Chapter 659: Withdrawal Plan

On February 25, Obama announced the new US strategy for the Middle East. He claimed that the US combat forces will complete the withdrawal from Iraq within 18 months.

According to the timetable he announced, the US military will withdraw combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2010, and the remaining tens of thousands of troops will withdraw by the end of 2011 as the remaining troops.

After that, the United States will exert influence on the Middle East through non-military means such as diplomacy.

At this time, the total number of US troops stationed in Iraq is about 142,000, of which about 100,000 are combat troops.

According to relevant reports by the Associated Press, in order to ensure the smooth completion of Iraq's national elections, the main force of the US combat forces will be stationed in Iraq at least until the end of this year, and it is expected to be withdrawn in the last few months of the withdrawal deadline.

This 18-month withdrawal timetable for combat forces is about 3 months slower than the withdrawal timetable promised by Obama when he ran for president, but it is much faster than the timetable considered by the previous US government - according to the agreement signed by Bush Jr. and the Iraqi government, as of December 31, 2011, all US troops must withdraw from Iraq.

This also means that after September 2010, about 35,000 to 50,000 US military officers and soldiers will continue to stay in Iraq as a garrison force after the combat troops have completely withdrawn, and will undertake the training of Iraqi security forces, protection of reconstruction activities and limited anti-terrorism tasks.

Obviously, from the beginning of the withdrawal of the US military from Iraq, the number of military contractors they need will begin to increase, which also means that Protector Military Services, one of the main military contractors, will receive more orders.

It is worth mentioning that because of Blackwater's many "feats" in Iraq, especially after these actions were announced by the media, Blackwater was not only driven away by the Iraqi side, but also condemned in public opinion.

It is also for this reason that after Blackwater had to withdraw from Iraq, a considerable part of the vacancies they left behind were obtained by the well-prepared Protector Military Services, and the rest of the shares were divided up by other military contractors.

After the withdrawal of the US military, there will undoubtedly be a power vacuum in Iraq - the current Iraqi government has no ability to control the situation at all.

This will inevitably lead to a fierce competition for territory among various forces in Iraq. Even if it is to safeguard the interests of British and American companies, the existence of military contractors such as Protector Military Services is very necessary.

"We face the following challenges: the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become the focus again; the army needs to reduce its burden; and the economy needs to be rebuilt. America can no longer afford the losses caused by separating Iraq from these urgent issues."

This is what Ao Guanhai said in a public speech. Barron understands that this also means that the US military will not easily shrink back to their homeland or their military bases - to be precise, it is the military and military-industrial enterprises that do not want to see such a result.

Next, the US military will have more actions in Afghanistan.

In fact, this will be a "strategic shift" for the United States...

Withdraw troops from Iraq, increase troops in Afghanistan, and shift the focus of "anti-terrorism" from Iraq to Afghanistan...

As we all know, most of their military-industrial enterprises, including those in Europe and the United States, are private enterprises - of course, even at this time, America is still the so-called "beacon" of mankind, and there are still many people around the world who sing praises for this way of operation.

It is believed that this makes the military research and development "extremely dynamic", after all, private enterprises are flexible and efficient.

But in fact, there is a premise, that is, military orders need to be attractive enough - the United States has been founded for more than 200 years, and there have been only a dozen years without war. Behind this, the promotion of the military system is also a major factor.

Just like under the "public opinion", the United States had to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, but the military immediately found the next target, which is Afghanistan.

Of course, "hostile forces" cannot be eliminated quickly, and must be taken steadily.

If it is an American military enterprise, it is actually very nourishing. After all, even if the military demand is sluggish, at least with the status of the United States, most countries still need to choose them for military purchases to pay "protection fees" - in fact, any country's military purchases do not only need to consider the economic cost-effectiveness, but political considerations are the most important.

But even for those military enterprises in the United States, for some "high-tech" equipment that will not be considered for export, such as the B52 bomber and the F35 fighter, the cost of research and development, the necessary profit, and the manufacturing cost are extremely exaggerated under the limited demand of the military - after all, they want to make money.

This is why after weighing the information of the "competitors" and knowing that the possibility of the opponent's fifth-generation aircraft is not great, they can't wait to close the production line of the F22 fighter.

This is still the situation of the "global hegemon" America. As for European countries, they are naturally even worse.

On the one hand, with the suppression of the hegemony of the United States, many advanced weapons of European "powers" including Britain, France and Germany have been "persuaded" to the stage of "it is better to buy than to make".

On the other hand, without the immediate crisis, Europe has reached the point of paying "protection fees" and then being protected by the US military.

The final result is that the entire European military industry has been visibly weakened.

This can be clearly seen from the future war in Ukraine that Europe is "old". The main force of its ammunition support is actually South Korea. Could you believe this ten years ago?

It is no exaggeration to say that the ammunition production of North and South Korea is stronger than that of the whole of Europe!

One is the main force supporting Ukrainian ammunition, and the other is the main force supporting Russian ammunition - on the gold content of Southeast Asian monster houses.

This is also the reason why Barron will try his best to suggest maintaining the capabilities of Britain's local military industry, but will not easily invest funds here.

After all, with Britain's current comprehensive strength, it is no longer the Great Britain of the past, and it is really not something he can improve much...

Even the Kolo Corps and the Protector Military Service Company, it is not as practical as getting some "damaged" equipment and ammunition from the British and American coalition forces.

…

“Even last year, our membership was still growing…”

When accompanying Barron to visit their flagship store in New York, the CEO of Costco proudly said:

“In fact, we do not rely on the gross profit margin of goods to make money. Our greater profits come from membership renewals!”

Indeed, Costco’s business model is different from other retailers, including Walmart and Macy’s.

Like Argos, Costco also has its own brand Kirkland, and the purpose of this brand is “not to reduce quality due to low prices”.

Usually, Costco’s stores only have one floor, but its products can often be stacked up to 3 meters “high”, and they also sell super-large packages - the feeling of coming to Costco is also very unique. You can’t see marble floors, beautiful windows, and music solos in the hall. These costs are saved and subsidized to consumers to help them get super low prices.

As Costco's CEO said, their unique business logic is that they do not make money by relying on product gross profit - its gross profit has been maintained at around 11%, but by relying on membership renewal, so Costco thinks about how to keep members renewing.

For this reason, some products in Costco are losing money, such as the classic Costco Rotisserie Chicken, which costs $4.99 each - these rotisseries are very typical traffic products, always placed in the innermost oven, and consumers must go to the deepest part of the store. You can imagine how much he can put in the shopping cart along the way...

In order to keep the rotisserie chicken at 4, Costco has taken great pains: even during the avian flu period, when chicken prices rose, Costco would rather sacrifice $30 million to $40 million in profits to maintain its price.