Pelosi: Thirty to fifty thousand ‘residual troops’ in Iraq is too many.
Pelosi: Thirty to fifty thousand ‘residual troops’ in Iraq is too many.
President Obama is expected to announce this week that he will withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2010, but reports say he will initially leave a residual force of 30,000 to 50,000 troops to “train the Iraqi military, conduct targeted counterterrorism operations and protect American personnel and assets.” Yesterday on the Rachel Maddow show, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made clear that she wanted far fewer residual troops than this:
MADDOW: Fifty thousand seem like an awful large residual force?
PELOSI: It does. It does. I completely agree with that. And I don’t — the president hasn’t made the statement. … And I don’t know the justification is for a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there is a need for some, and I don’t know that all of them have to be in the country. They can be platformed outside. … I would think one-third of that, maybe 20,000, maybe more than one-third, 15,000 or 20,000.
Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Who’s going to staff all the super-bases in the desert, Nancy?
February 26th, 2009 at 9:49 amsarc/off
Nancy’s right on this one.
My guess is that about 15 would be adequate.
Not 15 thousand, fifteen.
Our embassy in Baghdad should be downsized to the point where fifteen marines could defend it.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:55 amFirst, the only troops we should leave in Iraq are US Marines to do the job they have traditionally done throughout our nation’s history prior to GW Bush: Protecting our embassies.
Second, tear up the contracts with private mercenary companies and get the “contractors” out of Iraq. That alone will save this country billions of dollars.
Third, start accepting the fact that if the Iraqi people want to be in control of themselves, then they’re going to have to learn how to do it without us.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:56 amHi, RUC. That’s right. Let the US Marines (for whom I have the utmost respect) guard our embassy. Why do we need more than one embassy?
February 26th, 2009 at 9:57 amThe truly disgusting fact is that the ostentatious new US Embassy in Iraq was built to serve more as a corporate headquarters than a simple embassy.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:01 amWe’ve been freakin’ training the Iraqi army since day 1 of this fiasco (seven years?). How much more training do they require? Cripes, six weeks of boot camp is enough for our men in women!
February 26th, 2009 at 10:25 amAh, men in women should be men and women.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:26 amI must have stumbled on the wrong site.. I could have sworn this was think progress. Here’s an idea.. Get out of Iraq.. Close our bases cut and run Iraq doesn’t want us there and neither do we. How much more money are we going to throw at this problem until America starts looking like Argentina?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:31 amsix weeks is a long time
February 26th, 2009 at 10:31 am:)
Nevar Says:
The truly disgusting fact is that the ostentatious new US Embassy in Iraq was built to serve more as a corporate headquarters than a simple embassy.
Nevar, that is exactly what it was built for. Remember that old “oil sharing” agreement that allowed outside oil companies to reap, what was it, 75% to 90% of the revenues? The agreement that the Iraqi people never passed, despite Cheney’s constant interference.
Totally agree with Wayne and RUC, let the Marines do their job guarding a single US embassy, bring the others home.
PEACE
February 26th, 2009 at 10:37 amGood morning, spencers mom, nevar. Theresa, thanks for the funny typo! ;)
February 26th, 2009 at 10:41 amHere’s a thought, Nancy. Hand the gavel over to someone who isn’t a schizophrenic nightmare; Impeachment off the table….no, prosecute bush…end the Iraq war….no, vote for bush’s funding….no, end the Iraq war…
Nancy, hand the gavel to a responsible adult like Kucinich, and abdicate officially the position you’ve already abdicated legislatively for years…
February 26th, 2009 at 10:45 am#11, Jane: Thankyewverymuch. I’m here all week!
February 26th, 2009 at 10:49 amWhat’s the mission and what is it supposed to accomplish?
That’s what should determine the remaining US presence–nothing else.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:49 amCripes, six weeks of boot camp is enough for our men in women!
And I’m supposed to call my doctor if it lasts more than four hours?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:50 amObama is running into the headwinds of the head commander in Iraq – Odierno, who has already said that not all U.S. troops would be out of urban areas by the summer deadline. They will, of course, be renamed something else. I’m quite sure, however, that the Iraqis will see it for what it would be…a violation of the SOFA agreement. Though the linked article is from Dec. 2008, nothing has changed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121300569.html
February 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am#8
I’m with you. Leaving tomorrow wouldn’t be soon enough.
Off subject. People are posting about embassys. Has anyone ever been in a foreign country and needed any assistance from the U.S. embassy there?
They should have a sign that reads “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”
February 26th, 2009 at 12:05 pmThis interview was excellent! She mostly gave great answers, but will she back them up? That’s the question.
I agree with Eli & Rick:
Leave Iraq now! Our presence does nothing, but enable them to fail as a Nation.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:15 pmI was a true fan of Rachel Maddow, but lately not so much. I now no longer watch her show. I am tired of her jumping all over President Obama before she has the full story behind what she is jumping on him for. The last straw for me was her saying what President Obama is doing with Iraq is the same as Bush. I really don’t get where she is coming from. If Bush was still President, he would not be talking about bringing home 100,000+ troops in the next 19 months.
I’m also sick and tired of people whining about how it was first 16 months and now 19 months. Have any of you thought about what it will take, logistically, to bring home 100,000+ troops and their equipment? To bring home 100,000 troops and equipment in 19 months, that would be having 175 a day leaving Iraq. To bring them home in 18 months it would be 208 a day. That’s a lot of people and equipment to move in a rather short period of time. I see nothing wrong with the 19 month time period. It sounds more doable to me and don’t see it as a betrayal in any way.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pmRich H Says:
I’m with you. Leaving tomorrow wouldn’t be soon enough.
So perhaps you can tell us how it would be physically possible to move 100,000 troops and equipment tomorrow or any time in the near future.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pmHave you all lost your collective minds on this site? How would it be possible to bring home over 100,000 troops and their equipment in the time frames you think they should be brought home in? Getting our troops home is going to be a logistics nightmare.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:23 pmHow about Zero troops?
OH, forgot about all those “Non-Permanent Bases”, oh well, guess we will be there for a hundred years afterall.
FCUK THE REPUBLICANS
February 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pmAh cheerleading politician deciding military tactics. Exactly what could experience could Nancy draw this vague conclusion from? Oh yeah financial!
Unless we can stabilize the country , pulling 1 man out can not be considered. We obviously need what we have their now, otherwise the body bags would not still be arriving at Dover !
RUCerious – 15 Marines guarding the embassy – A certain death sentence to the unlucky 15 as things stand now!
EliHarold – Probably the only safe no US casualty solution is a 100% withdrawal – All American citizens diplomats, workers and military, but the likely escalation to all out civil war between the various factions would be a certainty. Sadams iron fist rule was what kept the lid on the boiling pot before we went in . Western democracy is not something understood or wanted by the extremists’ we freed in the process. The region would be in a situation far worse than when we went in.
Irrespective of the argument that we should have never gone in there or not – We did – Its history. America has an obligation to finish what it started to the people of Iraq and all the all too many that have fallen.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pmBilbo,
Why the wild hair? Starting tomorrow is much better than planning to start some time down the road. This whole (mis)adventure was criminal. The sooner it is stoped, the sooner we bring our troops home, the sooner Iraqi’s take care of their country however they feel fit, the better for everyone involved.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pmDo we have troops leaving today with troops on them? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s the logistical nightmare your think it is. I’ve made my living in logistics for some 20 years. We could, if we wanted to, get everyone and everything out of there in a max of 6 months.
We just don’t want to.
Well, not me.
Whoops, in my hurried response I meant planes leaving with troops on them.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pmI’m also sick and tired of people whining about how it was first 16 months and now 19 months. Have any of you thought about what it will take, logistically, to bring home 100,000+ troops and their equipment?
Well, it took less than six months to send more than half a million troops into Iraq during the first Gulf War (in 1991). Why would it take three times as long to get half as many troops out?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
So perhaps you can tell us how it would be physically possible to move 100,000 troops and equipment tomorrow or any time in the near future.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
___________
I think there was some R&D money in the stimulus package for teleportation technology. All we’re missing is a Scottish stereotype to beam all the troops home.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:50 pmNancy has other things to worry about as the investigations unfold. Nancy has been wheeleing and dealing with the Bush Administration for years and now her deals will come to light. She thought Obama was a push over until he put her in her place. President Obama will decided how many troops if any will be in Iraq. Notice how Nancy was a coward to Bush and even agreed to not charging him with Impeachment even with all the evidence out there. Yes Nancy had one meeting with Bush after she was appointed Speaker of the House and came out with the famous lines ” The Impeachment is off the table we will pray for our President”. Yes Nancy got paid and with that agreement many many more soldiers were killed that might have lived if only she had done her job. I look foward to a new Speaker of the House and who ever replaces the lying crook Harry Reid. Feinstein is laying low in hopes she doesn’t get caught as she also did the pay to play game with the White House.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:51 pmSimple solution…use the same time frame it took use to put 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. If it worked getting them in, it will work getting them out.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pmUndecided Says:
America has an obligation to finish what it started to the people of Iraq and all the all too many that have fallen.
The problem I have with this argument is that it was never clear exactly what it was that we started. Were we retaliating for 9/11? Were we going after al Qaeda? Were we trying to liberate the Iraqis from the iron-fisted rule of Saddam? Were we trying to take their oil from them and sell it to American companies?
The overall rationale for invading Iraq was never truthfully explained to the American people. It couldn’t be because of 9/11 because Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. And it couldn’t be because we were going after al Qaeda, because al Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq before we invaded. If it was to remove Saddam, well he’s been dead for several years now. And if it was to take their oil, that would also be illegal and not justification for the invasion. At this point, we are just staying there for the sake of staying there.
The Bush Administration gave lots of reasons for invading Iraq. Every reason they gave that was a justification for war turned out not to be true, and every reason they gave that turned out to be true was not a justification for war.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pmPsychologically, how do you ask a soldier to put his life on the line when he and everyone else knows we’re leaving? John Kerry said it best, and I don’t need to repeat it.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pmBut once you’ve decided to go even one more life lost is a life wasted. It’s really criminal. I’ve prayed for our troops in the past, now I just pray they get out of there asap.
Wayne A. Schneider Says:
Well, it took less than six months to send more than half a million troops into Iraq during the first Gulf War (in 1991). Why would it take three times as long to get half as many troops out?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
___________
Because we weren’t physically dismantling bases and moving equipment and vehicles from Saudi Arabia into Iraq in 1991. We left those bases there for more than a decade. It’s not just a matter of moving people, it’s moving equipment and vehicles, and cleaning them so that they won’t contaminate U.S. agriculture with Iraqi bugs. Our facilities in Kuwait can only process a finite amount of equipment at a time.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:01 pmWe might bring home those famous Iraqi Sand Spiders!
February 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pmI think #30 Wayne hits it on the head. The priority should be ASAP, because the invasion was baseless and illegal in the first place. I understand that there will be logistics, like #32 explains, but really if it was a priority, the military could do so in a shorter amount of time. If we can’t, it’s yet another example of the complete mismanagement and bungling we’ve seen for the last 8 years.
Train the Iraqi troops, get our out of there, and we have an obligation to stabilize their infrastructure that we destroyed. Radicalism always shrinks when the quality of life raises. The money we’ll waste with this residual force would be better spent in this area.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pmRich H Says:
We might bring home those famous Iraqi Sand Spiders!
February 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
____________
We have to fight the camel spiders there so we don’t have to fight them here.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pmThere’s no alternative.
They either pull out completely (which nobody expects, even the poor fuuked Iraqis)…
OR
Leave a vast residual, “protective” (rebranded “combat”) force behind to cover the equipment (aircraft, especially, and ordnance) stationed there for strategic purposes.
Unless the US pulls out of Iraq completely, there’s no use in pulling out any troops at all, because the costs of sustaing a smaller force in a hostile field will be AS GREAT as maintaining an actively engaged army…
But the key fact is that they’re all lying, in their fuuking teeth, about USer militarism and where it’s going to land next…
LYING. Got It Good.
LYING!
February 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pmI mean, is this all just another example of military industrial complex dictating policy via campaign contributions, just like with the banking debacle? Has the U.S. just accepted habitual military activity, because all the players involved still stand to gain?
February 26th, 2009 at 1:29 pmWayne, I totally agree with your point. The point I was (trying) to make was that today, the motivations for us to enter Iraq; WMD, Sadam, Oil Supply…..etc, are irrelevant to our exit strategy. There we be and trying to hand back power to a group of people who have little or no knowledge of how to govern by the ballot box rather than the bullet. Stabilization of the country post invasion has to be achieved to even get out troops out of the country in an orderly fashion, let alone contemplate a staffed embassy with 15 Marines.
Respectfully, Undecided.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pmI understand what we started. How many people really know the true cost? American families and Iraqi families who lost a loved one (by all accounts there have been hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed). This does not even take into account the millions of refugees and thousands of children sold into prostitution in the UAE.
The whole problem from the beginning was not just the lies. I believe everyone that posts here was smart enough to discern them, but the belief we could install a democratic form of government on a people that have never (in all of history) experienced a democratic form of government.
This mission was doomed to failure before it started. Only right wingers who get their messages from God believed this was going to work. Iraq is going to revert to whatever form of government it’s going to whether we stay for 6 months or 6 years.
We won’t have the final say. So the next point is what do we think is an appropriate cost for the inevitable outcome? I think we’ve paid a high enough price for this folly. I think some people need to be prosecuted.
And I think it’s time to bring our troops home, not just talk about it.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pmUndecided,
I was not the one who suggested the number of Marines be fifteen, that was another poster (for whom I have a great deal of respect).
There we be and trying to hand back power to a group of people who have little or no knowledge of how to govern by the ballot box rather than the bullet.
The thing is, it was George W. Bush who decided that the Iraqis ought “to govern by the ballot box rather than the bullet.” Not the Iraqis. They are, for all intents and purposes, still a tribal culture. And tribal cultures do not operate democratically. We were the ones trying to force democracy at the end of a gun. Democracy has to come from within, not from without. If they prefer to govern by the bullet, what right have we to say they can’t?
(I’m not saying that they are right to want to do things this way; I’m saying we have no right to make them do things differently.)
February 26th, 2009 at 2:02 pmRich H,
Good post. I was so busy responding to undecided that I had not read your post. I agree with you.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pmThanks Wayne.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:09 pmRich H Says:
Bilbo,
Why the wild hair? Starting tomorrow is much better than planning to start some time down the road.
It’s not a “wild hair” but simple a realistic view. We don’t have some magic fairy that can go into Iraq and pluck our soldiers and equipment out of there. And tomorrow would be nice, but wouldn’t you rather have an orderly, well planned exit than a “lets hurry up and get them out no matter what the peril will be”. I thought we learned our lesson about that in Vietnam.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pmExactly, we didn’t learn enough from Vietnam (now a preferred trading partner).
And moving troops at an accellerted pace does not mean we have to pull them out willynilly.
I’ve just been thinking about this this morning and have come up with some ideas already (my background is heavy in moving military equipment, planes, helicopters, satellites etc..).
We know we can’t safely move equipment into Afghanistan through Pakistan. Let’s decide what equipment is needed there and move it from Iraq. Of what’s not needed in Afghanistan, what can we sell to the Iraqi government as they will need materials for their army.
Now, believe it or not, you’ve just cut half of what needs to be brought home.
Believe it or not, logistics are tough in the private sector, the military can basically do anything it wants on almost any given timetable.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pmUndecided Says:
RUCerious – 15 Marines guarding the embassy – A certain death sentence to the unlucky 15 as things stand now!
So you’re volunteering??
February 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pmUndecided, I didn’t mean to snark you totally, but in response to your more recent post, I am certain that in our absence, a new Iraqi strongman, this time a Shiite will exercise dictatorial powers within weeks of our completed di mau di.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pmWe can sit and backbite and whine over when we leave or don’t leave Iraq, but that misses the broader point. I never wanted us there in the first place, I want us out of there as badly as anyone-but I’ve never been one for agitating we get out NOW just because we had no business being there to begin with. Aside from the fact that splitting hairs over sixteen months or nineteen months seems childish to me, and it was always in the plan that a “residual force” would be in place even after “combat troops” left. The fact of the matter is that there is going to be an American presence over there for a long, long time-and *that* is the fault of George Bush, not Barack Obama. Like the economy and the deficit, the mess in Iraq is inherited. He can do his best to correct a botched job, but he can’t wave a wand and make it like it never happened.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pmAgain #41 Wayne, I am 100% with you – This is what makes America so unpopular in the world thats its our way or nothing. There an may cultures in the world who do not share, want, need nor respect our values system and have survived for much longer than 200 years without outside help.
For sure the last thing we enter Iraq for, was to deliver democracy. But are we not obliged to now to at least fix what we broke ?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pmWhile in principle I’d agree that even 1 troop in Iraq is too much, I can’t understand the criticism of Obama on this one.
In the campaign he aimed at 16 months. Now with all the data, he has backed off by 3 months and also made the number withdrawn less.
Even noticiing the change, he’s headed in the right direction. He shifted his goal to meet the new data presented at him – and there is nothing to stop him from withdrawing more after 19 months. So at worse, his initial goal was too ambitious.
Not to mention, I morally see that we do have a responnsibility for Iraq in that we decimated their previoius system (not to mention, their previous system and the system before that had significant impetus from our CIA. So we’re at least partially responsible for at least 50 years of abuse there. )
Now whether we best meet our responsibility by housing troops there or by some other form of aid is another question entirely – who’d you rather fix something, the person that broke it or a skilled person you bring in ?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pmGood we need to hold Obamas feet to the fire on this one. Still they will be non combat and there is the other timetable the Iraqis forced on us with the security agreement so that ALL the troops will be out in another year after that. Perhaps the thinking is having them THERE not doing anything but just their presence will help the government avoid a return to ethnic cleansing. I want them all home yesterday but overall since they ARE all coming home pretty soon I dont see this hill as worth too big a fight.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pmRUCerious #46……I am certain that in our absence, a new Iraqi strongman, this time a Shiite will exercise dictatorial powers within weeks of our completed di mau di.
Absolutely.
As for being 1 of the 15 Marines left behind, thankfully I’m far too old to be called upon or accepted as a volunteer.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pmI understand what everyones saying. A few months this way or that won’t matter so much (except to those who die). And the fact their coming home is great news – except for the forces left behind.
I’d just like to see it sooner than later.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:40 pmNobody is disagreeing, although Iraqis are dying and left behind as well. That doesn’t change the fact that this is George Bush’s fault, not Barack Obama’s. He is dealing the hand he was dealt.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:49 pmHillary,
So true. I wouldn’t want to be in his position.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pmI wouldn’t either. While I’d like to see all of our troops out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, thanks to Rummy and Wolfy and Feithy and Cheney that just is not a realistic option right now, and I refuse to throw the president under the bus because he doesn’t think so either.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:00 pmI understand. I voted for Obama of course. This quagmire is not of his making. If we are to stay at a certain level then it needs to be dealt with honestly. I just don’t like the argument of “logistics, it can’t be done.” Because it can.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pmOf course I think we should get out responsibly. I just want it done sooner than later.
Rich and Wayne – I agree with both of you. The bottom line is that no matter how long we stay there, the country will have to resolve its own issues. That includes the sectarian, regional (Kurds) and economic ones. The center is not going to hold once we are gone. The only question is “at what cost in lives and treasure should we pay” to do nothing but delay the inevitable? A bad start will not and cannot result in a good ending. The losses need to be cut and yesterday.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pm.
#20 Bilbo Hussein Baggins Said:
#1) Did they show up over night?
#2) What gets us out faster: Starting the process yesterday or waiting for that magical tomorrow to arrive in order to begin?
… I’m just askin’.
.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:07 pm