What would a US withdrawal from Iraq look like?

[MikeF]

Selil,

Outside of politics (or talking heads to us engaged in the fight), I dont think it's a question of would, but will. What will a pullout from Iraq look like? I'd submit that we must first define the problem set.

“If you don’t know where you’re going, then any road will suffice. Eventually, the road must lead somewhere.” -Wise old man

"If I had only an hour to answer a question, then I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and 5 minutes answering it."
-paraphrased Albert Einstein

Enthropy's thread of "What is the Surge" may get us there.

As this debate evolves, I'll interject with further editorials. Your question is the subject of my thesis, and yes, I have no problem with cherry-picking SWJ elites to provide legitimacy to my work(appropriate footnotes included of course). I appreciate the question, and I have no doubt that an SWJ collaboration between academics and grunts may provide a feasible solution.

v/r

Mike

[Hacksaw]

As MikeF points out, its critical to define the problem before seeking a solution...

A few assumptions -

- a framework of QRF/combat, logistic and air support will remain far beyond a withdrawl
- the withdrawl will not occur under enemy pressure -- we'll turn and fight, before we jump on the last helicopter evacing the embassy
- significant advisor footprint

So what we are looking at is a reduction in force (combat & support) as opposed to a complete withdrawl.

Off the top of my head, it'd look like is...

- Begin with a thinning of forces (as is happening now) either transfer of land to IA with QRF capability or reduction of BDE to BN then transition

- retain three BNs of QRF in country (north-center-south) each with heavy light mix and lift assets

- Plus establishment of a Camp Doha type facility at TAJI - with Discom and ready set responsibilities

Wow think of all the time I just saved GEN Petraeus and his staff

[MSG Proctor]

Until the ISF can develop its own ISR, C2, Sustainment, Aviation, AF and leader academies, this withdrawal question is just a morale boost to the (mostly demoralized) insurgency.

The Iraqis are doing the lion's share of the maneuver mission now - that's a win. But their top GOs have stated that they will need help in the above listed categories to secure the inner cordon - Iraq's 18 provinces - until 2012. They also added that they will need external support (read: CF) to secure their own borders against extranational threats until 2018.

What will withdrawal look like? If its done according to the estimates of the combined Iraq and CF commanders, withdrawal will be a reverent military ceremony with lots of speeches and parades. If its done as the political Left in our country are forecasting, it will be a fight-your-way-out-while-it-all-unravels-debacle.

Maneuver forces are your meat/potatoes, but without sustainment, INTEL, infrastructure and seasoned leadership, maneuver forces alone are not enough to sustain the gains made in 2007-08. Pulling the rug out from the Iraqis by withdrawing prematurely may be a win for one US political party, but it will be a strategic defeat and seriously erode trust in the region for any future US-led intervention.

[Tom Odom]

Ok we have had a fairly steady diet of good news for the past several months. Many have taken to crowing that we have "won" without offering what the term means when applied in a setting like Iraq. This AM the news reported that the US-Iraqi negotiations had come to satisfactory terms. Maybe as that agreement is released we can use that to define success.

But there are remaining questions. They are long term and they are not being addressed. Notably they deal with the very same sectarian divisions we sought to dampen through measures like the Awakening.

Iraq Takes Aim at Leaders of U.S.-Tied Sunni Groups

BAGHDAD — The Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation.

In restive Diyala Province, United States and Iraqi military officials say there were orders to arrest hundreds of members of what is known as the Awakening movement as part of large security operations by the Iraqi military. At least five senior members have been arrested there in recent weeks, leaders of the groups say.

“These people are like cancer, and we must remove them,” said Brig. Gen. Nassir al-Hiti, commander of the Iraqi Army’s 5,000-strong Muthanna Brigade, which patrols west of Baghdad, said of the Awakening leaders on his list for arrest.

[wm]

Ok we have had a fairly steady diet of good news for the past several months. Many have taken to crowing that we have "won" without offering what the term means when applied in a setting like Iraq. This AM the news reported that the US-Iraqi negotiations had come to satisfactory terms. Maybe as that agreement is released we can use that to define success.

But there are remaining questions. They are long term and they are not being addressed. Notably they deal with the very same sectarian divisions we sought to dampen through measures like the Awakening.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The links below reflect a couple of episodes from the "wild west" days of American history that, IMHO, seem apropos to the story Tom posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfigh...he_O.K._Corral

Which side were Pat Garrett and the Earps really on anyway?

[Steve Blair]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The links below reflect a couple of episodes from the "wild west" days of American history that, IMHO, seem apropos to the story Tom posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfigh...he_O.K._Corral

Which side were Pat Garrett and the Earps really on anyway?

They were on their own sides, frankly. IMO, anyhow. The Earp clan was always good at looking after their own interests (going back to their time in Kansas), while Garrett was an opportunist.

Sorry for the digression.

[Tom Odom]

They were on their own sides, frankly. IMO, anyhow. The Earp clan was always good at looking after their own interests (going back to their time in Kansas), while Garrett was an opportunist.

Sorry for the digression.

Not really a digression as the splits in Iraq as captured in the article echo the same base line. They are on their own sides; a neutral zone between them remains a goal.

Tom