The astounding consensus on Iraq vs. other U.S. deployments

Drezner:

As the book club on Tom Ricks' The Gamble comes to a close, Barack Obama announced his future plans for Iraq. 

What's fascinating is the effect of the surge on the political reaction to Obama's proposal to scale down the U.S. presence to 55,000 troops by August 2010.  It has received bipartisan support in the United States.  Iraqi officials have by and large endorsed it (though see here and scroll down).  Obama has even earned the always-crucial Foreign Policy blogger vote. 

Think about this for a second.  If I had told you two years ago that there would be a broad domestic and international consensus on U.S. strategy in Iraq, you would have laughed me off the Foreign Policy web site. 

Ricks argues that the surge has not led to political achievements in Iraq, and he may very well be right.  What it has accomplished, however, is changing the political optics in three crucial ways.  First, it has given Republicans cover for supporting a withdrawal, arguing that it is being done from a position of strength rather than weakness. Second, it has blunted the Democrats' zeal for immediate withdrawal.  So long as things in Iraq are going relatively well, the political pressure to DO SOMETHING NOW! has abated.  Finally, the surge has given the Iraqi government the confidence to believe that a significant U.S. drawdown will not lead them back to the abyss. 

I don't know whether the withdrawal will actually prove to be good policy -- but the fact that we've reached a political consensus that it is good policy is nothing short of astounding.  

Far be it from me to disagree that the consensus is astounding.

The 55,000 remnant is going to anger the Muslim world more than it would other peoples, and this worries me.  But for perspective here are the top 6 countries with active duty U.S. military personnel as of September 2008:

Iraq	190,400
Germany	55,140
Japan	33,286
Afghanistan	32,300
South Korea	25,062
Italy	9,601

Source: Department of Defense

All six countries are ones we've liberated or are attempting to liberate. From previous wars Vietnam is notably absent and has a mere 14 U.S. military personnel.  It would seem the Imperial U.S. Army didn't win that round.

But why do we still have more personnel assigned to Germany and Japan than Afghanistan? Isn't it where the last attack came from and where we continue to be at war?  Put in this perspective, Obama's announcement that he's sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan seems an obvious move.

Now certainly Germany and Japan are useful bases of operation.  For instance wounded soldiers who require advanced treatment get flown from Iraq to Germany, and we need the naval and air bases in Asia to defend South Korea and Taiwan.  But do we really need 55,140 in the Fatherland now that the Cold War is over?

BTW the DoD only lists 32 personnel in Pakistan. I'm sure the classified number is much higher.