US Troops To Leave Iraq By August 2010: Officials

PAMELA HESS and ANNE GEARAN   02/24/09 11:14 PM ET   AP

Iraq Petraeus

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war that helped define his upstart presidential campaign _ although a little more slowly than he promised.

The withdrawal plan _ an announcement could come as early as this week _ could help Obama turn his attention to another campaign pledge: Deploying more troops to Afghanistan, a region he calls the central front in the war on terrorism.

The timetable is a compromise. Removing so many people and tons of equipment presents logistical difficulties. Some commanders and advisers worry that security gains could backslide in Iraq if troops are brought out too soon, while others think the bulk of U.S. combat work is long since done.

"We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war," Obama said in his address to Congress on Tuesday.

Obama built enormous grass-roots support for his White House bid by pledging to withdraw troops from Iraq 16 months after taking office. That schedule, based on removing roughly one brigade a month, was predicated on commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left behind or Iraq's fragile security.

Obama expects to leave a large contingent of troops in Iraq, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, after August, 2010 to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public. The contingent will include intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, such as unmanned aircraft.

The withdrawal of American forces is set to be completed by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.

A senior White House official said Tuesday that Obama is at least a day away from making a final decision. An announcement on Wednesday was unlikely, he said, but added that Obama could discuss Iraq during a trip to North Carolina on Friday.

About 142,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, roughly 14 brigades, about 11,000 more than the total in Iraq when President George W. Bush announced in January 2007 that he would "surge" the force to put down the insurgency. He sent an additional 21,000 combat troops to Baghdad and Anbar province.

Although the number of combat brigades has dropped from 20 to 14, the U.S. has increased the number of logistical and other support troops. A brigade is usually about 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

The White House considered at least two other options _ one that followed Obama's 16-month timeline and one that stretched withdrawal over 23 months, The Associated Press reported earlier this month.

Some U.S. commanders have spoken more optimistically in recent months about prospects for reducing the force.

Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, who just left his job overseeing U.S. operations in Anbar Province, said Tuesday that he saw violence drop to an almost "meaningless" level over the past year.

Kelly told reporters Tuesday that in the area that was the home ground of the Sunni insurgency, American combat forces don't have enough to do and most could have pulled out months ago.

"There is still a security issue there, but in the province I just left the (Iraqi) army and the police are more than handling the remnants of what used to be al-Qaida," Kelly said. "There's other parts of Iraq that aren't going quite as well but all of Iraq is doing pretty well."

According to officials, Obama had requested a range of options from his top military advisers, including one that would have withdrawn troops in 16 months. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had recently forwarded withdrawal alternatives to the White House for Obama's consideration.

In addition to the U.S. troops to be withdrawn, there is a sizable cadre of contractors who provide services to them who would pack their bags as well. There were 148,050 defense contractor personnel working in Iraq as of December, 39,262 of them U.S. citizens.

There are more than 200 U.S. military installations in Iraq. According to Army officials interviewed by the Government Accountability Office, it can take up to two months to shut down small outposts that hold up to 300 troops. Larger entrenched facilities, like Balad Air Base, could take up to 18 months to close, according to the GAO.

As of Monday, at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. More than 31,000 have been injured. An additional 35,841 have received medical air transport due to non-hostile incidents.

Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war, according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service.

___

Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven, Robert Burns, Lolita C. Baldor, Steven Hurst, Anne Flaherty, Richard Lardner and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war that helped define his upstart ...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war that helped define his upstart ...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,798
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
03:29 PM on 02/27/2009
I think we need to stay in Iraq and find/kill as many terrorists as possible. Nobody will be safe in the U.S. if we don't. My husband has been there and has seen the ruthlessness of these people...they will stop at nothing to kill us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:34 PM on 02/25/2009
If they aren't trained and ready by now they never will be. If the war was based on lies and it was an admitted mistake about the WMD, why are we still there? It doesn't take 16 months to pack up and come home. I think the country will revert back to the same country it was before we attacked it. Send them home now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
01:20 PM on 02/25/2009
He'll bring them home or he'll invade Pakistan? Decisions, decisions.
10:39 AM on 02/25/2009
RE:
"Obama expects to leave a large contingent of troops in Iraq, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, after August, 2010 to advise and train Iraqi security forces"

What are these guys’ morons’? We've been training them for YEARS. Let's get the boys home NOW!
photo
Roguewolf
30-Year Military Veteran
09:39 AM on 02/25/2009
What happened to 16 months?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eva belle
Occupy Wall Street
06:15 AM on 02/25/2009
Yes, the commanders worry, but, what are they suggesting? That the soldiers stay in Iraq indefinitely? Am sorry, but this war was started on a false premise and now y'all have to deal with the ramifications.
05:31 AM on 02/25/2009
Right.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
popart
retired school teacher
01:57 AM on 02/25/2009
They can not come out fast enough.....and you know what once they are gone things will not be much different than things were before Bush took it upon himself, along with support of millions of war loving american voters......who love to play soldier.....as long as some other guy puts on the uniform....
and all those good folks who make bombs and tanks and things for big bucks....they have had a great ride these many years....like I said, america can't leave Iraq soon enough. so many americans and Iraq civilians dead for nothing.
12:51 AM on 02/25/2009
We're watching...and keeping track...one day late...and he's going to be called out...
More importantly is for him to divest himself of any of Bush's policies on detainees, rendition, making Bagram the new Gitmo, cutting deals with Rove over Justice Dept. scandal. So far, the record is not good, so expecting him to follow through here deserves a heaping helping of skepticism.
12:02 AM on 02/25/2009
Dear President Obama:

Please bring the troops home very soon. You promised us you would do that. That is a big reason why we voted for you. You said the Iraq war was a strategic blunder and a useless war.

I feel betrayed by your inaction and indecisiveness on this issue. American families want their loved ones; sons, daughters, moms and dads home.

I am sure many feel the same way as I do. Your staff announced a possible time line of 19 months today, this only adds to the hardship that this country is experiencing. This war has gone on for six long years and I believe you have the power to end it now.

Six years is too long, it will be almost nine years before you bring it to a close under your proposed time line. Each day this war continues is a tragedy, to extend it out will have even more devastating consequences for American families and this country.

We, the American people began to voice our opposition to the war in the mid term elections of 2006, in large part, because the Democrats promised to end this war. Three years later, this war continues.

The lives of our soldiers should never be politicized. We just want them home and to begin the work of restoring America's standing in the global community. I fear your timeline has the potential to return Republicans to power in 2010, and it is an unwise decision.
12:09 AM on 02/25/2009
Its merely 3 months more than what he promised. He always said he would be flexible in making sure he brings the troops home responsibly. Throughout history countries have failed when they executed withdrawals too quickly. Its not easy moving over 100,000 troops out of a war zone particularly when there are still questions whether the Iraqi army can handle the situation there.
12:14 AM on 02/25/2009
In Gulf I, which I am studying at the present time---Bush I deployed soldiers, waged war, and returned almost all of the 400,000 troops in about a yr.

It can be done. That is why de-mobe needs to start happening this year.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TJCole
11:58 PM on 02/24/2009
Either you are for American troops getting out of Iraq or not, if you think leaving 30-50,000 Americans in Iraq until the last month of 2011 in other words 2012...is getting out you are sadly mistaken...

Also many of those Obama is taking out of Iraq are bound for Afghanistan...not home...as so many of them yearn for...

I guess we just have to give up, when it comes to really supporting our troops....

Just remember don't join the army no matter what they say or promise you...
12:16 AM on 02/25/2009
This situation is heartbreaking, I just want to cry thinking about it.
12:55 AM on 02/25/2009
Great point...don't go for O.!
One shouldn't have for Bush...although many kids were duped into thinking this was to go after Bin laden...now that that is not why we are in Iraq or even Afghanistan, we need to make certain NOT A SINGLE man or woman enrolls for any kind of combat. Obama will not continue Bush's illicit wars, no matter what the reason.
11:38 PM on 02/24/2009
It's been a while since I've read about horrific car bombs and other civilian atrocities in Iraq. I wonder what is happening over there. It's understandable that the media is focusing on the consequences of the recession here in the US, but they shouldn't decrease their coverage of Iraq. Maybe some stimulus money could go to foreign bureaus.
12:11 AM on 02/25/2009
I hate to say this but there was a bombing there today.
12:57 AM on 02/25/2009
Maybe its because the media don't tell you any news about over there like they use to...since Americans are as usual so unable to focus on a story for long, they become self-absorbed in their own obsessive concern for their wallets, hence the media have decided it's not worth reporting.
11:18 PM on 02/24/2009
Rachel made a completely incorrect statement. She said it is symantics about combat vs. non-combat. Very wrong. Their is a very different capability of combat vs non combat to include training, equipment, logistics, force structure etc.

Non Combat can include, engineers, linguists etc. to build, train etc. some include Military Police etc for force protection. But with these forces you cannot sustain or project power like a Mechanized Infantry or Armor Brigade.

Also The President stated "We must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". Nothing wrong in questioning the timeline but understand the difference between the force structure of a non-combat and a combat soldier. They are very different.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
11:33 PM on 02/24/2009
Rachel has to have something to whine and worry about. She does not know her FMJ from her elbow when it comes to the military.
12:59 AM on 02/25/2009
Her family have military connections...I am no Maddow fan, but on this, she is right...this is semantic BS by Obama...get out...no BS, no stalling, no c--p...just GET OUT!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TrueThis
11:11 PM on 02/24/2009
Thank you Howard Dean for letting Keith Olberman know that 3 months for the 16 months that Obama agreed to is no different and that Obama knows what he doing and we will be getting out of Iraq soon. Keith let it go!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
11:34 PM on 02/24/2009
Dr. Dean was great again. I hope he stays very visible as a progressive talking head we need more of his ilk on our side.
11:37 PM on 02/24/2009
Just ANOTHER F#$%^&g politician!!!

We're leaving Iraq in 16 months--then again maybe not...

When WE VOTED for SENATOR Obama there WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE IRAQ--IN TOTO--IN 16 MONTHS!!! Aug 2010 IS MORE THAN 16 MONTHSS!!

Also, the other day,Doyle mcManus of the LAT wrote an article suggesting that, were Iran to get a nuclkear weapon, our policy would be CONTAINMENT!!! During the CAMPAIGN there was NO talk of CONTAINMENT with respect to Iran's "peaceful" development of a nuclear capability. Rather, WE VOTED as we did because he was NOT GOING TO TOLERATE IRAN GETTING A NUCLEAR WEAPON!!!

ok--Iran can now have a nuclear weapon--that we'll "contain"
"Gitmo" is going to be losed---but its not;
"enhanced interrogation techniques" will not be used---except in special cases
We'll leave Iraqin 16 mos.--but we wont!!!

I'm GETTING dizzy with all of the President's "about faces"!!! Were we MISLEAD??? It's beginning to seem that way!!!
12:00 AM on 02/25/2009
You must be really young to feel that a politician, who promised a 16-month withdrawal, then deciding with a 19-month withdrawal due to logistical concerns is an "about-face."

Grow up.
12:12 AM on 02/25/2009
Name a single about face. He always said he'd be somewhat flexible about the withdrawal.
11:06 PM on 02/24/2009
So how many terrorist attacks does it take for people to realize these extremists are at war with us. This is a truth whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. It's pathetic that certain people refuse to acknowledge that Saddam had ties to these terrorists, whether it's medical aid, financial aid, diplomatic aid, a safe haven, or training.
Muhammed Zaydan, Abu Nidal, Abdul Raham Yasin, al Zarqawi are just a small handful of names that were tied to Saddam, yet all their chaos and destruction they've caused is overlooked.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
11:38 PM on 02/24/2009
I'm a progressive but I have no delusion that we have enemies that want to destroy America, our allies and our interests. I won't argue the war in Iraq now I think that was a strategic disaster because it attracted ter rorists but we need to fight ter rorists in Afghanistan and the border regions because that's who attacked us.
01:00 AM on 02/25/2009
I agree with you to an extent. However you're slightly mistaken. While it's true that al Qaeda conducted it's training in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region with aid from the Taliban. The ones who attacked us were from all over the world, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, etc. To state that these extremists who wish to harm us are only from Afghanistan would be false.
11:47 PM on 02/24/2009
Whats 25k to the family of a palestinain terrorist? CHUMP CHANGE

What's the problem with Saddam Hussaqin's Govt providing support for both the making of aspirin and nerve gas weapons in Sudan (at a facility we bombed because of its links to OBL--as the the NYT reported in Aug 1998--and has NEVER walked away from)--aspirin is an imporant medicine, so what if nerve agents are being made there as well.

Let's also not get all wound up over the discovery of rocket engines proscibed by the UNSC--or the discovery of dual use faciltiies that could be restarted for the production of chemical munitiions (read Charles Duelfers report)---

and, so what if the the amount of botulinum toxin hat could fill a 1 gram fish oil capsule could kill 40,000 people--the FACT REMAINS WE NEVER--REPEAT NEVER--FOUND A WORKING BIOLOGICAL WEAPON IN IRAQ (OF COURSE, i DOUBT YOU COULD FIND THAT FISH OIL CAPSULE IN MY 30 SQ FT STUDY EITHER....)...

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, PLEASE LEAVE PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSAIN OUT OF THESE STUPID "TERRORISM" DISCUSSIONS. He was DULY elected by the populatiobn of Iraq at least several times--and he didnt rely on Iraq's version of the "Supreme Court" to STEAL these elections!!!

GIvE IT A REST!!!!
12:54 AM on 02/25/2009
I'm almost speechless. Almost.

$25k is chump change, you are correct in that aspect. But when these extremists carry out those attacks, how much is each life worth that they've taken?

The programs existed, there is no denying that, Saddam used these weapons on his own people as well as during the Iraq-Iran war. Now an argument could be made to say that Saddam himself may not have had the capability to attack us directly. But realistically, how difficult would it be to manufacture these weapons in small doses, while exporting them to these organizations that could on a small scale? The hard part was already completed in years past. Biological and chemical weapons are not difficult to create, nuclear yes.
It was Saddam's associations that created problems. Saddam had the resources, others had the means.

I can only hope there were robust amounts of cynicism in your statement about Saddam being elected, if not, you truly have no idea what has gone on in that country.
01:04 AM on 02/25/2009
I never thought removing Saddam was necessary to prevent him from supposedly attacking us...but there can be no delusions about who and what he was...the man was a brutal, ruthless dictator that we helped install...he was our man, until he decided to not sell his oil in US dollars, then he became a fiend and a phantom, he had to be demonized (not that that took much effort).