Where did people get the idea that Obama was going to pull out instantly after he got elected? All through the campaign he said 16 months would be the timetable.

I think the announcement is a good move. If you look at Iraq's history since the end of WWII, the Iraqis have a tendency to turn against people they've supported. A lot of different groups in Iraq united to overthrow the monarchy and replace it with a military/socialist regime. A few years later a lot of those same groups united again to overthrow the regime they'd helped install and replace it with a military/Baathist regime. Then the military turned on the Baathists and threw them out. A few years later the Baathists came back and threw the military out, and after a few years of Baathist rule Saddam overthrew those above him and established his personal dictatorship.

When the US invaded, the Iraqis turned against Saddam and supported the US. Then they turned against the US and supported various insurgencies. Then the insurgencies turned too violent and the US paid off some important people and the Iraqis turned back and supported the US against the foreign insurgents. Now the Iraqis are mostly on our side, but they are starting to get antsy and saying the US should leave. If we stay much longer without a clear plan to leave, there's a good chance the Iraqis will turn on us again and try to force us out. This announcement by Obama makes that a lot less likely.

Darn good point SteamWake.

In our two successful attempts at nation building Germany and Japan, what does the forum think might have happened if the Allies had pulled their troops out of those countries say by 1947?

If we had pulled out of those countries by 1947, we would have only been there for two years. That would be akin to pulling out of Iraq by 2005.

As it is, it looks like we'll be pulling out of Iraq a little over 7 years after we entered. The occupation of Japan also lasted 7 years.

The occupation of Germany might be a better comparison, since, like Iraq, the end of the occupation is debatable. Officially, the US occupation of Iraq ended when Bremer left in 2004, a little over a year after it started. The official occupation of Germany lasted 4 years until the GDR and the FRG were declared in 1949.

However, Iraq has arguably not been fully sovereign despite the official handover. If you argue that the US pullout will give Iraq full sovereignty, then full sovereignty for Iraq should come in 2010, over 7 years after Saddam's statue fell. To compare, the GDR and FRG were given full sovereignty in 1955, 10 years after WWII.

What does this say about the US presence in Iraq? Not sure. I'm just throwing some facts out there.

Iraq does not compare neither to Germany, nor to Japan.

Germany, after all, had a population founding ont he same cultural origin and heritage, making Germans familiar in mentality. Iraq is that - not.

Japan was totally defeated, crushed, under undisputed control and at the mercy of America. Iraq was that - not.

Both Japan and Germany received massive, monumental economic aids to rebuild them, especially the Marshall plan in Germany. Iraq got that - not.

I got no doubt that there is going to be training conducted by the troops.

I've also got no doubt that the troops will be staying there to help send a clear message to Iraq's friendly neighbours to the east...

Similar to the situation in Germany until 1989...

Could someone clear this up ?
What are the new terms for the SOFA which would allow forthe extended presence and have the Iranians ...oops Iraqis ....signed up for it beyond the current agreemant ?

The previous SOFA gave the end of 2011 as the final pull-out date, which is consistent with what Obama has proposed.

If push comes to shove over Iran, I think the SOFA will be abandoned.

Well, when I was in the army one instructor turned 10 recruits within 90 days into soldiers (nothing special just the basic training). Let's say another 90 days for specialisation (tank crew, AT soldier etc...) then one instructor can train 10 soldiers within 6 months. A little time later those soldiers will be able to train people themselfes (in Gemrany after about one year of service the petty officers are instructing basics themselfes). It wouldn't take long for an army to build up at that pace.
I really wonder how big the Iraqi army is supposed to become if they need 50.000 "instructors" (btw. the Iraqi army has already been build up for quite some time).
Sorry, but I think 50.000 is way to much for just being instructors. But it sounds much nicer than just saying " we are keeping a strong military presence here".

Just my 2c.

Was your instructor the only member of the training cadre? No clerks or supply guys or assistants? Just 1 guy did all that alone?

Apparently he was the 3 cooks in the kitchen, overseaing all the kp's, as well as the guy scheduling time on the range, marching the trainees there, the instructor at the range, as well as doing all the paperwork on ammo and such, delivering it, range safety officer, etc... oh - and making sure that someone was at the "office" in case a call came changing the entire schedule.

For every one person "training" - you can bet you have 4-5 people setting up that training and getting it done. Its not as simple as one guy taking 10 out to a range somewhere. 50k is the TOTAL number of troops - you can bet that will include maybe 2500 - 5000 "combat ready" rapid reaction force - while the rest are second line and beyond, tasked to train and supply.

It is necessary to keep a rrf in place while other troops are there. This is standard military procedure and has little to do with the fluid situation. At no time does the military have numbers as described above deployed without a force ready to react and protect as needed - regardless of theater. There are such forces in Europe even today.

A small - 5k men combat force is not enough to raise the ire of the general populace.

I am not a fan of Obama - but his plan at least is responsible regarding the how, when and way we withdraw. If he stays strong and impliments it - taking into account what may happen going forward and reacting appropriately, then I have no issue here - other than I don't care for a specific timetable. But I will give him credit when he does something right - and this I think was the right move.

Actually the guys in the offices were draftees, not instructors, supervised by one senior petty officer. At the firing range several groups (usually a platoon) gathered. Some of the instructors kept the men who were not shooting at the moment busy (of course more than 10 now) while some other instructors operated the firing range and did the paperwork. So here the overall number of instructors did not change, ratio still 1:10.

But I see were you and August are coming from and of course there will be support personell among those 50.000. I still belive the number to be too high to be just a "instructor-force" especially since the soldiers who got trained by them can instruct other soldiers relatively quickly after that themselfes making a lot of the instructors unnecessary after a short time.

When I was in the Army Special Forces, which has the mission of training foreign troops, the ratio of "organic" support troops to a single member of an "A Team" was around 10-1. So assuming these ratios are still valid, that means out of 50K troops we're probably talking about 5k or less directly involved with training.

A little motivational speech to the Iraqi police

NSFW language

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8

Why should Iraq get that?

They have IMMENSE wealth in natural resources that, if used to benefit the populace, would be sufficient. Japan didn't have that (such is part of the cause of the war). Neither did Germany.