Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End Of 2011

The Obama administration is willing to drop American troop levels in Iraq to as low as 3,000 by the end of this year, The Huffington Post has confirmed.

The new figure, first reported Tuesday by Fox News, represents a significant drop in the number of American military personnel expected to remain in the country after the American mission in Iraq expires on Dec. 31.

A source familiar with the situation told HuffPost that the 3,000 figure was correct, although there may end up being as many as 5,000 troops in the country at any time, given the logistics of troop rotations.

Administration and Pentagon officials had hoped to secure Iraqi-government approval for a larger troop presence in Iraq into 2012, with the U.S. recently pushing for a final figure of around 10,000. But administration officials have lately come to believe that approval would be hard to get for anything more than a few thousand troops.

The troop presence would probably include some combination of military trainers and air and naval advisers, the source said, adding that some Pentagon officials fear the 3,000 number may be too small to achieve even their limited missions.

Pentagon spokesman George Little denied that any final decisions have been made on the troop levels.

"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," Little told HuffPost. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."

Administration officials have been debating troop withdrawal plans for months now, with many officials arguing that while current levels of some 45,000 troops are unsustainable, a long-term military presence is essential for stability in the region.

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress, said the ultimate troop figure might actually obscure a much larger presence of armed American personnel in the country, even after the U.S. withdraws.

"Whether it's three to five thousand, or something larger, the American footprint will remain quite large no matter what," Katulis said.

A May study by the U.S. Institute of Peace determined that even a total handover of responsibilities in Iraq from military to civilian personnel would leave 17,000 State Department contractors and employees in the country.

Plans outlined publicly by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq earlier in the year indicated that the Iraq mission would be the Americans' largest diplomatic presence in the world, including more than a dozen embassy, consular and military assistance sites.

Another 5,000 security contractors would be required to protect civilians at these sites.

"We're going to have the largest diplomatic and development presence in the world, and there's going to be a very large army of private contractors defending them," Katulis said.

UPDATE: 3:15 p.m. -- In an early indication of the strong reaction the newly proposed troop figures may prompt, hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham quickly tweeted his disapproval Tuesday afternoon, saying, "Reducing our troop presence down to 3,000 would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."

UPDATE: 4:20 p.m. -- In his daily press briefing Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney noted that the administration has consistently said they would take into consideration any security request made by the Iraqi government, but "that request has not been made. No decision has been made. And as of now we are operating under the current [Status of Forces] agreement."

"We are in negotiations and consultations with the Iraqi government," Carney added. "We want a normal productive, healthy relationship with Iraq going forward."

Comments

[orygunrain]

07:42 PM on 09/25/2011

It won't ever be enough , until every single man and woman in our military are HOME. More election bs.

[maxro89]

02:23 PM on 10/21/2011

Tell Bush go to the zones of war to bring them.

[getoffmedz]

12:58 PM on 09/23/2011

The Iraqi government has put their foot down and our intrusion into Iraq WILL BE OVER this year.

This from Juan Cole this morning - "The Iraqi government is rejecting that idea that any US combat troops might remain in the country after December 31 OF THIS YEAR. But it is considering a relatively small number of trainers (the Obama administration appears to be OFFERING 3,000 – 5,000), who will be necessary to drill Iraqi personnel on the operation of military equipment and aircraft. Most political forces in the country could live with trainers, they say. But the Muqtada al-Sadr group wants ALL US troops out altogether, and has threatened violence if they try to stay."

Finally.

[Ezio]

07:57 AM on 09/23/2011

We still have that 55 billion dollar 'embassy' there. It's more like a fortress.

[Red45]

03:53 PM on 10/23/2011

I know. Built in relative secrecy over the last decade, it's a behemoth. Now, if we're really leaving Iraq, are we going to abandon that monster of a conclave? If not, why not?

[patchesowl]

10:07 AM on 09/12/2011

Retaining U.S. troops in the country will do nothing more than continue fanning the flames of resentment (there are other countries in the region capable of providing the necessary training). As to the purpose of keeping troops in the country the administration should simply come out and tell the U.S. citizen that the true purpose is to provide security for the Asian Pipeline which is being built through Afghanistan to India and through Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. Which means the numbers will be much greater than 3, 000 and closer to 10, 000 plus an additionally greater force required in Afghanistan. These forces will be required for the next thirty years, representing an additional monetary burden on tax payers, together with continued violence and instability in the region (We’ve already witnessed what the results will be when this type activity is undertaken in the case of Georgia when Russia stepped in and put an end to it). The problem in revealing such information begs the question of why should the citizens assume the monetary cost liability for what the Sleazy petroleum corporations should be responsible for? Especially in that they’re earning record profits and are still granted sizeable subsidies to the tune of $4.6 billion annually, plus numerous tax loop holes.

[thegreenhornet]

07:56 AM on 09/08/2011

Gee, just in time for the election. What a coincidence. Why didn't he do it before when we needed the money back home? How many private contractors will remain there on the government payroll? How much will he American txpayers continue to shell out for the so-called rebuilding program there? It's all smoke and mirrors. Until we just get the he'll out of there we will continue to go broke while our leaders lie to us.

[your loving daughter]

11:11 PM on 09/07/2011

A Man on here said my Dad makes $150,000 a year for being over in Iraq, for being a contractor..
So does this mean he should come back and stand in the UN-employment line?? Do I have to give back my braces? I'm finally used to them. Work is Work here or there. It just seems their is more over there then here...? So if I do my math right, 16 months in Iraq '/. by 150.000 = 937.5 a month. So this is the true value of Man. you can put a price on my dads head? So your sons can come home he stays and sweeps up the mess.......No amount of money should be in question when Im going to be paying for this all my whole life with taxes....Great future for me. good going adults, you tire me....

[Rod Paugh]

08:18 PM on 09/08/2011

Loving daughter...I am afraid your math is wrong....the monthly income for the "contractor is 12,500. This is more than millions of Americans make in a year. yes you will be paying for this for the rest of your life because there are adults who insist on electing Republicans. So this is a valuable lesson...in the meantime, sell your braces and give the money to fellow Americans who can't afford food let alone perfect teeth with which to chew.

[patchesowl]

10:22 AM on 09/12/2011

Truth is... If the citizens of this nation participated in their Republic as outlined in their Constitution there'd be no need for your family member to have to work in Iraq. Politicians have pushed an agenda designed to use corporations as the spearhead in effort to dominate the world. For the moment the problem is that increased Oil prices have stalled their "great plan" which is not going any place as long as petroleum prices remain above $30..00 per barrel. And I doubt that any OPEC country or Russia will see need to drop prices back to this level as long as a barrel of whiskey sells for $165.00, Milk for $135.00 or Coco Cola Syrup for $180.00 on the world market. Our best bet is to bring things back down to earth which measn demanding politicians drop these outdated and dangerous plans and focus on bringing our nations infrastructure, to include a modernized rail system which connects every city of 50, 000, educational systems, Health programs and drop feeding a trillion dollars annually into the military budget by complying with our constitution which dictates "a military and navy for the defense of te United States," our national interest cannot adn must not extend around the world. What other nation deploys such military force? None adn both China adn Russia are vastly larger than are we!

[Gonzo333]

10:38 PM on 09/07/2011

It's all about the money for special interests while the government robs us to pay the bill.

[Elijah A Alexander Jr]

07:01 PM on 09/07/2011

What did the US fight for in Iraq? The people were told it was to eliminate WMDs, is that a lie? Once it was revealed there were none, by constitution, all troops were to be removed. [WMDs could be a threat but any other reason is unconstitutional to even be there.] Didn't Bush read the preamble and amendment 2 before beginning that mission and Obama concerning withdrawing troops? How is the United States defending its people by remaining in Iraq? How are our troops protecting the Constitution they and the presidents took an oath to do when it say they are to be in defense of this nation?

Doesn't anyone, except me, understand what the constitution require of the government of this nation? Does anyone except me care? Where is the patriotism of our president and congress? Do we need to use the "Patriot Act" to have them removed for refusing to be patriots of the United States of America?

Oh, no one really care about this nation, all y'all want is the dollar crumbs, corporations are taking more and more of from you, which you're getting! Please excuse me for thinking anyone was interested in the constitutional operation of this nation.

[patchesowl]

10:39 AM on 09/12/2011

Saddam was established in power and supported by the U.S., Britain and France. Following Iran's nationalization of its oil infrastructure and ousting of the Shah... Embassy debacle, the U.S., France and Britain wanted Iran punished and regain control of its petroleum. Saddam agreed to subdue Iran and was given every assistance necessary to acheive this goal but ultimately Iran proved far too stubborn. The U.S., France and Britain continued supporting Saddam even while he was using poison gasses against the Iranians until it became a matter of public record. It was only when they were unable to contain the information that they made oppositional statements against Hussein. Kuwait was part of the deal and Saddam subsequently took it, but Britain objected because he'd not given them Iran and we had the Gulf War. I've been commenting for months that the “The People” need to force the AG to bring charges against Bush and minnions for violations against their oath to the Constitution. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all members of the congress who voted for the Invasion of Iraq as well. Obama is part of the grand conspiracy against the people and our Constitution and should be brought up on charges as well. But... where is the will of the people to step up? Not there, they're willing to allow the constitution be trampled into the dirt and subsequently vanish in favor of a corporate charter, held in check by the application of fear.

[Elijah A Alexander Jr]

07:47 PM on 09/12/2011

Those things I know, I was attempting to write something which wouldn't be denied as so many of my post are. Being an ex ADC airman and Vietnam vet, I've been saying bush should have been impeached for treason or 9/11, Obama, for failing to have his arrested after taking the oath committed treason (Article 3 section 3). My petition http://www.change.org/petitions/eliminate-capitalistic-military-regime with 100 signatures suggest everyone in administration and legislation has committed treason because they are ignoring the sovereignty of our nation allowing FTAs, defending foreign nations without stars on "Old Glory" representing them and more.

I was also showing how unconstitutional everyone in DC is and how most of the nation doesn't know what the constitution require of the government or the people. And I was doing that under the topic of the article for acceptance. We are on the same page, you getno argument out of me.

[1776 or 1984]

06:20 PM on 09/07/2011

.... meanwhile, keep on stealing our Social Security contributions to do it.

[Whitemellon]

05:50 PM on 09/07/2011

You can bet we will be shelling out a lot more money for the private security forces than if we left the same amount of troops there to protect the left behind State Dept and construction contractors. But I guess were not concerned about the money. it's a shell game. I was under the impression when we privatize public entities we are suppose to save the taxpayers some money. That's what the republicans are always claiming about privatizing public schools, jails, Social Security and the like. It sure isn't that way with mercenaries. Why is that?

[patchesowl]

10:59 AM on 09/12/2011

Based upon the proposition of universal law - everything in any nation is the property of "The People." In the grand scheme of things all property would ultimately, even with capitalism, revert to the control of "The People." Britain during the eighties, under Margaret, sold off all public holdings at bargain prices to corporations, leaving the people with nothing but debt. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. just allowed a similar situation to take place by bailing out every corporation in the land when, in fact, they fell into receivership of the citizens. "The People" unwittingly allowed themselves to be taken in by the rhetoric of Obama and his Wall Street masters, placed beside him by Wall Street - Geithner, Summers, Rubin, Greenspan, Bernanke and a congress owned by Wall Street, no different than what Margaret did to the British people. Currently, the nation is sitting on $149 trillion of "hidden debt" which the citizens are responsible for but was created by Wall Street and Corporate industry adn banking. So, what are "The People" willing to do about it? Perhaps they're traumatized by fear or fear with a healthy dose of confusion adn cannot understand where they are. However, they'll wake up trapped in a straight jacket of corporate control in what can only be described as "new era Fedualism." In the words of Benjamin Franklin when asked by a journalist - Mr. Franklin, what type government do we have? His reply - "A Republic, if they can keep it!"

[BAADGHOST]

06:46 PM on 09/26/2011

The contract security forces need to be paid by the companies that are employing the workers they chose to leave there. We as a government have no obligation to provide security outside our soverign country ie... embassies, military installations. COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS ...PAY YOUR OWN BILLS!!!!!

[Balloon Twister]

05:19 PM on 09/07/2011

again, maybe he will close gitmo like he promised........not.

[BAADGHOST]

06:47 PM on 09/26/2011

Why close Gitmo......I dont want the accused here

[Tim303]

05:07 PM on 09/07/2011

Hooray

[bobohaze69]

05:00 PM on 09/07/2011

Mr. President you are 10 years to late. We have lost thousand of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands permanently disabled, and 3.7 trillion dollars spent on Iraq and Afganistan. We in America fight Muslim wars we can't win while America goes bankrupt.

[Tim303]

05:07 PM on 09/07/2011

So he shouldn't try?

[TFlint]

05:40 PM on 09/07/2011

Why do you accuse Obama for 10 years of mistakes? Was he president 10 years ago?

[patchesowl]

11:12 AM on 09/12/2011

Obama stated he'd end the wars and return the troops home, he could and should not have stopped a full investigation into the Bush Administration and its violations our Constitution and their oats to uphold it, together with every member of congress who voted for the invasion of Iraq. In many ways his failure to prosecute the administration made him even more complicit than those who were guilty. Without question we've, as a nation, crossed into a era of unlawfulness of unthinkable magnitude. Now we have Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush running around writing books in effort to justify their actions which is a slap in the face to the U.S. citizen who are suffering horribly. Yet, in retrospect, I suppose if people are unwilling to stand up for their constitution they're deserving of what they get.

[GeorgeSM]

04:52 PM on 09/07/2011

It was apparent from the beginning that having disturbed the tenuous equilibrium in this unhappy and unstable country, held together only by a despot, that leaving was not going to be pretty.

[bobert1520]

04:49 PM on 09/07/2011

Just bring them home iraq can fend for it's self!!

[mclkarim]

05:31 PM on 09/07/2011

You got that right! Are they really that pathetic that they can't do anything for themselves?