The troops will not be withdrawn en masse until the end of Bush's 2nd term. Unless they are needed to be redeployed into the Iranian theater of operations sooner...
2008 --- 65,000
2009 --- 5,000 (they will be called trainers and the contigent protecting the American embassy)
2008 - 130,000
2009 - 35,000
I can't predict numbers because I would place my "bet" that this very much depends on an unknown as yet factor: how much public resistance starts to develop by actual troops, ala Vietnam, and how much public complaining develops by other authorities missing some of those "troops" elsewhere. And not so much on any other factor.
It's as if Milwaukee, Wis., had reverted to a state of lethal chaos....In Milwaukee, COPS universal hiring funds dropped from more than $1 million in 2002 to zero last year. That has left more than 200 police vacancies out of a force less than 2,000 strong...
Further exacerbating the city's police shortage is the redeployment of cops from the streets of Milwaukee to those of Baghdad, Mosul and Kabul. As many as 135 officers at one time have gone on leave to serve in Wisconsin's National Guard or military reserve units in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's difficult to manage a force that's always coming and going," says police chief Nanette Hegerty....
generally the same amount in both years. when Bush said he won't change course, he meant it. He'll stick to it through hell and high water. stubborn man!
To me the question should be: How many more our our Soldiers, Sailors and Airman will be Killed, Maimed and Emotionally scarred for life by the end of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009? Who will be the last to die for a Presidential ego? We've been there before but some folks just refuse to learn their History lessons. Of course this is not in any way simular to Vietnam is it?
Ed Beckmann Disabled Viet Vet
If we continue to build/staff a 1,000 person embassy and harden/expand the current "permanent" bases then on NY day 2008 we will have, unfortunately:
40,000 combat troops for force protection and backup/rapid deplyment,
30,000 trainers/advisers
10,000 logistics/support + God knows how many civilians doing militaryish jobs.
[Estimates done without knowing the splits today]
2008 - 175,000
2009 - 200,000
I'm with Ed on this question -- "Who will be the last to die for a Presidential ego?"
That's the grotesque aspect of all this. W stubbornly wants to 'protect' his 'legacy' & not fail like his dad. He's taking a complete "Bush to Nation: F**k You!" approach.
I fully expect more troops will have their stays in Iraq extended, more national guards will be called up, & more reservists pulled back into service, all to support a losing war of Bush's choice.
I do hope I'm wrong though....
08-145,000
09-145,000
0 on both dates. This war cannot be sustained by a volunteer army with no public support and no mission objective.
I won't predict the mechanism, but our system is not so broken (although it got close there, before the midterms) that it will not end the worst foreign policy fiasco in this nation's history.
Unfortunately, Ed, I think you will never get sufficient sympathy from the public on this front UNLESS draftees and/or a growing number of objectors to the policy among volunteers are involved. I am not for a draft, but I do think Charles Rangel sees the big picture on this correctly. People will let it go on, even if they disagree, if volunteers are involved. The National Guard question is the fly in the ointment as it can certainly be argued that fighting foreign wars was not in the contract, as are questions like not having sufficient equipment or things like whether ordered activities are basically "suicide missions."
Whatever will make McCain look good heading into the presidential election. Powerful are politics and delusion with this administration. I'm not sure how much leverage the Dems will have.
1/2008 150,000
1/2009 150,000
2/1/2009-6/1/2006 drawdown to 5-10,000
2008: Same as today
2009: Same as today
Leaving = losing.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
Just as many or more than we have now.
We are not leaving the Middle East or Central Asia, we will be slowly deploying more troops there over a number of years.
A lot of hair pulling, head pounding exasperation could be saved if more folks stopped speculating and simply laid out what the bigger picture of Cheney's strategy clearly is.
All of this seeming collective and contagious incompetence would make much more sense. Not to mention statements like "full speed ahead" and the lack of urgency or empathy for anyone or anything.
Aside from inevitable government mistakes, the degree of mismanagement, disorganization and scandal is far beyond believable for me. It is implausible to accept that the White House simply had no idea how to do so many things. The sooner the real Cheney plan is laid out by journalists and bloggers like Josh the better the American public will see how and why this is unfolding the way it is.
Josh, you even wrote "Practice to Deceive" way back in the summer of 2003.
Focus on knocking down the official story line is a fool's errand. There is no logic there to find, so why are so many still looking and still getting so worked up over it?
Also, a related question which I never understood:
Why is it we don't have 300,000 troops to insert now, but we somehow did when Shinseki called for them?
Was there ever a realistic opportunity for "several hundred thousand" if Abizaid is calling 30,000 more a stretch and unworkable now??
We don't have 300,000 troops to insert now. Even the 20,000 number is gonna be hard to make.
What Shinseki was saying, and why he was cashiered, is that we didn't have the troops required for an inevitable period of occupation.
This was a failed enterprise from the outset, because, for whatever reason, the aftermath was not planned for. At very senior levels, it looks like they bought into the flowers and candy scenario. Or, worse, didn't care as long as they had a war president in 04.
Interesting I don't remember military types/pundits saying that we could not have done what Shinseki suggested.
Does anyone remember an evalution of the realism of the number back then (regardless of whether the policy was the correct one or not)??
I think you're wrong on this one. McCain is going to be hurt by an escalation. If they were trying to rig this for him, they'd be drawing down. Escalating is a very unpopular decision. McCain's calculation that he could claim to have been an unheard voice in the wilderness in supporting escalation has, imo, backfired.
It was only a good position to take if it wasn't actually implemented. Implemented, because it will fail, it will turn out to be a political failure as well as a policy failure.
Democrats should be rooting for a McCain nomination. But I don't think they'll get it. He's got too much baggage for the base, and he's flipping and flopping like a perch in a row boat. The other two who are getting the most press, Romney and Giuiliani are also non-starters.
We're gonna be looking at a Cleveland-Harrison election. No good choice on the ballot.
There aren't enough troops, Ikg. The reason they've had to use the reserves and the national guard is that there are not enough soldiers for a war of this scope. An imperial war of conquest and occupation is simply not possible with a volunteer army.
The fantasy war they thought they were waging--take down the dictator and install an exile as the new dictator, leaving behind 40K or so on permanent bases--was possible with American troop strength. But there was no plan B.
Mark Danner has said that he opposed the war in principle, but also because he did not think the American people would be willing to support the martial law, nation-building period that would come after the, ahem, mission was accomplished.
Perle Rove, et al knew this, which is why they understated the resources required. We'll never know where the arrow falls between their doing this out of hubris, or cynicism.
1000 Quatloos on the following:
2007: 180,000 (the "double-down", or as much as we can muster)
2008: 100,000 (from phony pre-election drawdowns to help Repugs)
2009: 80,000 (trainers, force protection, resupply, and fighter jocks to continue the air war against Iran)
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
I agree with you. But Shinseki was also nixed because the common sense he espoused got in the way of the neocon plan.
You have to ask yourself, though: WHY did they want so few troops?
I'll agree that the Rumsfeld transformation experiment is part of it, but there is surely more to it. Who believes that the occupation was simply an experiment Rumsfeld wanted to run while rooting out a tiny number of al-Qaeda from Iraq (if there were any at all)?
The sheer fact that the Administration had to work so hard and so covertly to convince us of WMDS in and of itself proves that explnation for going to war bogus.
They did this with as few troops as possible, throwing in a dash of hope, so as to save troops for the already anticipated next leg of the mission. Does anyone really still believe they ever cared about controlling anything but energy resources?
No one believes what these guys say anymore, and most people are fed up, but it's incredible that piecing together the obvious strategy these guys have, which explains SO MANY baffling moves by such a small group of insiders, gets so little priority.
How much longer will we go on complaining with steam coming out of our ears while the only attention these guys pay to the voters is to how to throw them off their scent?
When you say "for whatever reason" the occupation was not planned for, you illustrate what I'm saying perfectly. Reading around the internet, I see lots of people stopping their arguement there, as if to say, in effect, "these guys are idiots and confuse the hell out of me."
We are all smarter than that. This is one of the most seasoned cabinets, if not the most, in American history.
This is about grabbing oil and letting chaos ensue so as to create a lawless, no holds barred open warfield which will perpetuate more oil grabbing.
To be fair, Cheney is doing this for what he sees as the good of the country, not just his business allies. That is why he can do it with such a straight and unflinching face, calmly acknowledging the difficulties, but NEVER wavering from the goal.
2008 167000
2009 213000
The other issue with troops levels is that we could have had more troops, and we could get more troops now. It would be tough and take some time, but raise recruiting targets, increase pay, lower standards, create enough incentives, and it could be done.
The problem with doing this earlier (when it would have been easier) was that Rummy was determined to demonstrate his lighter, more agile force vision. He was right about one thing - the lower manpower/better training and equipment vision is a solid one for taking out a target, even if it fails completely for an extended policing action.
The problem with doing it more recently, and going into the future, is that the only way Bush has managed to sustain the war is because he gets unlimited Friedman units, an endless supply of last shots. The problem for him is that doing what it would take to raise troop levels would require congresses consent after admitting that we will be in Iraq with high troops levels over an extend period - in other words, telling the truth about some of the costs of this war.
Telling the Truth is simply not a strong suit for this administration.
My estimates:
Jan 1, 2007: 135,000
Jan 1, 2008: 135,000
Jan 1, 2009: 135,000
Jan 1, 2010: ?
He can't draw up troops without telling the truth, he also can't draw down troops without admitting on some level that he was wrong.
Admitting error is an even weaker suit for this administration.
You think you have a choice?
2008 0
2009 0
In 2007, one of the warring factions will decide it's in their interest to get the Americans out. They will turn on the Americans attacking them every where and any where they can. Perhaps the coming buildup will be the justification. The Iraqis will rally to their cause because they will offer hope – justified or not.
The Americans will have to leave, or get really, really ugly.
The Middle East will erupt in a war. All the proxy wars will end. The final all out war between the Sunnis and Shiites, between the Persians and the Arabs, will begin and the last of the British governmental legacies will be wiped out.
Israel will become a haven for displaced Arabs.
2007: 135k
2008: 134k
2009: 133k
(about 1,000 killed per year)
Bummer, we got interesting times.
2007: 135,000
2008: 125,000
2009: 118,000
Jan 1, 2008: 225,000
Feb 2008: Selective Service picks its 1st 'lottery winners.'
Jan 1, 2009: 350,000
The worst is yet to come.
Asking for concrete predictions is very useful, but the specific focus on troop numbers requires correlation of too many "unknown unknowns" for me, even if I had the necessary expertize concerning force structure, force posture and the tactical situation in Iraq etc.
More importantly that focus itself presupposes an attitude towards the war that is certainly consistent with the consensus here, but does not reflect my understanding of what's actually important - the war is not about troop numbers or casualties.
Instead I'll offer the following speculations (not predictions at this stage) about factors relevant for making such estimates.
1. A solid working majority in both Houses of Congress will continue to support whatever troop levels are proposed by both this Administration and the next one and will also support whatever strengthening of the US armed forces is necessary to accommodate that, and whatever level of increased taxation is necessary to finance that (and also to finance increased aid to Iraqi reconstruction as recommended by the Baker Commission).
2. There will be no mass mobilization aimed at forcing the US government to accept defeat. Opposition will become shriller rather than deeper as it becomes less possible to focus on Bush due to bipartisan rejection of defeatism. Unlike the Vietnam solidarity movement there is no significant section that actually welcomes US defeat and is prepared to fight for it as opposed to blaming Bush for it. In particular there is no prospect of anything like the GI movement that was decisive in defeating US aggression against Vietnam.
3. There will be an early proposal to strengthen and enlarge the US armed forces, and to send more troops to Iraq, initially by a relatively small increment - both to keep up pressure for a stronger national unity government to take charge in Iraq and to demobilize opposition in the US. Further increments will depend on requirements but the backbone of opposition will be broken by acceptance of the first one.
4. Between now and the 2008 Presideential election there will be a significant split between the DLC leadership who will accept the bipartisan conclusions of the Baker Commission that defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic and large sections of the party base who will continue to insist that the war is already lost, but will be unable to mobilize a mass movement for accepting defeat.
5. Consequently there is very little likelihood that the next President will be a Democrat, since the significant Republican opposition to the war will also accept the bipartisan conclusions about defeat being catastrophic and will not split to anything like the same extent.
6. Israeli withdrawal from major settlements on the West Bank will begin and a viable Palestinian State will be established with bipartisan support. Condi Rice will get a lot of credit for that, with a fair chance of her becoming the Republican candidate for either President or Vice-President.
7. Lebanon's current political crisis will be resolved by Hezbollah gaining proortionate representation and accepting the international trial of Hariri's murderers. No concessions will be made to Syria and the regime there is toast.
8. There will be a substantial political re-alignment in Iraq with major sections of the Sunnis accepting a fair constitutional settlement and turning against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency as well as against the murderous takfiri attacks on Shia civilians aimed at provoking civil war, thus enabling the Iraqi government to suppress Shia death squads.
9. Iran will remain "unhelpful" but cannot confront SCIRI as well as Daawa on this issue now that Hakim has openly come on board opposing rapid US withdrawal. Other neighbours (including Syria and Saudi Arabia as well as Jordan have already come out strongly opposed to rapid US withdrawal and will make the issues very clear to Iraqi Sunnis.
10 The effect on troop levels at different dates depends on how early this realignment occurs and whether the Mahdi Army backs off or resists to an extent that requires US combat against it. I do not understand the internal Iraqi situation well enough to speculate about that. This is a major reason for not predicting troop levels.
Jan 1 2008 - 30 or so POWs
Jan 1 2009 - 100,000 American, plus assorted German, French, British, Indian, Pakistani, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Canadian, Malaysian, Russian, Japanese, Egyptian, Iranian, Saudi, Turkish, and Syrian Troops, bringing the total force up to about 300,000.
In other words, before January 1 2008, I predict a disastrous retreat in the face of an overwhelming insurgent offensive, following by an orgy of ethnic cleansing and chaos, into which Turk, Saudi, Syrian and Iranian forces will insert themselves to protect their interests, followed by UN intervention.
This is a trick question, right?
The same amount, unless George Bush is no longer president (impeached).
There's no reason for Bush to change Iraq policy. He's not up for re-election and he is only looking out for himself.
The real question is will Bush abandon his political party before they abandon him.
I agree with everything you've said except
To be fair, Cheney is doing this for what he sees as the good of the country, not just his business allies.
I see no evidence that any of this cabal is doing anything other than to further their own interests.
I agree that there was or is likely some hidden master plan, but it looks like this hidden plan is FUBAR and they know it. Reverse engineering this plan from available evidence may be getting closer to impossible each week we fall further down the hole.
So, what I'm saying is that the possibilities that these guys are idiots and that there was/is a hidden plan are not mutually exclusive. And as such, it would still be very much worthwhile working out what the plan is/was than not doing so.
One reason to ascertain the plan may be to evaluate what effective action can be taken against this plan before it proceeds to the next step. For example (and only an example), it may indeed be crucial to pursue impeachments at the highest levels if for no other reason than to save another 100,000 lives. Impeachments may be more effective than otherwise thought, or they may be futile,we need to really know the dynamics of what the f*ck is really going on to decide.
The National Guard may be the Achilles heel of the policy. The National Guard is much more visible in middle America than the regular army. Everyone out here knows someone in the National Guard and they're frequently middled aged, married with middle school aged kids.
Westmorland syndrome: Gradual escalation to around 250,000 & that holding steady for a while until Congress finally shifts sufficiently to cut off the money. In Vietnam, the top figure was just shy of 500,000, but modern warfare is more efficient, but the politics will be the same.
The impeachment question is almost as difficult as the Iraq questions isn't it?
Although I believe it has been wrong to dismiss it out of hand the way Pelosi has, and that impeachment at this point is a question of preserving democracy, it is hard to see what benefit would be derived from installing Cheney, other than to make him more visible, and therefore, at least a touch more accountable.
With regard to Cheney's motivations and Iraq benefiting our country at large here at home, I should have been more clear and kept writing.
Oil is finite, as you know, and the Imperial window is open, so to speak. Cheney understands that oil's importance stretches well beyond making our cars go and running the military machine that protects us. Oil does EVERYTHING for us, and that's just an unfortunate result of the unleashing of economic forces and industrial power that oil afforded us when we didn't realize it was finite.
People might hate it, but Cheney knows that Americans stepping up and finding a way to completely changing their economic and manufacturing infrastructure within the next 30 years (known oil) is an extreme outside longshot.
A small, fitting example would be the defense industry. Can you see the American people protesting in the streets demanding that Boeing, Raytheon, et al. reconfigure their assembly lines so that F-16s, Abrams tanks, etc run on ethanol? Or those companies appeasing? Me either.
To me, the American people will only be able to move forward from here if we stop complaining about Cheney being a secrecy-loving draft dodger and start asking themselves serious, serious questions about what we're willing to sacrifice, whether we're even capable of enduring those sacrifices psychologically after enjoying the comforts we have, and if our moral clarity is truly more important than our way of life.
On top of that, we have to be willing not to only to ASK the questions, which, sadly, seems a stretch, but to answer them perfectly honestly.
It costs Pelosi nothing to say impeachment is not a goal, since when compelling evidence comes out of hearings (assumed) it can happen anyway.
The good news is that, given the VP's portfolio, anything that impeaches Bush does the same for Cheney. Can you say "Madame President?"
If Republicans want to avoid that they better find a replacement for Cheney, soon.
1/1/2008 25,000
1/1/2009 0
I'm an optimist. Otherwise, I'd go with JeffC's predictions.
No, you can't have your own facts!
Great points
Where do you stand on the odds of Pelosi and crew pursuing that goal?
2008 10,000
2009 0
By January 2008 Bush and Cheney will have been impeached and convicted. By January 2009 they will have been executed for treason.
I don't think they can find that many troops to send.
180,000
And 225,000
December 15, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too many...
New Years Day 2008 - 100,000
New Years Day 2009 - 25,000 or less
The troops will not be withdrawn en masse until the end of Bush's 2nd term. Unless they are needed to be redeployed into the Iranian theater of operations sooner...
December 15, 2006 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 --- 65,000
2009 --- 5,000 (they will be called trainers and the contigent protecting the American embassy)
December 15, 2006 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 - 130,000
2009 - 35,000
December 15, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't predict numbers because I would place my "bet" that this very much depends on an unknown as yet factor: how much public resistance starts to develop by actual troops, ala Vietnam, and how much public complaining develops by other authorities missing some of those "troops" elsewhere. And not so much on any other factor.
December 15, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
generally the same amount in both years. when Bush said he won't change course, he meant it. He'll stick to it through hell and high water. stubborn man!
December 15, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me the question should be: How many more our our Soldiers, Sailors and Airman will be Killed, Maimed and Emotionally scarred for life by the end of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009? Who will be the last to die for a Presidential ego? We've been there before but some folks just refuse to learn their History lessons. Of course this is not in any way simular to Vietnam is it?
Ed Beckmann Disabled Viet Vet
December 15, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we continue to build/staff a 1,000 person embassy and harden/expand the current "permanent" bases then on NY day 2008 we will have, unfortunately:
40,000 combat troops for force protection and backup/rapid deplyment,
30,000 trainers/advisers
10,000 logistics/support + God knows how many civilians doing militaryish jobs.
[Estimates done without knowing the splits today]
December 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 - 175,000
2009 - 200,000
December 15, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Ed on this question -- "Who will be the last to die for a Presidential ego?"
That's the grotesque aspect of all this. W stubbornly wants to 'protect' his 'legacy' & not fail like his dad. He's taking a complete "Bush to Nation: F**k You!" approach.
I fully expect more troops will have their stays in Iraq extended, more national guards will be called up, & more reservists pulled back into service, all to support a losing war of Bush's choice.
I do hope I'm wrong though....
December 15, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
08-145,000
09-145,000
December 15, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
0 on both dates. This war cannot be sustained by a volunteer army with no public support and no mission objective.
I won't predict the mechanism, but our system is not so broken (although it got close there, before the midterms) that it will not end the worst foreign policy fiasco in this nation's history.
December 15, 2006 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Ed, I think you will never get sufficient sympathy from the public on this front UNLESS draftees and/or a growing number of objectors to the policy among volunteers are involved. I am not for a draft, but I do think Charles Rangel sees the big picture on this correctly. People will let it go on, even if they disagree, if volunteers are involved. The National Guard question is the fly in the ointment as it can certainly be argued that fighting foreign wars was not in the contract, as are questions like not having sufficient equipment or things like whether ordered activities are basically "suicide missions."
December 15, 2006 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever will make McCain look good heading into the presidential election. Powerful are politics and delusion with this administration. I'm not sure how much leverage the Dems will have.
December 15, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
1/2008 150,000
1/2009 150,000
2/1/2009-6/1/2006 drawdown to 5-10,000
December 15, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008: Same as today
2009: Same as today
Leaving = losing.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
December 15, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just as many or more than we have now.
We are not leaving the Middle East or Central Asia, we will be slowly deploying more troops there over a number of years.
A lot of hair pulling, head pounding exasperation could be saved if more folks stopped speculating and simply laid out what the bigger picture of Cheney's strategy clearly is.
All of this seeming collective and contagious incompetence would make much more sense. Not to mention statements like "full speed ahead" and the lack of urgency or empathy for anyone or anything.
Aside from inevitable government mistakes, the degree of mismanagement, disorganization and scandal is far beyond believable for me. It is implausible to accept that the White House simply had no idea how to do so many things. The sooner the real Cheney plan is laid out by journalists and bloggers like Josh the better the American public will see how and why this is unfolding the way it is.
Josh, you even wrote "Practice to Deceive" way back in the summer of 2003.
Focus on knocking down the official story line is a fool's errand. There is no logic there to find, so why are so many still looking and still getting so worked up over it?
Also, a related question which I never understood:
Why is it we don't have 300,000 troops to insert now, but we somehow did when Shinseki called for them?
Was there ever a realistic opportunity for "several hundred thousand" if Abizaid is calling 30,000 more a stretch and unworkable now??
December 15, 2006 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have 300,000 troops to insert now. Even the 20,000 number is gonna be hard to make.
What Shinseki was saying, and why he was cashiered, is that we didn't have the troops required for an inevitable period of occupation.
This was a failed enterprise from the outset, because, for whatever reason, the aftermath was not planned for. At very senior levels, it looks like they bought into the flowers and candy scenario. Or, worse, didn't care as long as they had a war president in 04.
December 15, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting I don't remember military types/pundits saying that we could not have done what Shinseki suggested.
Does anyone remember an evalution of the realism of the number back then (regardless of whether the policy was the correct one or not)??
December 15, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong on this one. McCain is going to be hurt by an escalation. If they were trying to rig this for him, they'd be drawing down. Escalating is a very unpopular decision. McCain's calculation that he could claim to have been an unheard voice in the wilderness in supporting escalation has, imo, backfired.
It was only a good position to take if it wasn't actually implemented. Implemented, because it will fail, it will turn out to be a political failure as well as a policy failure.
Democrats should be rooting for a McCain nomination. But I don't think they'll get it. He's got too much baggage for the base, and he's flipping and flopping like a perch in a row boat. The other two who are getting the most press, Romney and Giuiliani are also non-starters.
We're gonna be looking at a Cleveland-Harrison election. No good choice on the ballot.
December 15, 2006 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There aren't enough troops, Ikg. The reason they've had to use the reserves and the national guard is that there are not enough soldiers for a war of this scope. An imperial war of conquest and occupation is simply not possible with a volunteer army.
The fantasy war they thought they were waging--take down the dictator and install an exile as the new dictator, leaving behind 40K or so on permanent bases--was possible with American troop strength. But there was no plan B.
Mark Danner has said that he opposed the war in principle, but also because he did not think the American people would be willing to support the martial law, nation-building period that would come after the, ahem, mission was accomplished.
Perle Rove, et al knew this, which is why they understated the resources required. We'll never know where the arrow falls between their doing this out of hubris, or cynicism.
December 15, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
1000 Quatloos on the following:
2007: 180,000 (the "double-down", or as much as we can muster)
2008: 100,000 (from phony pre-election drawdowns to help Repugs)
2009: 80,000 (trainers, force protection, resupply, and fighter jocks to continue the air war against Iran)
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
December 15, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. But Shinseki was also nixed because the common sense he espoused got in the way of the neocon plan.
You have to ask yourself, though: WHY did they want so few troops?
I'll agree that the Rumsfeld transformation experiment is part of it, but there is surely more to it. Who believes that the occupation was simply an experiment Rumsfeld wanted to run while rooting out a tiny number of al-Qaeda from Iraq (if there were any at all)?
The sheer fact that the Administration had to work so hard and so covertly to convince us of WMDS in and of itself proves that explnation for going to war bogus.
They did this with as few troops as possible, throwing in a dash of hope, so as to save troops for the already anticipated next leg of the mission. Does anyone really still believe they ever cared about controlling anything but energy resources?
No one believes what these guys say anymore, and most people are fed up, but it's incredible that piecing together the obvious strategy these guys have, which explains SO MANY baffling moves by such a small group of insiders, gets so little priority.
How much longer will we go on complaining with steam coming out of our ears while the only attention these guys pay to the voters is to how to throw them off their scent?
When you say "for whatever reason" the occupation was not planned for, you illustrate what I'm saying perfectly. Reading around the internet, I see lots of people stopping their arguement there, as if to say, in effect, "these guys are idiots and confuse the hell out of me."
We are all smarter than that. This is one of the most seasoned cabinets, if not the most, in American history.
This is about grabbing oil and letting chaos ensue so as to create a lawless, no holds barred open warfield which will perpetuate more oil grabbing.
To be fair, Cheney is doing this for what he sees as the good of the country, not just his business allies. That is why he can do it with such a straight and unflinching face, calmly acknowledging the difficulties, but NEVER wavering from the goal.
December 15, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 167000
2009 213000
December 15, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other issue with troops levels is that we could have had more troops, and we could get more troops now. It would be tough and take some time, but raise recruiting targets, increase pay, lower standards, create enough incentives, and it could be done.
The problem with doing this earlier (when it would have been easier) was that Rummy was determined to demonstrate his lighter, more agile force vision. He was right about one thing - the lower manpower/better training and equipment vision is a solid one for taking out a target, even if it fails completely for an extended policing action.
The problem with doing it more recently, and going into the future, is that the only way Bush has managed to sustain the war is because he gets unlimited Friedman units, an endless supply of last shots. The problem for him is that doing what it would take to raise troop levels would require congresses consent after admitting that we will be in Iraq with high troops levels over an extend period - in other words, telling the truth about some of the costs of this war.
Telling the Truth is simply not a strong suit for this administration.
My estimates:
Jan 1, 2007: 135,000
Jan 1, 2008: 135,000
Jan 1, 2009: 135,000
Jan 1, 2010: ?
He can't draw up troops without telling the truth, he also can't draw down troops without admitting on some level that he was wrong.
Admitting error is an even weaker suit for this administration.
December 15, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think you have a choice?
2008 0
2009 0
In 2007, one of the warring factions will decide it's in their interest to get the Americans out. They will turn on the Americans attacking them every where and any where they can. Perhaps the coming buildup will be the justification. The Iraqis will rally to their cause because they will offer hope – justified or not.
The Americans will have to leave, or get really, really ugly.
The Middle East will erupt in a war. All the proxy wars will end. The final all out war between the Sunnis and Shiites, between the Persians and the Arabs, will begin and the last of the British governmental legacies will be wiped out.
Israel will become a haven for displaced Arabs.
December 15, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
2007: 135k
2008: 134k
2009: 133k
(about 1,000 killed per year)
Bummer, we got interesting times.
December 15, 2006 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
2007: 135,000
2008: 125,000
2009: 118,000
December 15, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan 1, 2008: 225,000
Feb 2008: Selective Service picks its 1st 'lottery winners.'
Jan 1, 2009: 350,000
The worst is yet to come.
December 15, 2006 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asking for concrete predictions is very useful, but the specific focus on troop numbers requires correlation of too many "unknown unknowns" for me, even if I had the necessary expertize concerning force structure, force posture and the tactical situation in Iraq etc.
More importantly that focus itself presupposes an attitude towards the war that is certainly consistent with the consensus here, but does not reflect my understanding of what's actually important - the war is not about troop numbers or casualties.
Instead I'll offer the following speculations (not predictions at this stage) about factors relevant for making such estimates.
1. A solid working majority in both Houses of Congress will continue to support whatever troop levels are proposed by both this Administration and the next one and will also support whatever strengthening of the US armed forces is necessary to accommodate that, and whatever level of increased taxation is necessary to finance that (and also to finance increased aid to Iraqi reconstruction as recommended by the Baker Commission).
2. There will be no mass mobilization aimed at forcing the US government to accept defeat. Opposition will become shriller rather than deeper as it becomes less possible to focus on Bush due to bipartisan rejection of defeatism. Unlike the Vietnam solidarity movement there is no significant section that actually welcomes US defeat and is prepared to fight for it as opposed to blaming Bush for it. In particular there is no prospect of anything like the GI movement that was decisive in defeating US aggression against Vietnam.
3. There will be an early proposal to strengthen and enlarge the US armed forces, and to send more troops to Iraq, initially by a relatively small increment - both to keep up pressure for a stronger national unity government to take charge in Iraq and to demobilize opposition in the US. Further increments will depend on requirements but the backbone of opposition will be broken by acceptance of the first one.
4. Between now and the 2008 Presideential election there will be a significant split between the DLC leadership who will accept the bipartisan conclusions of the Baker Commission that defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic and large sections of the party base who will continue to insist that the war is already lost, but will be unable to mobilize a mass movement for accepting defeat.
5. Consequently there is very little likelihood that the next President will be a Democrat, since the significant Republican opposition to the war will also accept the bipartisan conclusions about defeat being catastrophic and will not split to anything like the same extent.
6. Israeli withdrawal from major settlements on the West Bank will begin and a viable Palestinian State will be established with bipartisan support. Condi Rice will get a lot of credit for that, with a fair chance of her becoming the Republican candidate for either President or Vice-President.
7. Lebanon's current political crisis will be resolved by Hezbollah gaining proortionate representation and accepting the international trial of Hariri's murderers. No concessions will be made to Syria and the regime there is toast.
8. There will be a substantial political re-alignment in Iraq with major sections of the Sunnis accepting a fair constitutional settlement and turning against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency as well as against the murderous takfiri attacks on Shia civilians aimed at provoking civil war, thus enabling the Iraqi government to suppress Shia death squads.
9. Iran will remain "unhelpful" but cannot confront SCIRI as well as Daawa on this issue now that Hakim has openly come on board opposing rapid US withdrawal. Other neighbours (including Syria and Saudi Arabia as well as Jordan have already come out strongly opposed to rapid US withdrawal and will make the issues very clear to Iraqi Sunnis.
10 The effect on troop levels at different dates depends on how early this realignment occurs and whether the Mahdi Army backs off or resists to an extent that requires US combat against it. I do not understand the internal Iraqi situation well enough to speculate about that. This is a major reason for not predicting troop levels.
December 15, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan 1 2008 - 30 or so POWs
Jan 1 2009 - 100,000 American, plus assorted German, French, British, Indian, Pakistani, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Canadian, Malaysian, Russian, Japanese, Egyptian, Iranian, Saudi, Turkish, and Syrian Troops, bringing the total force up to about 300,000.
In other words, before January 1 2008, I predict a disastrous retreat in the face of an overwhelming insurgent offensive, following by an orgy of ethnic cleansing and chaos, into which Turk, Saudi, Syrian and Iranian forces will insert themselves to protect their interests, followed by UN intervention.
December 15, 2006 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a trick question, right?
The same amount, unless George Bush is no longer president (impeached).
There's no reason for Bush to change Iraq policy. He's not up for re-election and he is only looking out for himself.
The real question is will Bush abandon his political party before they abandon him.
December 15, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you've said except
I see no evidence that any of this cabal is doing anything other than to further their own interests.
I agree that there was or is likely some hidden master plan, but it looks like this hidden plan is FUBAR and they know it. Reverse engineering this plan from available evidence may be getting closer to impossible each week we fall further down the hole.
So, what I'm saying is that the possibilities that these guys are idiots and that there was/is a hidden plan are not mutually exclusive. And as such, it would still be very much worthwhile working out what the plan is/was than not doing so.
One reason to ascertain the plan may be to evaluate what effective action can be taken against this plan before it proceeds to the next step. For example (and only an example), it may indeed be crucial to pursue impeachments at the highest levels if for no other reason than to save another 100,000 lives. Impeachments may be more effective than otherwise thought, or they may be futile,we need to really know the dynamics of what the f*ck is really going on to decide.
December 15, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The National Guard may be the Achilles heel of the policy. The National Guard is much more visible in middle America than the regular army. Everyone out here knows someone in the National Guard and they're frequently middled aged, married with middle school aged kids.
December 15, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Westmorland syndrome: Gradual escalation to around 250,000 & that holding steady for a while until Congress finally shifts sufficiently to cut off the money. In Vietnam, the top figure was just shy of 500,000, but modern warfare is more efficient, but the politics will be the same.
December 15, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The impeachment question is almost as difficult as the Iraq questions isn't it?
Although I believe it has been wrong to dismiss it out of hand the way Pelosi has, and that impeachment at this point is a question of preserving democracy, it is hard to see what benefit would be derived from installing Cheney, other than to make him more visible, and therefore, at least a touch more accountable.
With regard to Cheney's motivations and Iraq benefiting our country at large here at home, I should have been more clear and kept writing.
Oil is finite, as you know, and the Imperial window is open, so to speak. Cheney understands that oil's importance stretches well beyond making our cars go and running the military machine that protects us. Oil does EVERYTHING for us, and that's just an unfortunate result of the unleashing of economic forces and industrial power that oil afforded us when we didn't realize it was finite.
People might hate it, but Cheney knows that Americans stepping up and finding a way to completely changing their economic and manufacturing infrastructure within the next 30 years (known oil) is an extreme outside longshot.
A small, fitting example would be the defense industry. Can you see the American people protesting in the streets demanding that Boeing, Raytheon, et al. reconfigure their assembly lines so that F-16s, Abrams tanks, etc run on ethanol? Or those companies appeasing? Me either.
To me, the American people will only be able to move forward from here if we stop complaining about Cheney being a secrecy-loving draft dodger and start asking themselves serious, serious questions about what we're willing to sacrifice, whether we're even capable of enduring those sacrifices psychologically after enjoying the comforts we have, and if our moral clarity is truly more important than our way of life.
On top of that, we have to be willing not to only to ASK the questions, which, sadly, seems a stretch, but to answer them perfectly honestly.
December 15, 2006 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It costs Pelosi nothing to say impeachment is not a goal, since when compelling evidence comes out of hearings (assumed) it can happen anyway.
The good news is that, given the VP's portfolio, anything that impeaches Bush does the same for Cheney. Can you say "Madame President?"
If Republicans want to avoid that they better find a replacement for Cheney, soon.
December 15, 2006 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
1/1/2008 25,000
1/1/2009 0
I'm an optimist. Otherwise, I'd go with JeffC's predictions.
No, you can't have your own facts!
December 15, 2006 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great points
Where do you stand on the odds of Pelosi and crew pursuing that goal?
December 15, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 10,000
2009 0
By January 2008 Bush and Cheney will have been impeached and convicted. By January 2009 they will have been executed for treason.
December 15, 2006 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they can find that many troops to send.
December 15, 2006 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink