July 2010: How many US troops in Iraq?

Great Debates
1

For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume Obama becomes president* and the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress (although they don’t get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate).

Two years from now, how many US troops will we still have in Iraq? For the record, Obama never claimed he was going to remove all the troops-- there was always the fine print about leaving some “combat troops” to protect Americans over there and fight any remaining elements of al Qaeda. And combat troops need non-combat troops around to do all the non-combat tasks needed to sustain them. The fine print has gotten a lot bigger these days, so I think it’s safe to assume that the answer is not zero.

I am not a military expert, so I hope some who are will give some input in this tread, but I just can’t see the remaining force being anything less than 25 - 50k troops. We’ve got this enormous embassy over there that’s going to need protection, and any force that’s too small would be extremely vulnerable to insurgent attacks. Those attacks, although down considerably in recent months, still continue at a not insignificant rate. We’re going to have to go after the insurgents actively, otherwise we’ll be sitting ducks with them taking pot shots at us constantly. Will the insurgency be mostly stamped out in 2 years? Hard to believe.

Then there is the need the ISF is going to have for our military equipment. I can’t see us taking it all away, but I can’t see us just handing it over to the ISF either. We’re going to need people over there to operate and maintain it, and to make sure it doesn’t end up in Iran. Again, IANAME, but I would suspect we have some pretty proprietary stuff over there that we’re using to back up the ISF with, and to run our own operations.

And if things flare up, Americans are going to be vulnerable as hell. Obama is not going to want pictures on the nightly news of Americans being evacuated from the embassy roof in helicopters.

n.b.: I wish to hell we could bring all our troops home tomorrow. I’m not arguing here what I want to happen, but what I think is going to happen given the realities of the situation.

*We can do a McCain thread if anyone is really interested, but I think we can assume that McCain will have more troops staying than Obama will. I’m trying to get a handle on what the minimum is going to be.

2

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Then there is the need the ISF is going to have for our military equipment. I can’t see us taking it all away, but I can’t see us just handing it over to the ISF either. We’re going to need people over there to operate and maintain it, and to make sure it doesn’t end up in Iran. Again, IANAME, but I would suspect we have some pretty proprietary stuff over there that we’re using to back up the ISF with, and to run our own operations.
[/QUOTE]

Well, we haven’t been supplying them exclusively with our own weapons - that would have been a stupid thing to do. So when we leave perhaps some of that can be mitigated.

3

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Well, we haven’t been supplying them exclusively with our own weapons - that would have been a stupid thing to do. So when we leave perhaps some of that can be mitigated.
[/QUOTE]

We’ve been providing a lot of air support. Do we just give (or sell) them our helicopters and planes?

4

[QUOTE=John Mace]
We’ve been providing a lot of air support. Do we just give (or sell) them our helicopters and planes?
[/QUOTE]

No. But air support would likely continue far beyond direct ground support. And I doubt most Americans would sweat that much - those missions aren’t the ones getting people killed for the most part.

I’d expect logistical support to continue for quite a while as well. Likewise training. None of this should be particularly controversial.

5

To whom will it not be “controversial”? I fear you are making the assumption that only controversy *here * is significant, but the opinions of the Iraqi people are equally relevant, if not more so. While it may be eminently sensible for some protective force of US soldiers to remain, people are seldom sensible and react more strongly to symbolism than we might like. (Are the Understatement of the Year Award nominations still open?)

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see that mega-Embassy end up as an Iranian-Shia Cultural Center, or somesuch. Assuming they can bring it up to code. Of course, given the gargantuan size of that sumbitch, if it remains in our hands we might need 25K troops to protect it.

As far as equipment goes, lets break it down into two groups: mechanical, armor and the like. Full of sand, grinding into dust, we’re gonna have to replace it anyway, make a magnanimous gesture and give it to them. Electronics and the like: they can’t use it, don’t know how, most likely. Quietly remove while we “negotiate”, leave whats left.

To be blunt, I don’t much care what happens to stuff that doesn’t bleed.

6

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
No. But air support would likely continue far beyond direct ground support. And I doubt most Americans would sweat that much - those missions aren’t the ones getting people killed for the most part.

[/QUOTE]

These things do kill Iraqis. Often not the ones we intended. So some Americans and many Iraqis will be opposed.

7

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see that mega-Embassy end up as an Iranian-Shia Cultural Center, or somesuch. Assuming they can bring it up to code. Of course, given the gargantuan size of that sumbitch, if it remains in our hands we might need 25K troops to protect it.
[/quote]

Yeah, I wonder if Obama will decide to downsize. I think that’s a distinct possibility, although I’m unaware of the issues involved in doing so. That is indeed the Mother of all Embassies.

I was hoping we could debate what we think will happen, not what we want to happen. Is that what you think will happen?

8

Heavens, John, sorry, I guess I didn’t read the instructions very closely.

Is that what I think will happen? It is an entirely plausible scenario, founded on an assumption of reasonable self-interest and rational behavior. I can also think of at least a couple other equally plausible scenario based on the liklihood of utterly irrational behavior and stubborn stupidity.

I don’t think the US and Iraq are going to be cooing lovebirds and BFF, where our troops stroll amongst approving throngs of Iraqi people, pressing flowers and their daughters upon them, and kissing their hands for luck. Their attitude has become pretty clearly “Here’s your hat, there’s the door, hello, you must be going.” Its no longer a question of getting us out, the question becomes how to get us out without hindering our enthusiasm for writing big, fat checks.

Maliki and his cadre seem to have decided that they can come to a peaceful resolution with the Sunni minority, and don’t need the US military to oppress them (a contingency made more awkward by the “Awakening”). Or perhaps they’d just as soon not have any witnesses.

If leaving a lot of equipment that we are going to have to replace anyway will quicken the pace of our people skeedaddling, OK. As I said, thats likely the fate of a lot of our heavy metal, chugging around in the sand for a few years.

9

I don’t really see why having US made equipment would need a bunch of US troops around to service it. Lots of countries have US guns/tanks/planes/whatever and get by without 30k US troops sitting around in country fixing stuff. I presume they either fix it themselves or hire contractors from the companies that actually produce the hardware to make repairs.

10

My guess is that there will still be something like 100k troops in Iraq in July 2010. No matter what Obama says, unless the situation changes radically (for the better), I can’t see going realistically below that figure (the actual active offensive oriented combat troops IIRC is something like 30k).

The only thing I see that could change that is if peace really breaks out in a big way and things calm way down in the next 2 years. If we are still at even the present (relatively) low levels of violence I don’t believe there is any way Obama will drop our force levels below that.

-XT

11

My WAG is that we’ll be down to 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 2010, and down to residual-force levels by year’s end.

How big the residual force will be, will depend on whether the assorted Arab factions have moved strongly towards resolving their differences politically.

If the political situation today were to still be in place in July 2010, with Maliki trying to defeat the Sadrists militarily, and refusing to let the Sunnis play a role in his government, then we’d definitely need to (a) maintain, and have a force sufficient to defend, the Mother of All Embassies, and (b) maintain and defend the nearest Permanent Base with a ginormous airfield as a line of supply and airborne retreat.

If that requires 20,000 troops, then so be it: 20,000 troops is the size of our residual Iraqi force.

If, OTOH, the Iraqi factions start working out their differences politically beginning early next year, and all feel invested in the government and the political process by late 2010, then while we may still be in the Mother of All Embassies at the end of 2010, we should be working towards handing that facility over to the Iraqi government, and moving into something less imperial, more along the lines of the sorts of embassies we already have in other war-torn third-world countries.

12

Do we count the Blackwater troop types.? There are as many mercenaries as regular troops now. So if you add their 125 thou to the residual troops ,the real number is much larger.

13

Cite? There are over 130,000 mercenaries in Iraq?? Are you counting insurgents to?

-XT

14

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Do we count the Blackwater troop types.? There are as many mercenaries as regular troops now. So if you add their 125 thou to the residual troops ,the real number is much larger.
[/QUOTE]

I think you ought to check your numbers.

There are a lot of contractors in Iraq, but most of them do rather mundane work like services and construction and the like. Calling these employees “mercenaries” muddies the picture a good bit.

15

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Do we count the Blackwater troop types.?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t.

16

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
There are a lot of contractors in Iraq, but most of them do rather mundane work like services and construction and the like. Calling these employees “mercenaries” muddies the picture a good bit.
[/QUOTE]
True dat. I’d only apply the ‘merc’ label to those whose primary duty involves carrying a gun, and even then I’d exclude any contractors who are guarding a fixed location at a U.S. base: they’re like security guards here at home, just in a lousier environment.

Dunno how many mercs that leaves, but it’s only a small fraction of the total number of foreign contractors in Iraq.

17

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Cite? There are over 130,000 mercenaries in Iraq?? Are you counting insurgents to?
[/QUOTE]

Reported estimates range widely. A 2006 GAO Report cited a 2005 Department of Defense estimate of 25,000 security contractors and a Private Security Company Association of Iraq (PSCAI) estimate of over 48,000 security contractors. Statement of William Solis, Director Defense Capabilities and Management,
United States Government Accountability Office, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations,Committee on Government Reform, June 13, 2006, GAO-06-865T, p. 2, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06865t.pdf (accessed November 29, 2007).
(Henceforth GAO Report, June 13, 2006.) However, Robert Pelton writes, “The PSCAI best estimate is that there are more than 70,000 privately armed men in Iraq, not including insurgents or militias.” Robert Young Pelton, Licensed To Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007), p. 336. Other estimates have been made by Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association told Reuters in September 2007 that there were 20,000—25,000 security contractors in Iraq. Andrew Gray, “Private Contractors Are a Growing Force in War Zones,” Reuters, September 18, 2007, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18462252 (accessed November 29, 2007). A recent Los Angeles Times article reported industry estimates of 30,000 security contractors in Iraq. Miller, “Private Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Iraq.” In 2006 Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution told the Boston Globe there were 20,000 to 35,000 private security contractors in Iraq. Farah Stockman, “U.S. Contractors in Iraq Face Peril, Neglect,” Boston Globe (October 16,
2006), available at http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/10/16/us_contractors_in_iraq_face_peril_neglect/?page=full (accessed December 1, 2007 )

A footnote, from here: http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08115-usls-psc-final.pdf

So 20,000 - 70,000. A lot, at any rate, but not as many as 130,000.

18

If US troops start to pull out and Foreign companies increase their presence in Iraq, I would expect the number of private security personnel to increase considerably-- at least in the short term. I don’t think that makes Iraq unique, btw.

19

Estimates for contractors that perform functions once done by military personal is 127,000 according to testimony before congress in Apr 2007 hearings.

20

I think, and hope it will be a slow sustained withdrawal, as opposed to a sudden pull out. Iran and Iraq have never been really at peace with each other, at best they have had short lived cease fires. A sudden puill out could destabilize and weaken Iraq’s security so far that Iran would be sorely tempted to take advantage. The Kurds, Turkey and Syria all will have to “play nice” as well…

Many of you will notice I am a Canadian, and I appologise that we don’t have more troops in Iraq, but unfortunately we lack the millitary resources you yanks do, and are currently pretty much at our limits in Afganistan.

I do envision that non direct support from the west will come into play with a planned troop lessening. Satelite and other intellegence will be a major player in this, as well as technological and economic support. They key words will be (I hope) building autonomy and stability.

So come 2010, USA will still have some form of presence in Iraq, probably less than now, and (hopefully) geared more towards building and strengthening stability and regrowth (not to put down their not inconsiderable efforts so far).

I am such an optimist!

FML