Analysis: Combat role not shrinking with force

[unhappycamper]

Analysis: Combat role not shrinking with force
By Robert Burns - The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Sep 12, 2007 16:31:13 EDT

If, as expected, President Bush cuts the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq by 25 percent by next summer, that will not necessarily mean less fighting for the troops who remain.

Their numbers may shrink, but their role will not.

The Americans are likely to perform the same mission — leading the fight against the insurgency — at least through next year, in part because Iraq’s army is nowhere near being ready to take over that job.

And although parts of the insurgency took a beating this summer in parts of Baghdad where extra U.S. troops began operating, the militants have shown they are too much for the Iraqis to handle on their own.

Administration officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Bush will announce this week that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by five brigades — from 20 to 15 — by next summer, as recommended by his Iraq advisers.

Eventually, if the hopes of U.S. commanders pan out, there will be a transition in the U.S. military’s role from leading the fight to backing up the Iraqis as they assume the lead. But in the meantime — probably until the current force of 168,000 U.S. troops shrinks below 100,000 — the American role will be a combination of securing the Iraqi population, training Iraqi forces and targeting terrorists.


Rest of article at: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_combatrole_070912/

[OneBlueSky]

1. they'll just hire more mercenaries, pay them 4x what soldiers make, . . .

and not report any casualties that involve them . . . quick, easy, efficient -- and very, very costly . . .