At the end of February this year we had
140,000 soldiers in Iraq. (scroll to the bottom of page 23). If 50,000 of them are to remain until the end of 2012, that leaves 90,000 combat soldiers that are to be out in 19 months (by August 31, 2010) according to Obama's most recent commitment. That's an average overall troop reduction requirement of 4,737 per month.
At the end of August we still had 130,000 troops in Iraq. That's a reduction of only 10,000 in 6 months when there should have been at least 28,000 to have been on schedule.
I don't have the troop level for September but if Odierno was correct in saying on October 1 that there were 123,000 that would mean we sal a reduction of 7,000 soldiers last month. I'll assume this is so until I have a reason to believe otherwise. That would make it 17,000 in 7 months. If we withdraw another 3,000 this month as Odierno projects, that would be 20,000 in 8 months. That's just a little bit more than half the 38,896 required to be on schedule.
To be fair, senior administration officials
said in February that they would delay a dramatic force reduction until after the country's national elections expected at the end of this year. So their schedule and the one I have cobbled together are not going to be the same. But Obama said during the campaign they would be out in 16 months. Then, 5 weeks into his presidency, he changed that to 19 months. Color me hopeful but skeptical.
At best 50,000 will stay in Iraq at least until the end of 2012 - the timeframe The Decider decided upon. That leaves plenty of time for neocons to orchestrate 'changing conditions on the ground' to keep them there forever. Then there's the 2012 election, when they hope to install another pliable stooge in the White House.