Obama is taking a lot of recent criticisms for "telegraphing" proposed troop numbers but I believe IS is prepared for whatever scenarios & number of troop proposals depend a lot on the type of units. A deployment made up mostly of special forces, tactical forces, infantry, striker -- a small military operation can be more offensive than Engineers, Supply, basically everybody. Iraq was very crowded with military personnel before the "surge" -- in addition to extending active duty units from 12-months to 15-months they deployed 5 infantry, striker, tank unit brigades.

Plus Obama has been very successful in his telegraphed war. Air strikes hit key IS operating facilities and sent them retreating from Kurdish territories which has expanded thanks to the airstrikes. If anything IS propaganda makes sense regarding the US, they really don't want airstrikes. IS is apparently baiting the US to send ground troops.

(Note in agreement with right wing criticisms, in agreement right wing criticisms are unfair or their suggestions on alternatives are far more troubling & show an incredible ignorance to the issues at-play. Obsessing over the Islamic distinction (Real Time is practically unwatchable given they constantly talk about this and Howard Dean summed it up best in one sentence) They should call them Wahabbi terrorists, Wahabbi militias, or right-wing militias. All of those are more accurate & more specific.

One thing I will say, Obama is very cautious. He may continue a lot of the foreign policy goals "dark forces" in government but given the disastrous political situation that exists -- US has already aided Sunni Syrian opposition forces & Kurdish forces which are rivals and have different interests. Whatever the long-term motive regarding Assad who also happens to be a credible "regime change" candidate which the US often ignores far more deserving candidates in whoever it is they push against. Swift action are unintended results waiting to happen, unless continued instability is the goal.

I'd stay out of myself but Kurdish forces & their unofficial government of Kurdistan are the only "good guys" in all this but a political solution that works for everyone solves this crisis.

Already there:
The USAF aircraft, pilots and maintenance personnel on the ground in Northern Iraq and either AF Security Police or US Army troops guarding them.
The troops that we have training the Iraqi military
US Special Ops aren't being mentioned, but they are almost certainly operating in Iraq and perhaps Syria.
Troops to guard the US Embassy and the Baghdad Airport, far more then is usually assigned to embassy security.

On the way:
The 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry, Ft. Carson, CO, which is a tank heavy brigade of approximately 4000 men and women and probably divisional support elements such as artillery and engineers as well as elements from the 43rd Sustainment Brigade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Current_structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Sustainment_Brigade

Best guess as to the number of US military personnel in Iraq once the 3rd Armored BCT and it's elements get there is between 6500-7500 men and women.

will be outnumbered by contractors & migrant workers.

A U.S. Fortress Rises in Baghdad:
Asian Workers Trafficked to Build World's Largest Embassy

John Owens didn’t realize how different his job would be from his last 27 years in construction until he signed on with First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting in November 2005. Working as general foreman, he would be overseeing an army of workers building the largest, most expensive and heavily fortified US embassy in the world. Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

Then seven months into the job, he quit.

Not one of the five different US embassy sites he had worked on around the world compared to the mess he describes. Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. The Kuwait-based company building the $592-million Baghdad project is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says “I’ve never seen a project more fucked up. Every US labor law was broken.”

In the resignation letter last June, Owens told First Kuwaiti and US State Department officials that his managers beat their construction workers, demonstrated little regard for worker safety, and routinely breached security.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14173

we have had a BCT in Kuwait for a very long time.

They certainly can be used in Iraq - for that matter, they could keep the unit they are replacing in theater, giving them two BCTs.

I knew we still had a presence there, I didn't realize it was so large.

place in Arif Jan. It is the headquarters or was the headquarters of CENTCOM. Military was tasked with in finding business contracts for many key supplies which is where a lot of Majors to Colonels got their hands dirty in bribing, extortion, & kickbacks. One man urged his wife move to Kuwait where she can make more money than as a teacher stateside. Soon after, companies delivered suitcases full of cash to her apartment.

This is the building I reference in the comments section (I overestimated how many stories it was)

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.10198.1273606365!/image/507792239.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/507792239.jpg

War HQ in Kuwait to move from Camp Doha to Arifjan (from 2003)

http://www.stripes.com/news/war-hq-in-kuwait-to-move-from-camp-doha-to-arifjan-1.10194

It also appears transportation units are actively deployed there though it seems bulk of their tasks were local missions (a lot of weapons moved to Kuwaiti Naval Base -- I've been on one of those) 594th returned back late November. More than likely they have somebody else in that incredible large motor pool.

Arif Jan is a very different place from other US bases in Kuwait-Iraq

Not tactical small unit stuff. Not building yet another super-base.

My take on Carter's appointment is that we are about to get directly into troops on the ground full contact battle with ISIL using regular US Army units. Or at least they are planning to have that operational on very short notice.

I am aware of the Pentagon-East location in Kuwait. I am sure that much of what gets discussed there amounts to foreign policy that ought to be discussed with Congress openly. I am certain there are some who anticipate direct military intervention in the Ukraine and it is being planned in an office just down the hall from this meeting (above).

At this point, I think that as long as ISIL is losing, which it is right now, then no large scale deployment of US troops will occur. If the Iraqi Army or the Kurds start to lose badly or break and run again in the case of the Iraqi Army, then the chances of a large scale deployment in Iraq go way up. The same if Jordan or Saudi Arabia are in serious danger of being overrun by ISIL troops (which is a slim chance).

As for the Ukraine, it would be irresponsible NOT to have contingency plans, although I hope the situation resolves itself peacefully and without the need for the US and our Nato allies to intervene militarily.


Some U.S. contingency plans from the 1920's & 1930's, which included plans for invading Canada and Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans#Rainbow_plans

There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who imagine the US could and should begin a ground war against Putin's Russia, much the same as those who anticipate a sucessful conventional war with Iran. They are the same group within Pentagon and State Depts who facilitated the Iraq and Afghan wars based on inflated assumptions of success in both arenas and in total disregard of prior intelligence to the contrary.

While I have little doubt the US & Nato military can beat the Russians, I have very serious concerns about what Putin might do if Russia lost. I am not sure that he wouldn't resort to limited use of tactical nukes, which would very likely lead to an escalation and exchange of nuclear weapons outside of the battlefield.

how important he is. Also, it would have saved considerable taxpayer money and wouldn't have been a complicated security risk. Holy flaming ego. I wasn't aware that defense secretaries could summon ambassadors away from their countries to brief him personally. Curious as to how long the administration will let him act like this.