Psst! U.S. Troops Will Remain in Iraq Until At Least 2010. Deal With It.

Friday, August 24, 2007

On Fox News this morning, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said that the escalation in Iraq should be extended at least “another six months” or even “another year or so.”

We're supposed to be shocked, right? Well, I went back and checked from the last Democratic debate:

BIDEN: But the bottom line is it's going to one full year, if you argued tomorrow to get every single troop out.
RICHARDSON: Well, Anthony Cordesman from ABC News, a distinguished military expert — many generals agree with me that we can complete this withdrawal within six to eight months.*
STEPHANOPOULOS: So does that mean that Governor Richardson just is wrong when he says that all troops, all troops, except for protection of the embassy, can be out by the end of the year?
CLINTON: Well, I think that based on the conversations I've had with military planners and outside experts, Joe is right, that this is going to take a while. People say you can move maybe a brigade to two brigades a month. It is so important that we not oversell this...
EDWARDS: I think it would be hard to do by December. I think we can responsibly and in a very orderly way bring our troops out over the next nine or 10 months.
OBAMA: I think Joe is right on the issue of how long this is going to take. This is not going to be a simple operation.

By the way, Richardson's comment reminded me of something Cordesman had written recently, and I found it:

The U.S. military has not only 160,000 troops and at least 100,000 contractors in that country, but also about 140,000 to 200,000 metric tons of valuable equipment and supplies, as well as 15,000 to 20,000 military vehicles and major weapons. These are spread through many cities and more than 100 forward operating bases.
A secure withdrawal that includes all U.S. supplies and equipment and that phases out U.S. bases would take at least nine to 12 months and probably much longer. Two years is what many military experts think would be a rapid, but deliberate, pace. Such an effort should include transferring or destroying facilities and stocks that could fuel a civil war, as well as deciding the fate of more than $20 billion in aid projects and of the gigantic U.S. Embassy — which may end up as the most expensive white elephant in the history of American diplomacy.
This is information contained in Anthony H. Cordesman's absorbing 25-page trip report, "The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq," based on eight days he spent in that country last month. It was made public last week.

We know George W. Bush will veto any legislation withdrawing troops before then, and there aren't going to be enough votes to override his veto.

U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq until January 2010 at the earliest. January 2011 is more likely, unless the next president is okay with leaving weapons, vehicles, equipment and supplies behind.

Worth remembering next time some candidate pledges, "I'm the one who will bring our troops home."

08/24 01:13 PM Share