US troop reduction in Iraq remains on schedule, Gen. Petraeus says

[bigtree]

March 16, 2010 | 8:11 am

Iraq remains fragile but is on course to allow the United States to decrease its presence as planned to 50,000 troops by September, the top U.S. soldier who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan told senators on Tuesday.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that success in Iraq was “fragile and reversible, but increasingly less so.”

The general was optimistic but cautious about recent political gains. “Iraq still faces innumerable challenges, and they will be evident during what will likely be a difficult process as the newly elected Council of Representatives selects the next prime minister, president, and speaker of the council,” he said.

While there could be some reconfiguration of the U.S. troops in Iraq, Petraeus said he expected the military would be able to meet its goal of decreasing its presence, now at about 97,000.

“We still believe we will be able to stay on track to reach 50,000,” Petraeus said in response to a question from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

read: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/03/us-military-decrease-from-iraq-remain-on-schedule-top-general-says.html



ALL out in 2011 . . . says the president.

from the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy

By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end and Iraqi Security Forces will have full responsibility for major combat missions. After August 31, 2010, the mission of United States forces in Iraq will fundamentally change. Our forces will have three tasks: train, equip, and advise the Iraqi Security Forces; conduct targeted counterterrorism operations; and provide force protection for military and civilian personnel. The President intends to keep our commitment under the Status of Forces Agreement to remove all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011
.

[dmallind]

1. I'm sorry - are you seeing a disconnect or not?

To me these statements are perfectly complementary. After 8/10 we can start drawing down combat troops because we'll be doing other things than fighting, and by 12/11 they will be done and gone.

Bit slwoer than many would hope no doubt, but perfectly congruent and not really unreasonable given the enormity of transferring power in a country that is still a shaky and new political entity.

[bigtree]

3. report I saw this week had some of the troops on night road patrol

. . . working with the Iraqi forces to keep roads open. I'd rather they didn't do that and just concentrated on packing and leaving. But, to date, I'm satisfied that they are keeping to the schedule the President set. That can only mean that he's expressed firmness to the military command about the 2011 exit date for the remaining forces.

(I put the WH statement of policy there to give clarity to the report. Many of these posts about the progress of the withdrawal have been met with skepticism and a bit of misinformation about the stated plan. So, I pasted it at the bottom to save the trouble and give perspective - not to frame the report in any contradictory way.)

[dmallind]

4. I can buy that. Some combat role is still in the plan for a while though

And obviously it's difficult to train and support unless you spend some time in the field, mostly as guiders and observers, even after 8/10.

I'll call this a promise kept if the pulldown starts by September and ends any time in 2011. I'm not going to worry too much if there is a US advisor on an Iraqi mission at any time on that line.

[bigtree]

5. that's my view as well

promise kept, so far.

[spanone]

2. g o o d

[bigtree]

6. .