This is now archived.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continues to protect his military strategy in Iraq and reiterated that there is no timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. His comments come amid accusations from a handful of retired generals that the Pentagon has failed to provide enough troops to ensure Iraq’s security. At the same time, there are signs that the US military may be experimenting with new tactics to establish contact with local Iraqis and integrate US troops into Iraqi security ensembles to “clean, maintain and build” cities. prone to destruction. rebel violence. Under the plan, as security expands and an Iraqi government is established, army officials say some form of withdrawal of about 130,000 US forces from Iraq will be possible. “It all depends on the formation of a government and what that government looks like,” said a senior Pentagon official, who spoke to cfr. org on condition of anonymity. “Until we have a government, that’s a silly question. ” Some experts counter that the White House’s plans to draw down its forces have less to do with the Iraqi political calendar than with the US midterm elections in November.
The United States is increasingly transferring security responsibilities to the forces of the U. S. Department of the Interior. The forces have reportedly ceded about thirty smaller bases to Iraqi forces. The U. S. military The U. S. Army has also provided more direct assistance and education to Iraqi forces by integrating small groups of ten people, most commonly senior U. S. Infantrymen and Marines, into Iraqi police and army units. The task of the so-called transition groups is, as the Pentagon official put it, to “train, teach, advise and monitor” Iraqi forces. But this strategy, while effective, carries big risks, says Stephen Biddle, CFR’s principal investigator of defense strategy. “You take those packages of Americans, you put them in unprepared housing and you make them live in exposed positions and you mix with the Iraqis and eventually other people are going to die,” he said.
Probably, but it’s not clear exactly when, experts say. For now, the White House says there is no plan in place to reduce its forces until military officials in Iraq say the security landscape is improving and U. S. troops are gone. necessary. But some experts say the resolution to withdraw forces will have more to do with the upcoming U. S. congressional elections. “The U. S. Army is driven through the generals’ progress assessments,” said Andrew Bacevich, a retired U. S. Army colonel. He is a professor of foreign relations at Boston University. “The president has to show his good fortune to the American people, and the definition of good fortune point diminishes our exposure there. “
Other experts reject the concept that the Pentagon’s withdrawal plans are motivated by Iraq’s ability to form a coalition government. “I think it is absurd that we are waiting for the formation of a unity government and in this magical moment we are reducing our forces. ” said Barry Posen, a national security expert who teaches political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Experts say other factors, adding up the stress and strains faced by those serving in the military, enter the equation. George Packer, writing in The New Yorker, says divorce rates among military officers have doubled since 2003, and that if the war drags on, thousands of low-level officers could simply resign to avoid being relocated to Iraq.
Posen foresees an imaginable eighteen-month two-part withdrawal, during which the number of troops in Iraq will be reduced from around 130,000 to less than 100,000 by the end of the year, followed by a second, larger withdrawal of forces shortly thereafter. Anthony Zinni, former commander-in-chief of U. S. Central Command. The U. S. government, speaking at a recent CFR meeting, predicts that a withdrawal may simply involve placing U. S. troops in neighboring countries such as Kuwait or Jordan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played down advice that the United States would seek permanent bases in Iraq. “In fact, we’re taking the fundamental design out of a lot of places,” she told the US House Appropriations Committee on April 4. But this year, the White House has asked for $348 million to build bases in Iraq as part of its emergency war investment bill, even though the Senate has yet to approve the investment. Zinni told The Guardian that a permanent military presence in Iraq is “a stupid concept and obviously politically unacceptable”, while others say it would only verify suspicions in the region that the US’s true intentions in Iraq were to protect the land. and oil. But Bacevich says that if Iraq ever stabilizes, the United States deserves to have a permanent presence there, similar to the military stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s. Rumsfeld, according to Biddle, envisions a “water lily” design of the bases. permanent ones, which would involve a limited number of troops – “essentially, they would be resupply points,” says Biddle – but also designed to allow US forces to return in greater numbers. if ever necessary. This concept, he says, differs from classic overseas bases, which have large numbers of troops that provide quick responses and interact more with local citizens.
More about: