No one in the Bush administration has ever said that the US troops could be quickly withdrawn. There are still US troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, 9 and 5 years after they were first deployed there. The United States is committed to a free and stable Iraq because of the benefits that will create for the region and world in the Middle East.
Technically, one could cut and run now, but within 10 years, troops would most likely have to return to deal with a new threat to the planets energy supply. The best way to avoid that situation is to insure that Iraq develops into a democratic, stable and prosperous country.
In order to achieve this goal, the #1 factor will not be foreign troops as Kerry proposes, or even more US troops as some propose, but the building and training of an Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force. The vast majority of people in Iraq want a better, more stable and secure life and detest the terrorism that continues to happen in the country.
The problem is that nation building is difficult and building a brand new military and security force takes TIME! It will be at least two years before you have a trained Iraqi military and police force of the size and strength needed to combat an on going insurgency.
Once the Iraqi military and police force are of a size and strength strong enough to combat the insurgency on their own, the United States will be able to start to withdraw their troops. Of course, I do not have a crystal ball, but if the efforts the Bush adminstration are continued in a second Bush administration, I think you'll start to see reductions in US forces sometime after July 2006.
Iraq by July of 2006 will have its own elected government, a first I might add in the Arab world. The first elections are planned for January 2005.
As long as there are no major problems, reductions in US forces will continue through 2007. By 2008, the United States and other coalition members will have the option of withdrawing every single person, or leaving behind a token force of no more than 20,000. More likely, there will continue to be a signifcant presence of US forces in Kuwait for some time to come.
Once again, this is all conditional on the ability of the Iraqi Military and Police force to develop in size, strength and capability to combat the insurgence on their own. Small units have already demonstrated a capability to do this. They are Iraqi's, know the language and the land, things that are indeed force multipliers regardless of less experience in other area's.
Continuing to send Billions of dollars to Iraq to help the development process is vital as well. This is a resource that the insurgence have 0 means to combat. In addition, Iraqi's are becoming increasingly angery at the insurgency who are disrupting their lives. People around the world tend to grow ever more angry at small protest groups that shit on and disrupt their lives and their property and in Iraq this is no different with the insurgence.
John Kerry has not really talked about continuing to fund the development process or the importance of training the Iraqi military force and police force. Instead, he claims that he will get large numbers of international troops into Iraq, yet does not say how he will do this or where these troops will actually come from.
The fact is, its unlikely what Bush or Kerry do in the next four years that any significant numbers of foreign troops would be deployed. Here is why:
Russia: The country is to poor and has to many of its own problems in border regions and Chechnya to send any troops, even if they were offered some magical decision making role. In addition, Russia's military is a tiny fraction of the Soviet military of 15 years ago. In addition to this, the Russians would be hard pressed to support any significant troop present that far from home. Bottom line, if John Kerry put the Russians in charge, they still would not send anything.
China: China has never deployed any significant troops to any mission outside of its territory or region in its history. China still views itself as a competitor of the west as well. It also would be hard pressed to send any significant numbers of troops thousands of miles from home.
Germany: this country has supported the operation in Afghanistan with a few thousand soldiers, but is very reliant on other countries for movement and logistical support for the operation. While its technically possible, there is such a strong political aversion to sending troops anywhere outside the country which makes the chance of sending troops into a mission in Iraq an impossibility regardless of what every magic wand Mr. Kerry claims he has in his back pocket.
France: here you have a country that can actually send and support thousands of troops, thousands of miles from their homeland independent of any other country. But a country that is unwilling to even send trainers to help Iraqi police in Iraq, is unlikely to suddenlly open up and send thousands of troops to Iraq. It should be noted that their committment to what they consider a justified operation in Afghanistan is only 550 troops.
There are currently 14 NATO countries on the ground in Iraq. Spain has left and will definitely not come back regardless of what Kerry does due to the appeasment course of policy they have taken in response to an Al Quada attack on their territory.
Japan has already sent troops, a first for them since World War II to have troops operating outside of Japan. South Korea and Australia are already involved.
The NATO countries already there believe in the cause and are committing what resources they feel they can. Kerry will not be able to get more out of them. Turkey has a large military but cannot play a role because they are a bordering country and their involvement could create unwanted tensions.
This fact with Turkey also goes for the other neighbors of Iraq; Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.
The fact is there are only a small number of countries that actually have the capability and potential desire to send troops in significant numbers, 10,000 to 20,000 each.
These countries are India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Algeria. I have strong doubts that Algeria, Egypt or Pakistan will send any troops. Algeria has not done this before, Egypt has to many domestic political concerns to consider, Pakistan also has domestic political concerns as well as being heavily engaged in a war against Al Quada and securing its border with Afghanistan in addition to keeping a large enough troop presence to deter India's 1.3 million military.
If Bush or Kerry could sweeten the deal, I do think India is a strong possibility. But even if Kerry or Bush does get 20,000 troops from India, that is a small number compared to what Kerry magically believes he can get, and the Indian troops would be somewhat dependent on the coalition for transport to the region and other logistical support.
What people seem to forget in all of this, is that most countries do not have the power projection capabilities of the United States, United Kingdom, and France, to send military forces thousands of miles from their home. All three countries have the capability to send their entire armed forces anywhere in the world independent of support from anyone.
Kerry claims he can get large numbers of foreign troops, but I would argue based on the facts that that is highly unlikely and simply impossible in most cases. Kerry actually probably realizes this, but sees the value in promising this without giving specifics in increasing his chances of getting elected President. What Kerry is suggesting in his promises of more foreign troops is simply not possible. But since most people don't understand that, it is an effective tool he can use in getting himself elected.
Ultimately what will bring success in Iraq is not the introduction of large numbers of foreign troops(that are in fact not available) but the building of the Iraqi Army and Police force to levels where they can handle the insurgency on their own. That is the only plan, that will allow the US military to withdraw from Iraq sooner rather than later.