50K "support" troops in Iraq. Not a BFD.

[archiemo]

How many are surprised by this? I'm not at all. Don't have the figures with me at the moment but how many "support" troops are still deployed around the world? Germany? South Korea? Seems to me that this is, unfortunately, par for the course. I wish we could bring all of our "support" troops home as well. I know there is a plan to bring the 50K in Iraq home by the end of 2011 but I'd be really surprised if we didn't have a large, residual presence there forever. I'm sure some "support" troops will be needed to help protect Halliburton's newly acquired oil.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. The difference is, this is Iraq.

So long as the troops are there, they'll be shot at. Nobody's shooting at the troops in Germany.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. As the Cat Food Commission prepares to take away our retirement money

because we just don't have enough money...

How much are those 50K troops going to cost us each year -- even if they never have to engage in combat?

[DrDan]

3. $1.1M per troop

[TheKentuckian]

5. They are going to be performing counter-terrorism and out with the Iraqi troops

Training and advising aka embedded playing puppet master using natives to continue to prosecute whatever operations they are addicted to over there.

The State department is purchasing heavy military equipment too.

I see no reason whatsoever to accept this as "peace". This is nothing like the post WWII occupations and conflating them as an offhand defense legitimizes the invasion and makes Bush's lies accepted truth.

Iraq never posed a threat to the US or our allies after their forces were broken in the first Gulf War. Nor have we dictated to Iraq as a condition of their surrender that they are not permitted to defend themselves nor have they started two world wars in mad bouts of domination and genocide.

Its not the same at all and we should be focused on shutting down our military welfare and imperialism program rather than lamely adding a new one or two and using the existing ones as a justification.

The people in charge a few generations ago felt it was necessary to leave a permanent presence in the Axis powers and a few years later in Korea does not mean that those decisions should never be reevaluated and it certainly does not mean that solution is correct today and for this situation.

You defend it then you figure out how to pay for it. This is a fucking big ticket permanent spending increase as is being defended. Fifty thousand troops and who knows how many mercs is not nothing.

[pampango]

4. Germany 52,000; Japan 35,000; South Korea 28,000, etc.

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. Some of the largest contingents are the 50,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 71,000 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), and the 9,660 in Italy and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Overseas

And none of those countries have oil, FWIW.

[damntexdem]

6. No, of course not. It's just a big fucking-training deal.

No longer a fucking-combat deal -- not at all.

[quinnox]

7. It is a BFD

I hope the Iraqis get a real government in there and then ask us to leave one day.

And I don't like the huge troop levels in those other countries either, for instance, WTF do we need 50,000 troops in Germany for? And why do they (the Germans) put up with it?

I hate the idea of an American empire with bases in countries all over the world. We learned nothing from the British, empires eventually fall apart and disintegrate.

Why can't we mind our own freakin business and stop dominating the world.

[RetroLounge]

8. Ah, they're just advisors

RL

[KansasVoter]

9. I agree. And we still will spend a billion a week on them!!!