Strykers Leaving Iraq

Here’s a shot of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division column headed out of Iraq:

Stryker armored vehicles with 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, line up at a fueling site here Aug. 17 to receive fuel before heading out on a two-day mission to exit Iraq through Kuwait, the same way American troops entered the country nearly seven years ago.

Stryker armored vehicles with 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, line up at a fueling site here Aug. 17 to receive fuel before heading out on a two-day mission to exit Iraq through Kuwait, the same way American troops entered the country nearly seven years ago. Photo by Pfc. Kimberly Hackbarth

It’s actually OVER seven years ago. But who’s counting?

Yes, with 50,000 US troops still in Iraq acting as advisers and trainers, there’s still a ways to go. And it will be years before we can really start to determine if its been worth it all, though I think indications are pretty good at this point. Pulling the last combat brigade out is an important milestone.

I wonder what the plan is for pre-positioned equipment? I’d leave all the vehicles and equipment for at least a couple of heavy brigades, a Stryker brigade, and a bunch of MRAPs in a a high state of readiness, to be honest. If things really degenerate and light infantry is needed, they can just be flown in or use the MRAPS from Kuwait. But getting heavy combat formations over there takes time. Remember that the 3rd Infantry Division brigade that spearheaded the 2003 invasion was not using their own equipment but pre-positioned tanks, vehicles, and equipment that had been left staged in Kuwait.

I had been predicting that we’d see at least one of the big bases our forces have built up within Iraq left occupied by US troops and a division’s worth of heavy stuff. I still think that makes sense. But I guess it’s not to be.

Comments

  1. It’s not surprising that the PR BS-artists in the SBCTs talk about them leaving Iraq, as though ALL US troops were coming home — nor that they claim the war began much later than it actually did. Why? Because to them, the rest of the Army are nobodies.

    The SBCTs didn’t show up until 7 months after Tracked forces got rid of the Iraqi Army. Then they spent their first 2 years performing Humvee-style “peacekeeping” missions (read “peacekeeping” as; patrolling in circles inside Kurdistan, the most secure and US-friendly province in Iraq).

    From 2005 onward, they were pitted against foes who *actually resisted*, and guess what? They got creamed.
    Gradually, between 2003 and 2009, the SBCTs gave the US military 400 of it’s 4000 KIAs in the Iraq War up until then, which is;
    – 10% of all US KIAs in Iraq
    – 20% of all US combatant unit KIAs in Iraq
    – 40% of all US AFV formation KIAs in Iraq

    …all from a unit that only operated 2% of all US AFVs in Iraq.

    And now, they’ve cut and run, leaving 50000 other US troops behind — in short, they came late (once the rest of the Army made it safe), did little, enabled the enemy to kill lots more US troops than any other, and then left early.

    …not that we’re the first to try using Motorized Rifle Regiments against a guerrilla armor;
    http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/05/death-of-gm-100.html

    (read “armored personnel carriers” here as “BTRs” — 8×8 Stryker-equivalents);
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRQcqbu9AIsJ:journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamHenryMee/2+Afghanistan,+1314+armored+personnel+carriers&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

      1. It’s re-enacting the tactics, strategy, and equivalent equipment of the French Groupement 100, and the Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiments in A-Stan (collectively, the root of their destruction), that’s irrational.

        Personal Attacks, BTW, are not substitutes for evidence — but then again, you can’t smear my position with an evidence-based argument, now can you?

        1. And now, they’ve cut and run, leaving 50000 other US troops behind

          If that’s really your position, I don’t need to make an argument. It’s already been made for me.

          I think it’s abundantly clear that you’re on a personal crusade against the Stryker, and that’s cool. Go for it. But that doesn’t mean that some of your points and conclusions aren’t a bit much.

          And if you interpret what I wrote as a “Personal Attack,” I’d recommend applying generous amounts of skin thickener.

  2. What’s the deal with the lights on the lead Stryker? Those are outrageous – why so much light?

Comments are closed