Did a U.S. commander in Iraq ask for combat troops beyond the August deadline?

Posted By Marc Lynch Friday, March 12, 2010 - 7:22 PM Share

My FP colleague Tom Ricks has been arguing for quite some time not only that the U.S. should keep significant numbers of combat forces in Iraq well beyond Obama's timeline, but that U.S. commanders have actually asked for this. Today, he posts what he takes as a vindication of his reporting:

Here's the story in which Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the U.S. commander for northern Iraq, discusses the need to keep a combat brigade up there beyond President Obama's August deadline to get all combat troops out of Iraq. As reported here about two weeks ago, I might add.

Uh oh! So, let's click the link and see what it says. The headline does indeed say "U.S. commander might need troops beyond August." What about the actual article? Let me just quote:

General Cucolo says he is only talking about maybe 800 troops in 26 small units spread along the Arab-Kurd regional border, and they could be redesignated as advisory units, the U.S. network said.

And the general says even that may not be necessary. He says the Kurdish and Arab forces that nearly went to war last year, before the three-way security system was established, are now working together quite well. In the interview, he predicted they might be able to work without U.S. help by the time the American combat role is to end six months from now, but later he backed off from that a little bit.

Eight hundred troops in 26 small advisory units, which may not be necessary? OK. If the "unravelling of Iraq" which Ricks has been predicting for the last year is of the same magnitude as this possible extension of 800 troops in small advisory units which may not be necessary, then I think we could probably all live with it.

 

JANBEKSTER

9:30 PM ET

March 12, 2010

If I raq Unravels..

then what is the point of US troops in what is known today as Iraq?. What would be the purpose of such troops?. Peace-keeping where they would attract the hostility of everyone?. Take sides with one party or more against the rest?. If Iraq unravel the best thing for the US to do, would be to get out fast and as fast as can be. However, perhaps the future of US troops in the Middle East, can be assessed through establishing bases in Iraq, which will ease the pressure on Saudi Arabia by withdrawing American troops from there.
khairi janbek.paris/france

 

GUYVER

3:02 AM ET

March 13, 2010

Oh Snap!

Rick... you got served!

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

5:45 AM ET

March 13, 2010

Dreaming

We will have 10-20k Train and Advisors in Iraq for a few more years at least. The Iraqis know they are totally up to the task yet and they want the training and kit that comes with us, we will be gone down the road but not for a while.

 

SEANROSSI

1:57 PM ET

March 13, 2010

ditto

Marc - -well done.

Tom's feelings seem to have been bruised by Morrell's refusal to confirm his "scoop" and now he seems to be stretching Cucolo's statement's to fit his own narrative.....didn't he used to work for a newspaper?

 

BLACKSHYLD

2:51 PM ET

March 14, 2010

Any one surprised?

Any one surprised that there will be an indefinite, albeit small US presence in Iraq for years to come? Keep in mind those in the Iraqi government know that they are vulnerable domestically as well as abroad.

For example, tensions between Arabs and Kurds near Tikrit, that was diffused by an American presence. Let us not forget we aren't the only foreign power with interest in Iraq. As soon as we leave Saudi Arabia and Iran will begin jockeying for influence over Iraq and if 2006 is an indicator then they have no qualms about provoking genocidal civil war.

America's days in Iraq is limited, but hopefully by the time we leave Iraq will be strong enough to deal with its internal problems as well as resist foreign meddling.

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More