Iraq I: The War’s Dirty Little Secret
Lost in the cacophony over when the drawdown of U.S. troops should or will commence is that the U.S. has no intention of altogether leaving Iraq.
It always has been a long-term objective of the Bush administration to have permanent bases in Iraq because of their strategic location between Syria and Jordan to the west, Turkey to the north, Saudia Arabia to the south, and the whole megillah — Iran — to the east.
Thomas Ricks reports in the WaPo that the U.S., in fact, plans a permanent post-occupation force of about 50,000 troops.
It’s just a tad impolitic to acknowledge that reality as the last-gasp surge strategy founders and Iraq merrily continues on its downward spiral. To do so, as Matthew Yglesias notes, would be the equivalent of the occupiers rubbing the obvious in the occupieds faces:
“It’s preceisely the widespread – and, crucially, accurate – Iraqi perception that U.S. forces aren’t just there to help them out and aren’t planning on leaving that drives the appeal of both Sunni and Shiite nationalist groups that are opposing us.”
Ricks’ sources, arguably the best of any reporter covering the Pentagon, tell him that the permanent force would include four major components.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “Iraq I: The War’s Dirty Little Secret”
Please define “permanent” for me, would you? Is it Permanent like PSAB was in Saudi, which we “permanently” occupied for a bit over a decade? Is there a treaty with the Iraqi government that leases bases to us indefinitely?
The only foreign base we have that is anywhere close to “permanent” is GITMO. Everywhere else we are there at the discretion of the host nation. So while I would agree that the US will have basing rights in Iraq for perhaps a decade, calling them “permanent” is a bit of hyperbole, don’t you think?
And I’m frankly surprised at all the criticism on the left from this new plan that’s been bandied about. It is basically a implementation of what the Democrats proposed in their supplemental that was vetoed.
“Permanent” is indeed at the discretion of the host nation when it comes to Rhine Mein in Germany, Clark in the Philippines and so on and so forth. But if you think the U.S. is going to bail from Iraq anytime soon, let alone after a decade, think again. And if you think it will take lying down a decree by an Iraqi government that it want the U.S. out lock, stock and barrel, again think again.
I hear that assertion quite frequently, but where is the evidence for it? You might be right if Bush and his cronies were in office “permanently” but of course they are not. US officials have already said that the US will leave if the Iraqi government asks it to. Until I see a 99-year lease with exclusive rights to unilaterally renew it, I certainly won’t be calling the US presence “permanent.”
And you should ask anyone who’s been to Balad what it’s really like there. How, after all these years almost everything is still tents, plywood, trailers and HESCO barriers. You’d think if this was intended to be a “permanent” base there would be, you know, some kind of construction there to build permanent structures. So perhaps you could explain why the evil Bush regime is not sending Halliburton a juicy cost-plus contract to build up these bases? Why
Add to that the complete silence on Afghanistan. Are we not, by your definition, putting “permanent” bases there as well? We actually have a longer-term commitment to Afghanistan than we currently do to Iraq, but I no one on the left is decrying our supposed plans for a “permanent” presence there. Why do you think that is?
And again, go back and read the text of the supplemental the Democrats proposed – it, in essence, called for at least a “permanent” presence to fight AQ and is pretty much the same concept as the post-occupation force the WAPO article talks about. Why was the Democratic measure acceptable and this one is unacceptable?
You and I are having this discussion in a virtual vacuum because no one in the White House or Pentagon is willing to go on the record about the end game in Iraq. This makes Ricks’ story all the more compelling.
Do not think that I am decrying permanent bases in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan. I did not state my view on that subject in my post. What I did was to try to shed some light on this dirty little secret.
Left ≠Democrats
You’re right, however, that lost in rhetoric over the “emergency” spending bill, was the fact that the Democrats support a permanent presence in Iraq.
Both the Dems and Republicans will say it’s to fight Al Qaeda, but we know the real reason is oil.
Entropy,
What’s your opinion of our current Status of Forces agreement in Iraq.
Oh, wait, we don’t have one. Can you name a single instance where US troops, even a dozen, are stationed in a country without a Status of Forces agreement?
Yes, I think this view is correct. The historical evidence certainly favors Entropy’s view over Shaun’s. Except in the historically unusual circumstance of Cuba, since World War II, the U.S. has left military bases when told to do so by the host government. When France withdrew from military participation in NATO, the U.S. abandoned large military bases in France and its colonies on a very short timetable. And when the Philippines refused to renew the lease on Clark and Subic, the U.S. left.
Shaun’s position is an argument from assumption — they know that the U.S. seeks permanent bases in Iraq regardless of the wishes of the Iraqi government because, well, they just know. Its not a very persuasive case except to those that already share its negative view of the United States.
I neglected to mention another example: When the U.S. was asked to leave its huge Saudi bases by the Saudi government, it did so.
Jason,
And left a huge carrier battlegroup right off the coast.
My guess is that if Clinton is the next president, the U.S. will leave some type of force in Iraq. If Obama is the next President, he will say that he wants to leave a force, then pick a fight with the Iraqi government and get them to ask to the U.S. to leave. If Edwards is the President, he will either have to abandon Iraq or look like an Idiot.
The “end game?” How is anyone to know what the “end game” will look like? How can anyone predict with certainty what will be the best “end game,” when it will occur, what forces may, or may not, be required to implement it, and what forces may, or may not, be required to defend US interests in Iraq or any other conflict? Clinton, for example, did not announce an “end game” for Bosia or Kosovo – a certain date that America would disengage no matter what the situation on the ground. We eventually did when the time and situation called for it but it’s impossible to determine that years in advance, which is what you seem to be demanding of the Bush Administration.
And President Bush himself has said that if the Iraqi’s want us out, we will leave. What more do you want than that?
Davebo,
You’re right. And you know what? No SOFA is an argument against our having a “permanent” presence! We negotiate SOFA agreements when we know we will be there long-term.
And perhaps you should also examine the history of SOFA’s. When did we get a SOFA with the ROK (Korea)? 1966. When did we get one with Japan? 1960. In other words, we negotiated them once it became clear we would be there for a long time and once both countries had somewhat stable governments that have total administrative control of their nation’s territory – something that doesn’t yet exist in Iraq. If the Iraqi government so desired, they could demand a SOFA agreement tomorrow – or at least when they returned from their “vacation.”
Chris,
We’ve had a carrier battlegroup in the Persian Gulf almost continually since 1990, so what’s your point? In any event, they operate in international waters and have every right to do so.
Entropy:
I find it abso-forking-lutely quaint that you take President Bush at his word. You go guy!
Well Shaun, you were the one that said “no one in the White House or Pentagon is willing to go on the record” right? Bush is “on the record” regarding permanent bases even if he is lying. I was simply pointing out that administration officials, including the President himself, have gone “on the record” on this issue.
And, if he is lying, he’s only got 18 months left in office – so he can make the bases “permanent” for exactly 18 months. That’s a fact that does not rely on Bush’s honesty. Then there are all the other practical considerations I laid out above. Given all that, I would really like you to lay out exactly how GWB is going to keep a “permanent” presence in Iraq?
The big candidates in both parties are on board with keeping bases there “forever.” It’s actually a lot easier to do, if the government of Iraq collapses.
Bush is only the biggest part of this picture.
No, it is not a lot “easier” to do, particularly if one knows anything about military logistics. If we do have any kind of long-term bases in Iraq they will likely be in Kurdish areas, or in the south near Kuwait and therefore close to our real “permanent” bases in Kuwait. Bases, particularly ones that will supposedly have a an entire division of forces, require a lot of supply, which requires convoys, which requires defending those convoys. If the Iraqi government collapses, and Iraq turns into an even greater chaotic bloodbath, keeping 50k troops supplied in places like Camp Victory and Balad will be, shall we say, a tremendous challenge. It’s certainly a much more difficult endeavor than the current situation.
And Chris, I see little evidence the US wants bases in Iraq “forever” beyond your fervent belief that it must be true, unless 10 years is a new definition for “forever.”
Bases in Kurdistan would be a great idea. We might even find Turkey to be sympathetic to this.
Who on earth finds a US naval presence in the Persian Gulf, where so much oil traffic the developed world depends on, and which is threatened by Iran, a bad thing, other than the Iranian government? What is the real nature of any opposition to it here in the West?
Entropy,
What the hell are you talking about with this “10 years” BS.
The news recently has been about the “Korea model” being used. 30-50k troops in Iraq for decades.
And this idea isn’t exactly new, especially not for people who’ve read Ricks book.
There is also this:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174807/how_permanent_are_those_bases_
Chris,
You are nothing if not persistent in your beliefs, no matter how thin the evidence.
First of all, that article was written back in 2003, in the midst of the “major combat operations” portion of the war. At that time, it was assumed by the administration that the post-war cleanup would be no big deal, that Chalabi or some other supposedly friendly US patsy would replace Saddam and that Iraq would be a largely peaceful place and friendly to US interests. If that had actually happened, then a case could certainly be made that long-term bases in Iraq could be a strategic force for the US in the region – even beyond the extensive bases we already (and still do) use. But a lot has transpired since then hasn’t it? What might have been bases that would be a strategic advantage to the US are now strategic liabilities. In any conflict with Iran or Syria, their proxies inside Iraq could interdict supply lines and add to the already heavy stream of mortar and rocket fire that visits these bases daily. Any base, no matter how “permanent” is not a strategic asset when it’s in a country wracked by insurgency and a low-level civil war. It becomes impossible in the midst of a full-fledge civil war which is at the very least a possibility in Iraq after a significant US drawdown.
In addition to that, you must believe that every President and Congress following GWB will be like lemmings and blindly follow the “permanent bases” policy no matter what the reality on the ground may indicate. By the same token you seem to ignore the repeated statements of administration officials that the US would leave if asked to do so and seem to assume that future administrations would simply ignore such requests if they came. And all that to enforce these bases which are ultimately strategic liabilities for the US in the region.
Like every other country, the US will maintain a presence in Iraq so long as the host government gives its ok and as long as it serves American interests. I said about 10 years because that’s likely how long it will take to (based on historical examples) to finish the COIN mission and bring some semblance of peace the the nation, provided it’s even possible at this point (if it’s not possible, we’ll be out a lot sooner than 10 years). So it seems rather fantastic that you and others continue to follow this ridiculous “permanent” bases theory as if US policy and situational realities will not change over the next 5, 10 or 40 years. Like I said before, unless there is some kind of binding treaty, a la GITMO, to legalize a unilateral US presence in Iraq as along as we wish, then all this “permanent” bases amounts to naught but a hill of partisan political beans. If an article from 2003 (which has been, to use a military vernacular, “overtaken by events”) is the best evidence you can muster, then your argument is pretty weak in the evidentiary department.
As for the “news” on the “Korea model” it is but speculation. I hope I don’t have to educate you about the fundamental differences between the situations in Korea in the 1950′s and Iraq today to demonstrate the flawed thinking and premises behind implementation of a “Korea model.” In short, it is so obviously a square peg attempting to fit into the “round hole” of Iraq.
Given everything I’ve said in this thread on the subject, I’ll as you the same question I asked Shaun (who hasn’t yet answered): Please lay out exactly how GWB is going to keep a “permanent†presence in Iraq?
Even Chris’ own quotations refute his argument.
Jason,
Remember, in 2003, Bush still opposed elections in Iraq.
So what? We’re still waiting for you to explain exactly how GWB will establish “permanent” bases in Iraq in the 18 months he has left in office.
Untrue.
I’ve been reading all kinds of histories from the 2001-2005 period in the last several months for dissertation work. I’m confident that you cannot prove this assertion true.
Its also completely irrelevant to your other contentions about alleged U.S. plans for permanent military bases regardless of what the Iraqi government says. You should take up bullfighting, as you appear quite proficient in waving red flags around in attempts to distract.
The actual situation in 2003, once again completely incompatible with Chris’ claims:
Now that doesn’t sound much like a drive for permanent control or permanent military bases in 2003 to me. That sounds like “lets get the hell out of here as quick as we can”. Once again, the available evidence leads to the opposite conclusion as that asserted (without any evidence, I might add) by Chris and/or Shaun.
I loaned out my copy of Fiasco, so correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Bush plan to orchestrate a Chalabi led Iraqi government? Creating, what would essentially be, a client state, with ultimate U.S. veto power.
There was some talk in the administration about a Chalabi government as an interim government only until elections were held. But your earlier claim that the Bush administration didn’t want elections at all is flatly false. I have also found no evidence in my research that the U.S. sought a “client state” over which it would have “veto power” at any phase of the project.
Larry Diamond’s book Squandered Victory gives better detail on U.S. plans for elections in Iraq. While its treatment of the subject is extensive, here is one key passage:
Viewed from hindsight, this passage makes clear the naivety and even outright incompetence of U.S. planning for Iraq’s transition. But it also makes clear that your interpretation, Chris, is completely wrong in two ways. First, it shows how the U.S. was foreseeing elections by Iraqis of an Iraqi government. No mention can be found in the evidence of the “veto power” or “client state” you assert was the goal. Second, it shows that the U.S. was from the very beginning trying to find a way to get out as soon as possible. There is no evidence of the plan for “permanent bases” in a strategic position between Jordan and Iran as you asserted.
There’s just nothing I can find in the evidence to back up your claims, Chris, and this is even though I am doing your work for you in going through the evidence. You yourself have offered no evidence at all, and neither did Shaun in his original post.