i still don't get the appeal of leaving a residual force in iraq. it still strikes me as being the worst of both worlds. a lot of the remaining violence is driven by the presence of u.s. troops in iraq. u.s. troops will be just as capable of inspiring violence whether there are 150k or 50k soldiers there. leaving only a residual force just means there will be fewer troops to fight back. a reduced presence will still be expensive, still needlessly risks the lives of american soldiers, and still will feed the violence in the country.
nancy pelosi says "I don’t know what the justification is for 50,000... I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000." but what's the justification for 15k or 20k? if this country is not going to completely leave iraq, why isn't anyone trying to explain what a reduced military presence is supposed to achieve? sometimes i think that endorsing a residual force is nothing more than a mark of moderation, letting the proponent chart the middle path between a total withdrawal and staying the course. but the middle isn't automatically sensible. there needs to be some justification why that number makes the most sense.
besides, a residual force idea isn't compatible with the SOFA agreement. under that agreement, the u.s. is obligated to remove all forces, whether combat troops or non-combat troops, by the end of 2011. assuming the u.s. won't break the agreement, we're only talking about the residual force remaining between august 2010 and december 2011. what is the point of that?
