Keeping a Limited Presence in Iraq

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | September 7, 2011 | +

So plans are floating around the Pentagon — with the apparent blessing of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta — that call for a U.S. military force of only between 3,000 and 4,000 troops in Iraq starting next year. Under the existing deal with the Iraqi government — the one we helped install — all U.S. troops must be out by New Year’s Eve unless a new pact is hammered out between Baghdad and Washington.

There are already concerns coming from Congress that the proposed U.S. military trainer force is too paltry to help preserve the fledgling government of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, never mind to help keep the peace, especially in the unsettled northern part of the country. But the Iraqi parliament has opposed any substantial U.S. troop presence on Iraqi soil post-2011, and there’s no guarantee it will assent to even this slimmed-down option.

Read on at Battleland.

Related Topics: Pentagon

@TIMEPolitics

Latest on Swampland

Republican Party May 25, 2012

Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.
From our Partners
Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

The Cowardice of Colin PowellSlate
Ryan Crocker Says Cases Of Afghans Killing NATO Military Counterparts Can Be 'Personal'HuffPost Politics
2012 Election May 25, 2012

The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.