Hey McIlheran: How long will we be in Iraq?

On January 30, 2005, Patrick McIlheran said:

West Germany was kept free and safe from a Russian threat far worse than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi through a 44-year watch by American and British troops, and no one proposes that Iraq will need Western troops that long.

Here's what Stephen Biddle, a former adviser to General Petraeus, laid out as a best-case scenario for Iraq. Note: Biddle is a supporter of the current strategy (From the excellent blog Abu Aardvark-- by a guy who, unlike most sources cited by Paddy Mack, actually knows about Iraq and speaks those heathen tongues):

Without getting in to his arguments or my reservations, I just wanted to lay out Biddle's best case scenario as he presented it:  if everything goes right and if the US continues to "hit the lottery" with the spread of local ceasefires and none of a dozen different spoilers happens, then a patchwork of local ceasefires between heavily armed, mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years.

Patrick: Obviously 30 years isn't 44 years. But it's close -- and far closer than what most Americans thought when we invaded Iraq.

As a supporter of the invasion (despite the admonitions of his pope) and the subsequent occupation, you owe an obligation to your readers to say, specifically. how long you think the U.S. should maintain a significant military presence in Iraq. I mean, if you're going to say people who want out just want to "Cut and run," you clearly need to define how long you think we should be there.

Or, at a minimum, is 20 years too long? Is 30 years too long?

Patrick: please let us know!

Comments

[Zach W.]

I wonder if Paddy Mac will be so kind as to respond to your question.

Methinks not.