September 13, 2005
LET IRAQ BE IRAQ:
Talabani Says Iraqis Could Replace Many U.S. Troops ( Jim VandeHei, September 13, 2005, Washington Post)
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in an interview yesterday that the United States could withdraw as many as 50,000 troops by the end of the year, declaring there are enough Iraqi forces trained and ready to begin assuming control in cities throughout the country. [...]In the interview, Talabani said he planned to discuss reductions in U.S. forces during a private meeting with President Bush today, and said he believed the United States could begin pulling out some troops immediately.
"We think that America has the full right to move some forces from Iraq to their country because I think we can replace them [with] our forces," Talabani said. "In my opinion, at least from 40,000 to 50,000 American troops can be [withdrawn] by the end of this year."
That assessment differs dramatically from those offered by Bush and by U.S. military commanders in Iraq. [...]
Talabani's statement has the potential to put Bush in a difficult position if the troops are not pulled out by year's end, since critics are certain to ask why U.S. soldiers cannot come home when Iraq's own president says they can. The two leaders will hold a joint news conference today after their meeting.
In the interview, Talabani said Iraqi troops are prepared to assume control of security in several cities throughout southern, central and northern Iraq, despite continued violence, suicide bombings and killings. Many military experts predict a spike in insurgent attacks ahead of next month's vote.
Talabani said the number of "well-trained" Iraqi security forces stood at 60,000 and would reach 100,000 by the end of the year. All told, there about 190,000 Iraqis enlisted in the military or local security forces. "Some are well-trained, some are not so well-trained," he said. Iraqi troops have light arms, but he said they need 50 tanks and automatic weapons.
The Occupation has been ill-considered since it began. Bring them home. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 13, 2005 7:10 AM
"Disastrously" is too lefty, even for you.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 13, 2005 10:50 AMEven setting aside the bondage of Eastern Europe, the money we wasted and the 1970s, how many dead Asians do you require before you term the Cold War a disaster?
Posted by: oj at September 13, 2005 10:55 AMI think Talabani has it right. To leave now would be "disastrous." The MSM has the "war" lost already and withdrawal would confirm it.
We're winning there and to stay beyond the election is better than prudent. As the Iraqi Army becomes more capable and unconstrained by our politically correct warfighting you will really start to see hearts and minds changing as the sunni's feel a strong hand upon their nether regions. And let's get that oil really flowing, for the gas guzzlers, with minimal interruption.
Posted by: Genecis at September 13, 2005 11:21 AMWe should go out with a bang, like when we have Zarqawi's head on a stick. And if we kill a few hundred Syrian troops in some border incursion, all the better.
Posted by: ratbert at September 13, 2005 11:45 AMIf the Iraqis give us political cover like this, we'd be fools not to take advantage of it.
Posted by: Bob at September 13, 2005 11:47 AMWhy do I think they've cut a deal w/Iran?
Posted by: Sandy P at September 13, 2005 12:29 PMLook at what the Iraqi guy said: they have bunches of snuffies, they don't have any armor or apparently even company-level crew-served weapons.
This is a very predictable military assistance scenario. Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam: we keep control of the good stuff to ourselves.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 13, 2005 1:12 PMBob, why do we need political cover from the Iraqis? Cover to do what?
Posted by: erp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 13, 2005 2:53 PM
ERP: Cover to withdraw troops, especialy from cities, without appearing weak. We can just anounce that we are folowing the wishes of the duly elected government, that of course we will only stay as long as we are wanted etc.
I still support the President and support the Iraq war but the American people are turning against it. We accomplished our objectives, no use sticking around in force losing people in occupation duty. We can still maintain a significant presence in the countryside for a while (forever?). It is a good thing for the country.
Further, it is good for the GOP, it reduces any negative impact in 2006.
Posted by: Bob at September 13, 2005 3:32 PMI think oj is wrong, since we're going to be in Iraq for the next fifty years (heck, we still occupy Germany and Japan). But Bob notes a good point: we can pull troops from areas that are either 1) safe or 2) dangerous for our troops. Let the Iraqi troops began cracking heads; the Sunnis will soon long for our protection.
In the meantime we'll train the Iraqis on those crew-served weapons. We'll need their help to deal with Iran.
Posted by: Steve White at September 13, 2005 4:16 PMYou say, "The Administration has been disastrously wrong about the occupation since it began." I take issue with disastrously and you respond with something about the Cold War. Huh? Assuming that there's some relevance there that I don't see, then, yes, the outcome of the Cold War was acceptable, and certainly not disastrous, though not as good as the Iraqi War.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 13, 2005 6:22 PMAh, wrong disastrously. My apologies. Cold War is a different thread...
Posted by: oj at September 13, 2005 6:33 PM