This is an interesting development. Many folks were speculating that a much higher number of troops would stick around, and then this rumor of 3,000 troops came out and all hell broke loose. lol The article below mentions politics as a driver for this type of decision making….go figure?
The concern here is that if there is too small of a footprint, that these troops will be sitting ducks in Iraq, or Iraq will not be able to deal with their security issues without sufficient troop presence. My concern though is that companies in Iraq that are dependent upon the security services of the current troops, will have to once again re-adjust to the politics of the matter. Planning might have included a certain amount of US troop presence in specific areas, and all of their war fighting tools and capabilities that come with that presence. So if they were planning on a 10,000 troop presence, and now it is 3,000, that can have an impact.
It also can impact the logistics. If contracting companies were planning for a set amount of troops based off the feedback war planners were giving them, then those companies have made their moves and planed for those contracts. So yet again, the back and forth on the troop presence in Iraq has an impact on this industry. Of course companies will flex and adapt, but I am sure this is causing a lot of headaches.
The other aspect of Iraq that needs to be mentioned is the Iranian influence there. As we speak, rockets and mortars continue to fall on the various FOBs and outposts in Iraq. These munitions come from all sorts of sources, but the biggest arms provider is Iran. Their goal is to help along the exit of US Troops and destabilize the region so their pet leaders can rise to the top (like Sadr). So the environment in Iraq is less troops, but tons of contractors, and lots of Iranian weapons and influence pouring into the country to help destabilize it and in the long run control it with puppet leaders.
Iraq is also in dire need of maintenance of weapons and equipment, foreign investment to include oil contracts, training and upkeep of security forces, etc. If Iraq cannot depend upon a US troop presence to help in these areas, then they will probably depend on contractors to fill these needs. Which our industry will fill the need, but yet again we have the wolf called Iran and Al Qaeda still doing their best to do harm.
I contend that private industry can deal with these sets of problems, but private industry does not have the same freedom of war fighting and weapons/hardware that US troops enjoyed. So in essence, private industry will have to accomplish what the military used to do, and yet with one hand tied behind it’s back. If Iraq sinks into Civil War again, or the pace of war and problems pick up, contractors will be right in the middle of that. –Matt
US says no decision on keeping troops in Iraq
By LARA JAKES
September 7, 2011
The Obama administration pushed back Wednesday on reports it has decided to keep a few thousand troops in Iraq next year — a number that will do little to ease security concerns but may be too big for White House advisers who are worried about the slumping U.S. economy and the president’s re-election chances.
In Washington, new Joint Chiefs chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and Undersecretary of State nominee Wendy Sherman separately said there has been no decision on how many troops might stay.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James F. Jeffrey went a step further, soundly dismissing as false news reports that about 3,000 troops would remain in Iraq beyond the final Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline.
He said that figure has not been part of ongoing discussions in Baghdad, where both governments have been weighing whether as many as 10,000 U.S. forces should stay.