If Iraq blows up into sectarian violence, would it had been worth it for Iraq to keep 10K US Troops?

[BrentWil]

The US was offering Iraq 10K trainers to stay in Iraq after the first of the year. Iraq rejected that offer because it was not politically possible to give the US military members immunity and the US would not stay without immunity. With that said, Iraqis are fearful of the future. Many think that the country will irrupt into sectarian violence. If that does happen, and Iraq goes into chaos, was it a mistake for Iraq not to keep 10K US soldiers there? For the US, what are the consequences of Iraq falling into chaos? What does it mean for the region? What does it mean if Iran starts to fill the vacuum?

In other words, the worst case happens? What does that mean for the decision to pull out US soldiers?

[tabatha]

1. Richard Engel said it could happen either way.

I really do not think troops there helped.

The most important thing is for Iraqis to "own" their country. That is the only way that they can learn.

[BrentWil]

6. It helped from 2006 and on...

US troops changed their tactics and strategy and actually did stabilize a really bad situation. I agree, they do have to own their own country. They do now, actually.

[Inuca]

28. Yes, but a much larger number

a few thousands would be sitting ducks, NOT a good idea.

[Cosmocat]

29. Three things ...

1) as noted, 10,000 troops is not near enough to have an impact.
2) the reality is, the "surge" helped in some ways, but the morons figuring out the politics of the country and paying off the right people helped even more.
3) we will have 10s of thousands of "contractors" in the country for most of our lives.

[Arctic Dave]

2. It's there country.

If we were concerned one iota we would have never gone there.

[BrentWil]

5. But we did...

The question is not what to do in 2003. It is what to do now. This has been decided. Hopefully it will turn out for the best. However, I can understand why Obama was willing to leave 10K there.

2003 will go down as a huge mistake whatever happens.

[Arctic Dave]

7. They are all adults. What happens from here on out is up to them.

It would seem an awfully convinient excuse for use to stay. You know, " for there own good".


What we did, and still doing, is imperialism. Nothing more.

[BrentWil]

8. So if a country asks us to stay

And we do stay, it is imperialism? Does that include anything? Can the military do a training exercise with India, for example?

Just wondering how you define imperialism. Even under Mr. Bush, we never set up a system like the British had in India, for example.

[Arctic Dave]

9. The entire act of going into Iraq was an act of imperialism.

If the people don't want us there but the people "in charge" want us there it seems like another Afghanistan. It is the highest form of of elitism that we think we know better then the people who's country we want to garrison our military in.


As for joint military exercises I'm not sure how many countries station their troops in the US so why should have them in theirs.

[MADem]

14. More than one might think.

A discussion on the topic from a few years back: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/63795/

From a training standpoint, every military academy, graduate school, war college, etc. has foreign students in every graduating class. Operational training happens all over, from coast to coast.

RAF and the Germans love to come over for both training and exercises. The Germans have a little mini-installation out at Dulles.

When I was in officer training, my company officer was foreign. Part of a mil-to-mil thing. It helped that I was former enlisted, that way I could separate the wheat from the chaff.

There are a large number of logistic types from allied nations who are stashed here and there, expediting the procurement process and keeping track of the beans, as well.

[KoKo]

15. +1....yes ....thanks! It's imperialism by participating nations...and we do most of training.

[pscot]

16. Military junketing

It's a perk, paid for by taxpayers.

[MADem]

17. It's mil-to-mil. Often the people who come over here for training end up

in the higher reaches of government. The governments who select people for these programs don't send their worst, they send their best.

Also, we send our people to war colleges and exchange assignments to other nations as well. It's not just a one-way street, though we do more operational work than they do. Most countries that run a decent war college (or "defense" university) will have an American or two in the graduating class. The Canadians, Brits, Germans, Japanese, etc....they're all part of the mix.

It's not just junketing--there's real utility that comes out of some of it. Even the guys who don't end up in the highest reaches of their governments have value because they learn English really well while here, and understand US military customs and traditions. They often serve as facilitators when we do joint exercises, and they're extremely valuable during joint ops.

We also, as a part of FMS (foreign military sales), have jinned up a training compound in Jordan. We paid, but it's a joint facility, staffed by trainers from both nations and then some. Makes it easier to train people in the ME/SWA theater of operations without having to haul them all the way here.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. Good points

And if Iraq explodes - we might have already trained the next Paul Kagame. To your point - it was RPF lead by him that finally slowed then stopped the Rwandan Genocide. Is he perfect? Is their country perfect? Nope - but he also got the chance to tell Bush to go to hell, don't come into MY country.

I guess maybe I'm a polly anna that believes people will do right by themselves? Or maybe just one strong leader can emerge? Or may - it's their country and if they don't want us there - we have to respect.

Anyone - loved your point on this thread!

[BrentWil]

19. What some fail to understand is that there are actual security concerns and that we need to meet

them jointly with the rest of the world. Mil to mil relationships and partnerships are not a bad thing.

[bluestateguy]

3. If it happens that is really, really unfortunate

It really is. That's just really a shame.

We have problems here at home to deal with. Their ethno-religious conflicts was/are/maybe bound to boil over at some undetermined point in the future no matter whether we are there or not.

[BrentWil]

4. Maybe

Or perhaps a slower withdraw with us giving some training could have prevented it. If it does blow up, we did break the country. In a very deep way, it will be our fault.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. I agree with you & Colin Powell, "we broke it". However, what happens after

2012 will determine if we reinvade that country. Republicans are lining up to tell us how Iran is going to fill the vacuum, and it's a very real fear, but we had to leave at some point, it might as well be now.

Whatever happens, the president will be blamed, on both sides. It's already happening. :hi:

[BrentWil]

20. The President deserves all the credit in the world

He is the one that was/is being responsible here.

[Igel]

33. That's a tough nut to spin.

Somehow, we're to accept that having no troops is what was intended by the proposal made by his team to have 10-14k American troops there.

It's just like saying that the decision to pull out the troops by the end of the year is entirely Obama's. When Iraq said 'no' to the Obama-team's 10-14k troops, all that was left was the status of forces agreement that was signed by *.

Meanwhile, having said what a great idea *'s negotiators worked out, Obama's guys are still negotiating for a troop extension.

So, yes, Obama deserves all the credit in the world. /snark off

[bhikkhu]

11. I think we know how little 10k troops can do about things

...from all the long failing years of 200-300k troops and support we had there.

Sometimes for people to take responsibility for their own lives and outcomes, you have to let them.

[MADem]

18. This is all a bunch of posturing.

There is no way US troops can stay without SOFA, and that's fine.

There's a fine little training facility right down the lane in Jordan, they'll just have to bus them over that way to give them what they need. Perhaps the Jordanian trainers can pick up the slack. About time someone else did, anyway.

Read all about it: http://www.kasotc.com/KASOTC_Site/Home.html

[BrentWil]

21. The point of the 10K was to train in the desert and provide support for the elected government...

While that proved to be impossible, it wasn't a bad plan.

[msongs]

12. no, it is their world despite all the damage our troops caused there nt

[LittleBlue]

13. No

Ultimately it's up to them whether they want democratic, multinational state, and whether they will shed blood to keep it together. No one can do it for them.

[BrentWil]

22. It is up to them...

Which is why we are leaving.

[Skittles]

23. NO

American soldiers who were 10 years old when 9/11 happened were "training" Iraqi soldiers - ENOUGH ALREADY

[DCBob]

24. You could use that argument until doomsday.. we have done enough.. its time to get out.

Let Iraq sink or swim.. its their county... its their problem.

[TheKentuckian]

25. +1

We've been training for years now, at a certain point no further amount of years will pay dividends. This is especially true when training won't do much to prevent deteriorating into civil war, which is the main threat.

[quaker bill]

26. No

because if it does, 10,000 troops would not be enough to change anything about it. Nor would 10,000 troops be enough to prevent it. The proper number of troops is the number needed to serve as guards for the embassy. The embassy should largely be secured by a rapid evacuation plan, and enough guards to allow it to work.

[Vinca]

27. No. The violence would break out anyway and we'd have more dead soldiers.

[Blue_Tires]

31. If sectarian violence breaks out, I have no doubt that dozens of D.C.

'security firms' will offer their manpower, expertise and technology consultants to negotiate a small, but reasonable fee for a universal range of services...

[lunatica]

32. It was never 'worth it'. No war is.

[MrSlayer]

34. No. And I really don't care what happens there.

We should have never been there to begin with. I'm not about to argue on the side of keeping troops there no matter the circumstances. If they want to kill each other, let them.