Panetta: Military's Training/Security Role in Iraq after 2011 "remains to be worked out."

[chill_wind]

Panetta: Military's Role to be Discussed With Iraq
October 22, 2011
Associated Press|by Robert Burns

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT -- Once all U.S. troops in Iraq have left by year's end, Washington will negotiate with the Iraqi government on a possible American role in training the country's land and air forces, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday.

Speaking to reporters aboard his plane en route to Bali, Indonesia, Panetta said the U.S. and Iraq have not yet agreed even on the number of U.S. military personnel who would be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to facilitate Iraqi arms purchases and to conduct initial training.

"That remains to be worked out," Panetta said shortly after President Barack Obama announced that all U.S. troops would depart Iraq by the end of the year.

(snip)

Panetta offered no estimate of the number of U.S. troops that the Pentagon might be willing to provide as trainers or for other functions in Iraq after this year, but he noted that the U.S. keeps thousands of troops in some other Persian Gulf nations as part of normal security cooperation and training partnerships.

more:
http://www.military.com/news/article/panetta-militarys-role-to-be-discussed-with-iraq.html?col=1186032320397


Stars and Stripes

En route to Asia, Panetta focuses on events in Mideast
By Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes
Published: October 21, 2011


IN FLIGHT OVER THE BERING SEA -- Just hours into a trip designed to reinforce the U.S. commitment to a strong military presence in Asia, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Friday that American troops would soon leave two Middle Eastern conflicts behind.

(snip)

Though the hope of some troops staying on has now been dropped, negotiations will continue after they leave about the possibility of smaller numbers of troops returning to Iraq for training or other missions.

“Once we’ve completed the reduction of the combat presence, then I think we begin the process of negotiating with them to determine what will be the nature of that relationship,” he said. “What kind of training to do they need, what kind of security needs do they (have), and how can we provide it in an effective way?”

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/en-route-to-asia-panetta-focuses-on-events-in-mideast-1.158410


(bold/italics mine)

Smaller numbers of troops returning?

:shrug:

[FarCenter]

1. I'd bet that they could get trainers for less from Pakistan

[indepat]

2. Does this mean all the troops aren't leaving Iraq? Does this mean the US will still be spending

gazillions more dollars each year in Iraq than in the typical country with this population while indications are the big three is going to take a $500 billion hit. Unbefu*kingly unbelievable, but that's o.k. for we must keep our priorities straight. :patriot:

[chill_wind]

3. I don't know.

I thought everything was going over to the State Dept save 160 or so troops. Could just be wistful thinking on Panetta's part. Seems al-Maliki has made it pretty clear on immunity matters. Don't imagine that seems subject to renegotiation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2166425&mesg_id=2166425

[indepat]

4. Don't know if 100,000 military contractors will remain as indicated in one

article: let's see, 100,000 x $100,000 = $100 billion a year, if true. Interesting that an estimate of $500 billion in cuts to the big three is reported to be in the offing, which for all intent and purposes, will be funding those military contractors. Throwing a few million more old and frail people into poverty to fund these military contractors remaining in Iraq would seem to be okey dokey with pols on both sides of the aisle, such a small price to pay for keeping us safe from terra. :patriot:

[chill_wind]

5. Right. Seems Al-Maliki/Iraqis want Mercs Not U.S. Troops

(I haven't seen that huge number you mention, but here's what he was saying in September, and there are reports today that he's still wanting said "trainers/security" from U.S. ):

Iraqis Want Mercs, Not U.S. Troops, To Stick Around

Spencer Ackerman
September 1, 2011


It’s not that the Iraqi government has suddenly grown to love private security contractors. It’s just, from the perspective of Iraq’s politics, at least the hired guns aren’t U.S. troops.

For most of the year, the U.S. military has been pressing the Iraqis to relax a 2008 deal governing the final withdrawal of all troops by the end of December. The U.S. claims that Iraqi military officials privately concede a need for a small residual force to teach them how to use all the hardware they’re buying from the U.S., including (possibly) long-coveted F-16s. Only Iraqi politicians, who don’t want to face a backlash from citizens exhausted with a U.S. presence in its eight year, aren’t actually asking the U.S. to stay.

But Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister whom the U.S. thinks wants troops to stay, thinks he’s found an elegant, Solomonic solution. U.S. troops still have to pack up their forward operating bases and leave. But Iraq may hire American trainers from private security firms — who’ll probably be U.S. military veterans — to show Iraqi soldiers, cops and pilots the ropes of their new equipment.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/iraqis-want-mercs-not-u-s-troops-to-stick-around/

"Contractors with military or security backgrounds." Al-Malaki's hoping to have it both ways. Gets to tell Iraqis he got the U.S. troops out as promised to them. Gets to keep military-trained trainers/security contractors around for however long.