Leave 3,000 in Iraq?

If Iraq were a Western movie, this would be the part where only a few guys are left behind to protect the fort while everyone else goes off to do something else. The audience knows exactly what will happen next.

Why does the administration want to leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq after everyone else pulls out later this year? Is that the number requested by Iraqis? Is that a number based on some strategic calculation of what will be needed to help Iraq stabilize itself under its own government?

Apparently not. Army Chief of Staff Gen Ray Odierno says he doesn’t know how many soldiers ought to remain, but he doesn’t think it should be too big of a presence, which would send a confusing signal to the Iraqis. “They really have to be self-reliant now,” he said. (Read the story here.)

But former Bush administration deputy national security adviser, Meghan O’Sullivan, argued in this Washington Post op-ed that reducing the force to as little as 3,000 would threaten to undo the work of the past eight years. Instead, the U.S. needs to ensure it has a strong ally in Iraq, and that Iraqi oil helps to ease the world’s demands at a critical time.

“Iraq no longer needs the enormous volumes of U.S. financial, political and military assistance of the previous eight years. But, as a fragile state whose institutions are still vulnerable, Iraq could benefit greatly from a relatively small, continued investment of resources and time,” she wrote. (Read it here.)

Also, in the Wall Street Journal, Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution argues that leaving no troops at all would be better than leaving 3,000. (Read it here.)

Americans have spilt a lot of blood in Iraq. You can argue all you want about whether invading was a good idea (in retrospect, I wouldn’t have done it), but the nation now cannot afford to let Iraq fail.