Could we withdraw from Iraq in 120 days?

[@_@ Artman]

I'm asking this question...

Mike Gravel states that (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/gravel_10-01.html):

RAY SUAREZ: A lot of the time you've spent with the other Democratic candidates debating around the country has been arguing about what to do about Iraq. What would you do?

MIKE GRAVEL: Get out. Get out as soon as possible so that we can begin a diplomatic effort. And I could get the troops out in 120 days. Never mind this year stuff, or two years, or four years.

.....

As president, I will get us off of gasoline in five years and off of carbon in 10 years. All it takes is some serious leadership to want to do that. Now, how we get out besides that? Put them on airplanes. Like I say, get them out in 120 days. Now, the Democrats...

RAY SUAREZ: But you mean all of them? Let me interrupt you just for a second.

MIKE GRAVEL: You're right.

RAY SUAREZ: No remaining...

MIKE GRAVEL: Marine guards at the embassy would be the only people that would be there. Get them all out. And not over the horizon; I'd bring them home. None of this stuff that we have to have a major military presence in the Middle East. We don't need a major military presence there, or Europe, or Japan, or Korea.



I was pondering Gravel's 120 day Iraqi withdraw theory and haven't been able to get hard figures on how many troops we had in Vietnam in 1973, but I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Vietnamization_and_American_withdrawal .2C_1969.E2.80.931973)...

On January 15, 1973, Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" were signed on January 27, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. A cease-fire was declared across South Vietnam, but North Vietnamese forces were allowed to remain on South Vietnamese territory. U.S. POWs were released. The agreement guaranteed the territorial integrity of Vietnam and, like the Geneva Conference of 1954, called for national elections in the north and south. The Paris Peace Accords stipulated a sixty day period for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces. "This article," noted Peter Church, "proved … to be the only one of the Paris Agreements which was fully carried out."[100]

There are 140,000 troops in Iraq (http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/i/IraqWarWithdraw.htm). Vietnam - 2,594,000 soldiers actually served in-country 1964 - 1973 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_soldiers_fought_in_the_Vietnam_War) Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969) (http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm). But nothing (so far, getting bored) for troop levels the year of the withdraw.

So, anyone. Did it really take 60 days to withdraw all offensive troops out of Vietnam? At estimate 400,000?

Could we do 140,00 today in Iraq a 120 days? How many days would it take with today's military power?

Remove from your thoughts whether Mike Gravel is bat-shit crazy or not. Could his claim be supported?

[trumptman]

Wikipedia and a number of sources typically characterize the Vietnam War as either ending, withdrawing, or whatever term you prefer to use in 1969 with regard to drawing down troop levels. It was finished in 1973.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War)

This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows the troop strength level for various years.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/images/Chart1_1.gif

Article Here. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1954.cfm)

So his claim cannot be supporte and yes, he is batshit crazy.

Nick

[Mystic]

It would take over a year. It's not just the men, it's the equipment too.

[Jubelum]

and yes, he is batshit crazy.


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jubelum_ammo/batman1.jpg

[Gon]

It would take over a year. It's not just the men, it's the equipment too.As far as physical capability to move the people and the stuff goes, it definitely doesn't take a year. Courtesy of Wikipedia:

The U.S. Army was the first in the world to achieve 100% automotive mobility, and spends a sizable portion of its military budget to maintain a diverse inventory of vehicles. The U.S. Army maintains the highest vehicle-to-soldier ratio in the world.

That means they can drive every last personnel and a part of the gear out at the pace the exit routes can support as long as there's enough fuel secured on the routes. So maybe a week if they dumped the left over gear. For that gear, the absolute minimum cargo capacity available is the equivalent of the supplies that come in, because the trucks and planes bringing it in go back empty. I wonder, how much supplies do come in?

Vietnam's numbers say nothing about Iraq today. Logistics and cargo capacity have advanced incredibly since. Besides, was speed *really* the only priority back then?

[@_@ Artman]

Wikipedia and a number of sources typically characterize the Vietnam War as either ending, withdrawing, or whatever term you prefer to use in 1969 with regard to drawing down troop levels. It was finished in 1973.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War)

This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows the troop strength level for various years.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/images/Chart1_1.gif

Article Here. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1954.cfm)

So his claim cannot be supporte and yes, he is batshit crazy.

Nick

Thanks for the graph. That's what I was looking for. Significant.

From here I got some numbers (http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm):

American troop levels:

1969 475,200

1970 334,600

1971 156,800

1972 24,200

1973 50

After 1968, they started gradual troop withdraws. More than 100,000 troops per year as we can see.

But if we take into account of the advanced mobility of troops today, the amount of "1,000 Americans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm)" (maybe more) to stay and secure the new U.S. Embassy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Baghdad#New_embass y).

Yes, Trumptman, Iraq is not Vietnam. At least that was what you were stressing in your post anyway.

Operation Desert Storm had 540,000 American troops at it's end in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities). How long did it take to withdraw all of them?

Though 120 days (approx 4 months) seems outrageous 38 years ago, it may not be today. I'd give it 6 months at the longest for a gradual troop withdraw.

As far as bat-shit crazy...well about as crazy as these guys... (http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/)?

[mydo]

I don't think it would be possible to remove that much people and material from Iraq in 4 months.

[@_@ Artman]

I don't think it would be possible to remove that much people and material from Iraq in 4 months.

Again...forget Vietnam....

Operation Desert Storm had 540,000 American troops at it's end in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities). How long did it take to withdraw all of them?

If anyone can find that answer, it's settled.

[@_@ Artman]

From what I am getting from this veteran's diary (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/gulfwar/gulfindx.htm) It took him from March (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/gulfwar/M31-A07.HTM) until June (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/gulfwar/jun08-18.htm) until he left the Middle East.

All I have found. Remember that this Gulf War I withdraw in 1991 consisted of over 540,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. There are 140,000 there now.

So Gravel's right so far. It's feasible. Feasible.

Author's credentials (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/resume.htm):

Military Experience

* 1970-1972 Fort Lewis, Washington, Sandia Base, New Mexico, and TUSLOG Det 167, Turkey
* Enlisted U.S. Army Reserve, 1982
* Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait February-April, 1991
o (Army Commendation Medal)
* Operation Provide Comfort (Kurdish Relief) Turkey and northern Iraq, April-June 1991
o (Army Commendation Medal)
o (Humanitarian Service Medal)
* Operation Joint Endeavor, Bosnia, January-June, 1996
o (Army Commendation Medal)
* Partnership for Peace, Bulgaria, 1998
* Retired from Army Reserve as Master Sergeant, 2001 (Meritorious Service Medal)

[trumptman]

Again...forget Vietnam....

Operation Desert Storm had 540,000 American troops at it's end in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities). How long did it take to withdraw all of them?

If anyone can find that answer, it's settled.

Since we were there to free Kuwait, does withdrawing Iraq to Kuwait still mean the same thing?

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

I'm asking this question...

Mike Gravel states that (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/gravel_10-01.html):



I was pondering Gravel's 120 day Iraqi withdraw theory and haven't been able to get hard figures on how many troops we had in Vietnam in 1973, but I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Vietnamization_and_American_withdrawal .2C_1969.E2.80.931973)...



There are 140,000 troops in Iraq (http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/i/IraqWarWithdraw.htm). Vietnam - 2,594,000 soldiers actually served in-country 1964 - 1973 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_soldiers_fought_in_the_Vietnam_War) Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969) (http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm). But nothing (so far, getting bored) for troop levels the year of the withdraw.

So, anyone. Did it really take 60 days to withdraw all offensive troops out of Vietnam? At estimate 400,000?

Could we do 140,00 today in Iraq a 120 days? How many days would it take with today's military power?

Remove from your thoughts whether Mike Gravel is bat-shit crazy or not. Could his claim be supported?

Gravel is crazy, but that's beside the point. We still have troops in Germany, FFS! Any country we've invaded or gone to war with, we still have troops there.

The US would literally shave billions off our budget if we followed our own laws and got our troops out of these other countries.

[mydo]

Again...forget Vietnam....

Operation Desert Storm had 540,000 American troops at it's end in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities). How long did it take to withdraw all of them?

If anyone can find that answer, it's settled.

They didn't. The US was still in SA when Bush 2 went into Iraq. The bases for Iraq I were in SA and the US never fully left.

[mydo]

From what I am getting from this veteran's diary (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/gulfwar/gulfindx.htm) It took him from March (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/gulfwar/M31-A07.HTM) until June (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/gulfwar/jun08-18.htm) until he left the Middle East.

All I have found. Remember that this Gulf War I withdraw in 1991 consisted of over 540,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. There are 140,000 there now.

So Gravel's right so far. It's feasible. Feasible.

Author's credentials (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/resume.htm):

You're wrong and your analysis is false. 540,000 were not in Iraq. Most of them were in SA and Kuwait for the support role. The US never set up a base in Iraq and never fully left SA and Kuwait.

[iPoster]

You just have to look further back than Desert Storm or Vietnam.

The greatest sealift in the history of mankind began with Germany's surrender in May 1945 when the American populace cried out to "Bring the Boys (and Girls) Home" from Europe's far-flung battlefields. Within a year's time, more than 8,000,000 overseas-based American troops were safely Stateside.

Operation Magic Carpet. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200509/ai_n16064642)

At its height late in 1945, this massive worldwide effort utilized more than 700 ships, including the giant British "Queens"- Mary and Elizabeth - plus hundreds of passenger liners and 300 Liberty and Victory ships hastily converted to passenger carriers. The war won, every GI Jane and Joe uttered a common plea: to go home - RIGHT NOW! As Gen. George C. Marshall later told Naval historian Samuel E. Morison, "It was not a demobilization, it was a rout!"

While it had taken four years of strenuous effort to get the armies to Europe, the task now became one of returning them in the quickest possible manner.

That was in the days before air travel as well, everything went by ship. For those referencing Desert Storm, as a DS veteran, I often saw the statistic that 90% of the personnel came and went by air, 90% of the equipment by sea. So we could easily have the combat troops and most of the support personnel out in 120 days, while withdrawing the equipment to Kuwait to await fast ship transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Sealift_Ship) back to the US. Remember that most of the equipment over there is just Hummers and some Bradleys, most of the tanks, artillery and other heavy gear was returned when the fighting turned to urban/counter-terrorism.

[sammi jo]

The only way this war will end is when the commander in chief decides it's over. We currently have a president who will never quit Iraq while in office, and more than likely, his successor (provided the scheduled November 2008 elections happen) won't either.

Of course its logistically possible to bring the troops home in 120 days, but the chances of that happening are less than zero. The Bush crew are addicted to war; as far as they are concerned, the Iraq war, or the "war against terror" is everlasting, endless.

Has anyone ever tried to persuade a heroin addict to quit the needle while they are enjoying their habit? It is not possible; it cannot and will not happen..

[Akumulator]

Does it take longer to withdraw the forces than it takes to launch them? If there were a major threat to the world right now... would it take us over 4 months to build up our forces?

I hate the word "impossible" in this situation with Iraq. It is not IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw that many people and equipment... It may be IMPRACTICAL to do so as far as cost and logistics, but it's ridiculous to say that it's absolutely impossible.

[@_@ Artman]

Does it take longer to withdraw the forces than it takes to launch them? If there were a major threat to the world right now... would it take us over 4 months to build up our forces?

I hate the word "impossible" in this situation with Iraq. It is not IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw that many people and equipment... It may be IMPRACTICAL to do so as far as cost and logistics, but it's ridiculous to say that it's absolutely impossible.

I recall that one of Rumsfeld's first goals was to create a fast mobile force to go to any hot-spot in the world. If it still is on the table that is probably a mute point. It's probably already ready.

For the invasion of Iraq 2003 it took only a couple of months. Far quicker than what a withdraw might take primarily because of our Saudi and Middle East bases.

I'm not surprised that some posters ( Jubelum [he was the reason I researched this], SpamSandwich and mydo) stated their positions on this and Gravel with no links to support them, just their usual vacuous responses. You all can do better than that. Thanks for the responses though.

Gravel's not "crazy", he just a passionate human being who hates seeing our country crumble and young soldiers dying for no goddamn reason at all. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCkgFr7CACY)

[mydo]

@_@ Artman you are wrong and you know it. So don't give me this "you didn't post a link to prove blah blah lick my balls". The US never left the middle east after the first gulf war so your premise that they withdrew 500k troops in any amount of time is false. And you know it. So lick my balls.

[Jubelum]

Did I mention we're never leaving Iraq. Not in 120 days. Not in 1200 days. Never.

[@_@ Artman]

@_@ Artman you are wrong and you know it. So don't give me this "you didn't post a link to prove blah blah lick my balls". The US never left the middle east after the first gulf war so your premise that they withdrew 500k troops in any amount of time is false. And you know it. So lick my balls.

With that idiotic response you've made my ignore list. You are a troll.

[@_@ Artman]

Did I mention we're never leaving Iraq. Not in 120 days. Not in 1200 days. Never.

I know that Jubelum. There are 14 permanent U.S. Military bases, $250,000,000 U.S. Embassy the size of Vatican City and this greedy, ignorant, delusional administration to prove that.

Gravel's just getting attention. Though what he says could be done. It'll never happen. I'm surprised that someone so reverent to our armed forces (Blackwater even) couldn't believe that a withdraw of this nature could be accomplished. It can. Don't fool yourself.

[mydo]

With that idiotic response you've made my ignore list. You are a troll.

Just because I'm right and you're too embarrassed to admit it doesn't make me a troll.

[@_@ Artman]

Just because I'm right and you're too embarrassed to admit it doesn't make me a troll.

Prove your case on the subject. That's all. I'm content with my findings. You don't seem so. Upset even.

[Nightcrawler]

Did I mention we're never leaving Iraq. Not in 120 days. Not in 1200 days. Never.

Not voluntarily that is. Either the US gets bankrupt forcing withdrawal, or the US-army receives its waterloo in Iraq, a major defeat.

Nightcrawler

[mydo]

Prove your case on the subject. That's all. I'm content with my findings. You don't seem so. Upset even.

I already did prove it. The US never pulled all the troops out of the Middle East. We left active bases behind. This angered OBL and lead to 9/11. Remember that?

[Nightcrawler]

I already did prove it. The US never pulled all the troops out of the Middle East. We left active bases behind. This angered OBL and lead to 9/11. Remember that?

That's true, and yet Artman showed that the US managed to bring 8 million US-soldiers back home within a year after ww2, utilising ships!

Compared to that, withdrawing 140,000 US-soliders and their equipment with today's technology is easy and can be done much quicker, that is if there is the will to do it as quick as possible.

Nightcrawler

[@_@ Artman]

I already did prove it. The US never pulled all the troops out of the Middle East. We left active bases behind. This angered OBL and lead to 9/11. Remember that?

You still haven't cited anything to prove your point. Nothing. You surely don't think that after Gulf War I we withdrew our 500,000 troops and crammed them into U.S. Military bases around the Middle East? Also, what difference does it make whether these troops were in Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?...IT'S THE MIDDLE EAST...AND...THE MAJORITY CAME HOME....WITHIN 4 MONTHS.

If anything, we left 15,000 at most scattered within these bases. No more, no less. Unless you can prove me wrong, I doubt it. Your record sucks on that.

Oh and Nightcrawler, it was iPoster (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1153385&postcount=14) who cited Operation Magic carpet. Not me.

[mydo]

You still haven't cited anything to prove your point. Nothing. You surely don't think that after Gulf War I we withdrew our 500,000 troops and crammed them into U.S. Military bases around the Middle East? Also, what difference does it make whether these troops were in Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?...IT'S THE MIDDLE EAST...AND...THE MAJORITY CAME HOME....WITHIN 4 MONTHS.

If anything, we left 15,000 at most scattered within these bases. No more, no less. Unless you can prove me wrong, I doubt it. Your record sucks on that.

Oh and Nightcrawler, it was iPoster (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1153385&postcount=14) who cited Operation Magic carpet. Not me.

You haven't proven yourself right. Prove that the US could remove all people, hardware, munitions, and hazardous material and make all of their bases safe for the Iraq population in 120 days. Which we all know is not what happened the first time around. For example, US airbases stayed in place after GWI and were never removed and in fact were improved and manned until GWII.

On your mark, get set GO!

[vinea]

You haven't proven yourself right. Prove that the US could remove all people, hardware, munitions, and hazardous material and make all of their bases safe for the Iraq population in 120 days. Which we all know is not what happened the first time around. For example, US airbases stayed in place after GWI and were never removed and in fact were improved and manned until GWII.

On your mark, get set GO!

Nice goalpost shifting. We sure as hell can move all people and expensive equipment out in 120 days. That constitutes withdrawal.

[mydo]

Nice goalpost shifting. We sure as hell can move all people and expensive equipment out in 120 days. That constitutes withdrawal.

Just prove it I'll shut up.