Nice documentation, alank, and that imperialism… which embassy is it that is the size of 40 football fields, Baghdad’s? I envision a building, not something the size of Vatican City I think they compare it to. The one in Islamabad will be costing us $1 bn. We don’t leave a large footprint, we leave a large, military/mercenary gated community. And plenty of running water and nice quarters I’ll bet, and do the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, do they have food and running water? Hmmm, no resentment there. Our military industrial complex roars on. And how non-corrupt are the govts. we are setting up in Iraq and Afghanistan. A big issue for sure.

So lying is not a good idea to the UN, especially after Bush and Powell whoppers, not good role modeling, not inspiring of trust.

Call them trainers, call them consultants, JFK called them ”advisors” was it? And the oil contractors of course, and their security. And are the dirty rotten security mercenaries still there.. that have done such horrifying illegal stuff.. Blackwater, etc? And what about detention without due process> And Bagram and rendition?

Washington speak. Yeah, you know the meaning under ”trust me” in Washington. Obama turned back on campaign promises. His cred is close to dead as far as I’m concerned. I hope he’s got some sincerity to the nations of the world. Hope but not big hope. Wish he would announce liquidating some bases.. it would bring home some serious money to help domestically but that doesn’t seem to be an option to these militarists/corporatists!!!!

Alas, LL, the health insurance industry is not the only profit center for the very filthy rich to exploit. And warmaking is the motherlode of all profit centers.

You raise many interesting points. Definitely the new embassy in Baghdad is not a time-share for weary travelers. However, it remains to be seen what purpose it actually serves, given it’s vastness and cost, compared to other embassies. It’s more like a military garrison than anything one might construe as typical digs for diplomats. Of course, the most important thing was that contractors got a lot of money out of its design and construction. The staff, services, utilities, and supplies needed, must constitute a rather substantial overhead, just to keep it running. Basically, it’s your garden variety boondoggle.

I don’t know anything about the disposition of the private military/garda contractors. I saw recently that the State department still has a contract with them. This probably includes a contingent in Iraq.

There are a lot of things Obama said in his speech that merit sharp criticism, but as someone here observed, most of what he said, he has said before. I singled out this bit as the discussion about Iraq seemed to have receded somewhat in the public discourse. The fact that nothing had changed since last February suggests the plans then are still set. The main part of that plan is to deceive Americans into thinking there will be significant troop draw-downs in that country.

Obama promised during his campaign he would get all America troops out of Iraq at the same time he would escalate Cheney’s war in Afghanistan (which seems to involve Pakistan, as well, unfortunately). I’m not sure people in general were in favor of the latter, but certainly they expected the former. As president, he’s certainly fulfilled the latter promise, regretfully, but there are still no signs that troop levels in Iraq will be reduced to any extent within his first term.

Well sure, you must be right. If you leave several brigades in Iraq and call them trainers, it must be perfectly correct to ignore the more than 100,000 troops that have left or will be leaving.

uh-huh.

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

Here’s an item from earlier this month:

US actually increasing personnel in Iraq: More contractors, fewer troops

US forces are not withdrawing from Iraq.

Well, its soldiers are. But not civilian contractors. Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to withdraw US troops from the war-torn country, the US is planning to award contracts to protect US installations at a cost to taxpayers that could near $1 billion.

In fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq just awarded $485 million in contracts just last week, while Congress enjoyed its summer recess. Five firms will handle private security deals to provide security for US bases. It’s a neat rhetorical loophole that will allow US officials to say that the country has withdrawn from Iraq, while its contractors remain.

“Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period,” the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus wrote in Wednesday editions. “That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million.

Pincus cites an Inspector General’s report, whose fine print notes that these contracts could swell to a whopping $935 million. An earlier IG report documented manifold allegations of fraud and government waste (PDF here).

Victory Base Camp, one of the US’ largest installations, will likely require “approximately 2,600 security personnel,” the report said — just by itself.

The Pentagon’s “quarterly report on contracting showed a 19 percent increase from the three previous months in the number of security guards in Iraq hired by the Defense Department. The Central Command attributed the increase, from 10,743 at the end of March to 13,232 at the end of June, mainly to “an increased need for PSCs [private security companies] to provide security as the military begins to draw down forces.”

Private guards replaced soldiers at 19 locations. Are taxpayers getting their money’s worth by awarding contracts to more efficient private firms?

Nope: security companies are billing the US for more people to do what the military is able to do with less.

“Camp Bucca, primarily a detention facility, called for ‘417 personnel to free up approximately 350 soldiers for combat operations,’” Pincus notes. “At Forward Operating Base Hammer, the task order called for 124 private guards to allow 102 soldiers to take on combat activities.”

At another installation, Camp Taji, about 900 private contractors replaced 400 soldiers.

-John Byrne

Of course, what troops do leave Iraq tend to head for the other quagmires Obama now owns without hesitation.

At any rate, this addresses a point raised earlier.

And we’re not even talking about the endless U.S. control of Iraqi airspace.

So as troops leave, we need to hire civilians to do their jobs.
You see this as proof that troops aren’t leaving?

Of course, what troops do leave Iraq tend to head for the other quagmires Obama now owns without hesitation.

Maybe ironically they embraced Powell’s Pottery Barn warning, you break it, you “buy” it.

Hugh offered a great link to Ann Jones about how the Afghans being trained were hard to train but at the end of the three weeks, they beefed up a lot since having had consistent nutritious food. What if all those billions (trillion by now?) had gone into food and job corps in those countries. Just like how if the millions poured into fighting the American civil rights of humane and affordable universal health care … well, they could have given each one of the 300 million Americans 1 million each by now with what they spent in legal but amoral bribing/lobbying. And if you liquidate just a small percentage of our unpopular bases around the world, health care for ALL could be paid for.

That would be too easy LL. Remember the profit centers.

I base the troop movements/conversions on what Gates has said. I take the assertions in the raw story item with a grain of salt.

As this diary slowly sinks into the abyss here’s another item from last August:

No Change in Iraq Troop Levels Until After 2010 Election
General Still Insists Pullout ‘Moving Forward’
by Jason Ditz, August 30, 2009

Brigadier General Heidi Brown, in charge of overseeing the US withdrawal from Iraq, insists that the pullout strategy is already underway and moving according to plans. At the same time, the details she provided seemed to confirm that the pullout remains very aspirational.
Brig. Gen. Heidi Brown

According to the general, the first troops out will be the Army combat brigade which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates previously said might leave by the end of the year if the level of violence remained low. Since the level of violence has risen significantly since then, this may support the Pentagon’s previous plans which had the troop levels roughly flat at least into early 2010.

But Brown gave us the first signal of what the 2010 strategy is looking like, at least on paper. “We would stay steady with troop strength until after the election plus 60 days,” Brown insisted. “You don’t know who will win the government and how long it will take to seat the government.”

Since Iraq’s national election has already been delayed once and is currently scheduled for January 30, 2010, that would leave roughly 130,000 troops still in the nation in early April, 2010. Since President Obama has previously promised to end “combat” operations in August 2010, that would require a sudden and massive pullout, the likes of which the administration has shown neither the will nor capability to make good on.

Gen. Brown also hinted that the August 2010 goal had been significantly revised, however. Whereas before President Obama had planned to leave up to 50,000 troops “indefinitely” beyond the official end to combat missions, she suggested the target level was now “50,000 to 75,000 troops.” Furthermore, the remaining troops “would pick up additional duties from departing troops.”

Last week General Casey said he couldn’t rule out the current plan requiring further changes based on the rising violence, though he said it was too early to make any such decisions. It seems that even that marginal drawdown of troops that is being currently sold as a “pullout” strategy isn’t safe.

See also: US Sending 1,000 More Troops to Iraq

One of the reasons that Obama called for a longer phased withdrawal from Iraq over 18 months was that the Republicans were calling any withdrawal precipitate. But Odierno got Obama to delay most of the withdrawal until early next year after the Iraqi elections. As a result, when those brigades do start coming out, minus of course those that will be renamed as training brigades, they will be coming out on an accelerated schedule to get them out by August.

What this shows is what most of us already knew that a withdrawal from Iraq could always have been carried out responsibly much faster than 18 months. It could have been done in 9 if they were serious about it, 12 at the most. At the same time, leaving 50,000 troops in country is not a withdrawal. It is a draw down, nothing more. All of this dancing around though is meant to distract what was the strategic goal from day one under Bush, permanent bases in Iraq. It looks like Obama has bought into this concept as well. The kicker will be Maliki. As soon as he can consolidate power, he will push us out. That, however, may be a while.

alank, I owe you a drink.