• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How many troops are you willing to leave in Iraq?

palehorse

palehorse

Lifer
OK, it seems clear now that a complete withdrawal in '07 or '08 is highly unlikely. Also, given the recent polling results and other topics being discussed here at ATP&N, it's quite obvious that everyone has a different idea about what is "acceptable" in Iraq over the next decade. Every single Presidential candidate seems to have his/her own plan as well.

So, with that in mind, please take a moment to vote in these polls and then follow that up by commenting in the thread.

There is one question I left out, but I'd also be very interested in whether or not you feel that ANY current Presidential candidate really knows what to do about Iraq, or are they all just dancing around the subject hoping to never get nailed down to one plan of action?

Thank you ahead of time for keeping this thread civil and troll-free.

/discuss
 
I said 20-40k and no/no. Troops will be there long term and I said 20-40k because I feel that's enough to give reasonable security to whatever half-baked government the Iraqis can come up with. Trying to police the entire country is impossible, so what may happen is a relatively stable government with limited reach that may or may ultimately extend that reach, rather like what Somalia has right now; a UN-approved bona-fide government but in a small concentrated stronghold and unable to exert its power throughout the country. In fact, that's what Afghanistan has, too. And in fact, a lot of countries have that.

So, perhaps some government could virally infect and spread throughout the country, but it will be slow. To prevent a full-blown mess, keep a few guns there to run around on a limited basis, keep US casualties down, get the world on board (US would no longer be a big "occupier"), and also cut down the rampant costs that this mess has entailed.
 
I think the Democrats are much more likely to remove our military from Iraq. I can?t say I have faith that a Republican would. The instability in Iraq will last for decades. Who is to say when their military may take over? Why is it not already capable of it?

I don?t know the answer to those questions.

I do know that we took down the moderate power in that country and the void is being filling with Islamic Supremacism. The future of Iraq almost certainly belongs to them and we are bleeding to help them on their way. I find it sad and ironic that we would build up a nation that is certain to become the spitting image of Iranian ?Democracy?.

Will we build their nuclear plants for them too?
 
To keep this in perspective, the total number of US troops deployed to other countries is as follows:

1. South Korea: ~25,000 projected in 2008 (Source), duration: ~50 years.
2. Germany: ~40,000, duration: 62 years
3. Afghanistan: ~20,000, duration: 6 years
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
To keep this in perspective, the total number of US troops deployed to other countries is as follows:

1. South Korea: ~25,000 projected in 2008 (Source)
2. Germany: ~40,000
3. Afghanistan: ~20,000
Click to expand...

I ask you how many troops does it take to secure the oil?

Is it secure with 160,000 troops?
 
I prefer none at all within the heart of the country. Absolutely stupid - completely problematic. IF the troops were moved to the border, I could TOLERATE any amount there since they would actually be doing work worth a damn...but I would still prefer pullout.

You seem to have this idea that just because we keep our troops in other countries for a very long time, that apparently the same will happen in Iraq.

And I don't foresee anyone actually pulling out totally save for Ron Paul. I would think Obama would actually be HONEST about what needs to be done - and he is the only candidate out of all of them that gives me a perception of honesty. Either he is a lieing scum who knows how to trick people, or its sad that an American voter only have the perception that ONE of them is not lying.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
We shouldn't have troops anywhere but on US soil. Since when are we responsible for policing the world?
Click to expand...
Do you not recognize the strategic value of placing troops elsewhere in the world? Most of our forward-deployed locations have very little, if anything, to do with "policing."
 
I find it very interesting that many people here are for a total withdrawal. For those who seek total withdrawal from Iraq, are you prepared to stomach the mass murders and possible genocide that may soon follow such a drastic move? Do you discredit the possibility of such?

I am honestly curious about whether or not you really have a "consequences be damned" opinion of the situation, or is your idea of total withdrawal very conditional in nature?
 
The Bush Administrations initial claims before the war was a 3-5 year occupation. If by next spring we dont see major improvements in the govt of that country and its security teams. We need to start drawing down our forces and force their hand to take matters into their own hands. Eventually we should have token rapid response teams and bases outside of the major urban areas. Turn it into Afghanistan where we arent being nails by IEDs on a daily basis.

fyi I voted for between 20-40K troops and neither party pulling them out before 2012.
 
I love how everyone is like 'force them to take matters into their own hands' what a laughable joke it is literally laugh out loud funny to me. You need to step up mr iraqi president!!! We are leaving, take things in your own hands.

Five minutes later the army deserts and all militant factions are warring.

A stable structure has to be setup before anything can be 'put in their hands'
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I find it very interesting that many people here are for a total withdrawal. For those who seek total withdrawal from Iraq, are you prepared to stomach the mass murders and possible genocide that may soon follow such a drastic move? Do you discredit the possibility of such?

I am honestly curious about whether or not you really have a "consequences be damned" opinion of the situation, or is your idea of total withdrawal very conditional in nature?
Click to expand...
Well, this is why it should be phased so that we can see what happens. I don't know that any meaningful progress is being made there now, so one would think either jack up troops to 300k or meaningfully change some other approach or "give up" and cut troops down substantially but not entirely and see what happens.

I love how everyone is like 'force them to take matters into their own hands' what a laughable joke it is literally laugh out loud funny to me. You need to step up mr iraqi president!!! We are leaving, take things in your own hands.

Five minutes later the army deserts and all militant factions are warring.

A stable structure has to be setup before anything can be 'put in their hands'
Click to expand...

You are right. Bush can't even secure more than 1/3rd approval rating in his own country with a stable democracy, what the hell is Maliki supposed to do then?!
 
Small special ops force, under 20K, to conduct targeted strikes on international terrorists infiltrating from overseas, and not take sides in local Iraqi civil wars and tribal conflicts, or policing the country. That is Iraqis' job. Their infighting is their business, our job is only to keep outsiders from interfering and using Iraq to create problems for us.

 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BoberFett
We shouldn't have troops anywhere but on US soil. Since when are we responsible for policing the world?
Click to expand...
Do you not recognize the strategic value of placing troops elsewhere in the world? Most of our forward-deployed locations have very little, if anything, to do with "policing."
Click to expand...

Strategic only if you intend to use those troops. Not surprisingly we end up using them quite often. Gotta justify that military spending somehow I guess, hence the policing.
 
How would we know how many troops should there? Unless of course you are for zero.

I'd give the military the objectives and let them determine the number.

So, I cant' vote for any of those choices.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: jandrews
I love how everyone is like 'force them to take matters into their own hands' what a laughable joke it is literally laugh out loud funny to me. You need to step up mr iraqi president!!! We are leaving, take things in your own hands.

Five minutes later the army deserts and all militant factions are warring.

A stable structure has to be setup before anything can be 'put in their hands'
Click to expand...

Why is that a joke? I bet you are the same type of person who laughs at the idea of making welfare recipients work and fend for themselves. The results are the same. Until forced to, people will leech as much as possible.

At some point we have to cut and run, that is all there is too it. No point in living in a minefield for the next 50 years.

 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: palehorse74
To keep this in perspective, the total number of US troops deployed to other countries is as follows:

1. South Korea: ~25,000 projected in 2008 (Source)
2. Germany: ~40,000
3. Afghanistan: ~20,000
Click to expand...

I ask you how many troops does it take to secure the oil?

Is it secure with 160,000 troops?
Click to expand...

Sorry, oil wasn't on our minds. Was on yours.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I find it very interesting that many people here are for a total withdrawal. For those who seek total withdrawal from Iraq, are you prepared to stomach the mass murders and possible genocide that may soon follow such a drastic move? Do you discredit the possibility of such?

I am honestly curious about whether or not you really have a "consequences be damned" opinion of the situation, or is your idea of total withdrawal very conditional in nature?
Click to expand...

We can always go back in. Yes, there's an overhead - a nice word for casualties - to doing so, but that's the price of not being an occupier.

It's far from clear what would happen when the US leaves.

Basically, my issue is that I'm against the US being an empire - I don't want troops there for the agenda simply to increase US power in the world.

If you can offer me a plan that prevents the agenda of empire while preserving a humanitarian role, fine, but I've yet to see that plan, and this government can't be trusted on that.

I'd err on the side of leaving, over staying where the humanitarian role is a pretense for decades of occupation.

I don't "discredit" the possibility of big problems, but that's not enough to counter the empire issue in keeping troops there. We can respond to the problems when they happen.

Ideally, we'd just have a responsible government that gave us an honest plan for the minimal military activity to deal with that issue, rather than the current regime that has no interest in that and gives us only two choices, withdrawal with the threat of possible big problems or the indefinite occupation, that you can only take including the empire plans. Give me the freedom from occupation between the two, for now. Our leaders need the political defeat lest they are empowered to do even more harm.

I find the right's response to the administration's mistakes of 'maybe there were mistakes but just ignore all that and decide what to do' with no repercussions for them inadequate.

It may seem I'm trading chaos for Iraq for the freedom frm empire, but over time that may well be a defensible choice. We made the choice ourselves in the late 1700's.
 
Anyone who thinks that a Democrat President will bring home all of the troops right away is foolish.

Go read the quotes from Hillary in the thread I started today. She is admitting that we will need to have troops in Iraq for at least a while longer to combat AQ and other threats.

We are going to have some troops in Iraq for at least the next 10 years. Remember, we had troops in Saudi Arabia for that long following the Gulf War. I don?t know the exact number of troops in Saudi Arabia, but it was at least 5,000 at the end.
 
Isn't this kind of a silly question when we don't know what kind of state Iraq will be in next year, let alone any farther into the future? If democracy really takes hold their, the militias settle their collective ass down and the Iraqi police and military start getting serious about doing their damned jobs...I'd say we'd need very few troops at all, maybe just some for training and some special operations teams for certain things. Enough to also act as a deterrent to Iranian interests in "moving in" on Iraq as well. If Iraq ends up splitting along sectarian lines, I imagine we'd need a whole crapload of troops to keep things from turning into a huge shooting war.

Of course that assumes that leaving troops in Iraq (or not) is in any way shaped by the situation in Iraq. I suppose, since that doesn't appear to be the case for very many people, that's a silly assumption to make. So I'm going with Moonie's answer.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BoberFett
We shouldn't have troops anywhere but on US soil. Since when are we responsible for policing the world?
Click to expand...
Do you not recognize the strategic value of placing troops elsewhere in the world? Most of our forward-deployed locations have very little, if anything, to do with "policing."
Click to expand...

Iraq is not Germany...the function of our troops in Germany is different than their role in Iraq...obviously. We might not be policing Germany, but we're damn sure policing Iraq.
 
I said between between 20,000 and 40,000. No doubt we will withdraw precipitously once we see a Dem in office, probably Hillary, next election (assuming nothing changes between now and then). It could be even less than 20,000 if she stays for two terms. I only say that high a number because I'm assuming Bush will continue to stick with his current failed policy until January 09. At that point he'll have done enough damage to last another 5-10 years. Though, with some luck, perhaps only 20,000 troops will be needed in Iraq in the immediate (2-5 years) future.

And besides, it's not really the number of troops as much as it's the number that are in harms' way. Obviously we have tens of thousands stationed overseas, but no one is in a fit about that because they aren't really in nearly the danger our current majority of troops are in in Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top