Rebirth of England.

Chapter 659: Withdrawal Plan
On February 2, Obama announced America's new Middle East strategy, claiming that the U.S. combat forces would complete their withdrawal from Iraq within 25 months.

According to the timetable he announced, the US military will withdraw its combat troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010, and the remaining tens of thousands of troops will be withdrawn by the end of 8 as residual troops.

After this, the United States will use diplomacy and other non-military means to exert influence on the Middle East.

At this time, the total number of US troops stationed in Iraq was approximately 14.2, of which about 10 were combat troops.

According to a report 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 remain in Iraq until at least the end of this year, and are expected to withdraw in the last few months of the withdrawal deadline.

This 18-month timetable for the withdrawal of combat troops is about three months slower than the withdrawal timetable Obama promised when he ran for president, but significantly faster than the timetable considered by the previous U.S. administration. According to the agreement signed between Bush Jr. and the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops must withdraw from Iraq by December 3, 2011.

This also means that after September 2010, approximately 9 to 3.5 US military officers and soldiers will continue to stay in Iraq as residual forces after the combat forces have completely withdrawn, and will be responsible for training Iraqi security forces, protecting reconstruction activities and limited counter-terrorism tasks.

It is obvious that from the moment the US military begins to withdraw from Iraq, the number of military contractors they need will begin to increase, which also means that Protector Military Services, one of the major 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 expelled from Iraq, but also condemned in public opinion.

For this reason, after Blackwater was forced to withdraw from Iraq, a considerable portion of the vacancies left behind were taken over by the Protector Military Services Company, which had been well prepared, and the rest was divided up by other military contractors.

After the withdrawal of US troops, there will undoubtedly be a power vacuum in Iraq - the current Iraqi government is simply incapable of controlling the situation.

This will inevitably lead to a fierce scramble 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 the Protector Military Services Company is very necessary.

"The challenges we face are: refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; de-burdening our military; and rebuilding our economy. America can no longer afford to divorce Iraq from these urgent issues."

This is what O'Guanhai said in a public speech. Barron understood that this also meant that the US military would not easily withdraw back to the mainland or their military bases - to be precise, the military and military-industrial enterprises did not want to see such a result.

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

In fact, this will be a "strategic shift" for America...

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

As we all know, most of the military-industrial enterprises in Europe and the United States, including those in Europe and the United States, are private enterprises. Of course, even at a time like now, 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 military research and development "extremely dynamic", after all, private enterprises are flexible and efficient.

But in fact, there is a prerequisite, that is, military orders must 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-industrial system is also a major factor.

It was as if under the influence of "public opinion", the United States had to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, but the military immediately found its next target, which was Afghanistan.

Of course, "hostile forces" cannot be eliminated quickly, and must be dealt with step by step.

If it is the military-industrial enterprises in the United States, they are actually very well-off. After all, even if the military demand has slumped, at least with the status of the United States, most countries still need to choose them for military purchases and pay "protection fees" - in fact, the military purchases of any country do not only need to consider the economic cost-effectiveness, but political considerations are the most important. But even for those military-industrial 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, coupled with the limited military demand, the cost of research and development, plus the necessary profits, plus the cost of production, is extremely exaggerated - after all, they want to make money.

This is why, after weighing the information of their "competitors" and learning that the opponent's fifth-generation aircraft is unlikely, they couldn't wait to shut down the production line of the F22 fighter.

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

On the one hand, due to the suppression of the hegemonic United States, many of the European "powers" including Britain, France and Germany have been "persuaded" to the stage of "buying is worse than making" for their advanced weapons.

On the other hand, without any immediate crisis, Europe has reached the point where it has to pay "protection fees" and then be protected by the US military stationed there.

The end result is that the entire European military industry has visibly declined.

This can be clearly seen from the future war in Ukraine that Europe is "aging", and 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, although Barron will try his best to recommend maintaining the military industrial capabilities of Britain, he will not easily invest funds here.

After all, with the current comprehensive strength of the United Kingdom, it is no longer the Great Britain it once was, and it is really not something he can improve much...

Even for the Kolo Corps and the Protector Military Services Company, it would be more practical to get some "damaged" equipment and ammunition from the British and American forces.

……

"Even last year, our membership was still growing..."

Costco’s CEO proudly said this when he accompanied Barron to visit their flagship store in New York:
"In fact, we don't 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 that of 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 a Costco store only has one floor, but its products are often stacked up to 1 meters "in the air" and are sold in super-large packages - the feeling of coming to Costco is also very unique. You won'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 from gross profit of goods - its gross profit has always been maintained at around 11%, but rely on membership renewals. Therefore, everything Costco thinks about is how to get members to renew their memberships.

For this reason, some products in Costco are losing money, such as the classic Costco Rotisserie Chicken, which costs $4.99 each. These rotisserie chickens are very typical traffic products, always placed in the innermost oven. Consumers must walk to the deepest part of the store. You can imagine how much they can put in their shopping carts along the way...

Costco has gone to great lengths to keep the price of its rotisserie chicken at $4.99: Even during the bird flu period, when chicken prices rose, Costco was willing to sacrifice $3000 million to $4000 million in profits to maintain its price.

(End of this chapter)