't?

 

charlie don't surf

[j_b]

So then, what is the point of leaving Iraq and keeping 50,000 troops there? So that we ensure there are more US casualties while at the same time asserting that our mission is an abject failure? This reeks of idiocy. If you are going to abandon the mission (which he has) then do it right and get the fuck out of Dodge.

 

You aren't listening. If a significant pull out occurs it'll be because conditions allow it, otherwise it either won't happen or they'll pull out everybody (the former is much more probable considering the prize). No need to start playing your little violin about Obama putting soldiers' lives in danger. Leaving a large force behind precisely means they aren't abandonning the "mission".

 

Uhm... so how is this any different than what John McCain said? Oh wait! It isn't! As I have said all along, all politicians are all alike. Promises are already showing themselves to be facade.

 

So, we went from out in two months, to 16 months, to out in 2 years with a residual force (of 50,000), to out whenever conditions on the ground warrant a pull out (with a residual force).

 

No. He always planned on having a residual force. Obviously you don't read the right press (what a surprise ...). As to the schedule for withdrawal, conditions on the ground are bound to have an effect. Let it be clear that I am for a complete pull out starting yesterday.

 

Precisely what John McCain stated he would do when Biden implied he was planning a permanent occupation of Iraq.

 

well, Biden wants to partition Iraq, so he is not much less hawkish than McCain.

 

So where is the difference? Just because it was said with eloquence doesn't make it any different.

 

well, at least Obama recognized what american have wanted for years. It's a start.

[tvashtarkatena]

I should note, however that the absolute minimum troop levels for maintaining stability, assuming a relatively inactive insurgency, is 20 per 1000 population.

 

Magically, that equates to 50,000 troops for Iraq.

 

Oh, I would love to hear the background on this fantastic data.

 

Then you might love to get off your lazy ass and Google it. It's all over the place; a very commonly known number in military circles and the subject of much headline/popular debate since our invasion. Why you're not aware of it is probably a simple training issue.

Edited February 26, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[akhalteke]

JB, what is the difference in strategy then? Is it just window dressing?

 

 

Tvash. You google it. I have never even heard of it. Such a number is far too simple a formula for much too complex a problem. Would this figure work as evenly in a populated and relatively educated area like Iraq in comparison to in Afghanistan which lacks infrastructure and education and the population density is far less? No. Academics only gets you so far my boy. Common sense and experience does the rest. Me thinks you are lacking the latter.

[akhalteke]

Oh but that is right. You are retired military; or so you have implied. I suppose since you are so tight lipped, you want us to think along the line of SpecOps.

[kevbone]

If you are going to abandon the mission

 

What is the mission Scott?

[tvashtarkatena]

JB, what is the difference in strategy then? Is it just window dressing?

 

 

Tvash. You google it. I have never even heard of it. Such a number is far too simple a formula for much too complex a problem. Would this figure work as evenly in a populated and relatively educated area like Iraq in comparison to in Afghanistan which lacks infrastructure and education and the population density is far less? No. Academics only gets you so far my boy. Common sense and experience does the rest. Me thinks you are lacking the latter.

 

 

As I stated, 20 to 1000 is a widely accepted MINIMUM number, based on studies of past insurgencies around the world (something I daresay probably exceeds the limited, anecdotal experience you never miss an opportunity to wave around as a way to legitimize what's essentially a form of online masturbation). Obviously, various situations can require more troops.

 

I hate to spoonfeed, but some students require it. Someday, you may actually post something that will reverse my disappointment in your intellect.

 

But so far, I doubt it.

Edited February 26, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I think it's always more challenging and interesting to ask the question: What would YOU do in this situation?

 

Rather than carp about how cynical Obama is (basically the message from most of the conservative posts since the election), what would YOU DO, given our massive budget deficit, and the political unpopularity of our presence in Iraq?

 

How many troops would you leave in Iraq, for how long, to achieve what objectives by when, at what cost to our economy and to our military effectiveness?

 

The posts somehow don't come so easily when you put yourself in the Prez's shoes...in the real world, not your idealized, single-issue version.

[kevbone]

How many troops would you leave in Iraq, for how long, to achieve what objectives

 

I think a more important question is Pat.....is what are the objectives?

[akhalteke]

If you are going to abandon the mission

 

What is the mission Scott?

 

Kev, shut the fuck up.

[akhalteke]

I think it's always more challenging and interesting to ask the question: What would YOU do in this situation?

 

Rather than carp about how cynical Obama is (basically the message from most of the conservative posts since the election), what would YOU DO, given our massive budget deficit, and the political unpopularity of our presence in Iraq?

 

How many troops would you leave in Iraq, for how long, to achieve what objectives by when, at what cost to our economy and to our military effectiveness?

 

The posts somehow don't come so easily when you put yourself in the Prez's shoes...in the real world, not your idealized, single-issue version.

 

I would leave nothing but Special Forces ODA's and the required crews to support them to finish up teaching the army and police force their new roles as peacekeepers in Iraq. It wouldn't cost much and would certainly be effective.

 

Actually, Tvash, it was quite simple.

[prole]

"All I see are two BB's and a Tic-Tac."

[tvashtarkatena]

If we do that, what would the U.S. use as a primary ground base for Middle Eastern operations? Or should we even maintain such a base of operations? If not, how would that effect our policy towards Iran?

 

The world is only simple for the simple.

Edited February 26, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

Not quite that simple. If we do that, what would the U.S. use as a primary ground base for Middle Eastern operations? Or should we even maintain such a base of operations? If not, how would that effect our policy towards Iran?

 

Dubai real-estate is a super good value right now, though I'm not sure the US military could handle the population.

Edited February 26, 2009 by prole

[akhalteke]

If we do that, what would the U.S. use as a primary ground base for Middle Eastern operations? Or should we even maintain such a base of operations? If not, how would that effect our policy towards Iran?

 

The world is only simple for the simple.

 

I wouldn't even want one. The presence of this compound alone would incite more violence than it could possibly deter.

 

I wasn't aware we had a policy on Iran; other than gesturing and pomp that is.

[tvashtarkatena]

Then we're in agreement.

[akhalteke]

"All I see are two BB's and a Tic-Tac."

 

Get away from the mirror you narcissistic freak.