Kurdistan-
Nobody here has sung the praises like me but I've also noted that it's critical that Kurdistan do it's share and that we've the leverage to enforce that effort. To date, it's not been shown. Holding high the example of Kurdistan as an "unalloyed" success requires continuing affirmation. Their behavior on this issue is a major step backwards.
Keeping 37,000 troops as a tripwire is not philosophically the same as keeping 75,000 as a permanent threat of regime-change. Can we put those 75,000 regime changers in Herat? That way they can threaten the taliban while they threaten Iran.
Is it a temporary threat? Didn't you mention time-limits somewhere? Will our guys threaten regime change for as long as we've held a trip-wire for S. Korea's defense? It must be credible. It isn't as postured.
"how many US ground troops are in germany? given that the middle east will remain highly problematic for the foreseeable future (and is by far the most likely area where the US Army will have a role to play), having a significant level of US troops in the region serves as a visible deterrent- and prepared staging ground in case things go south."
Accompanied tours? Ski Tabriz with the family? Don't we have considerable force infrastructure in Kuwait protecting access to the Saudis? I like an "over the horizon" power-projection capability anyway. This is hardly the scenario which our forces faced in western Europe and that serves as a particularly weak illustration.
Astralis, reach an accomodation with the Kurds such that they'll ruthlessly pursue the PKK off their soil and you can park 200,000 G.I.s there. But get that agreement first. After that, I'm all over maintaining a massive ogre presence there. I mean it. But not down south where our continued utility ends once we've walled-off every community that's possible.