American Troops in Iraq for Decades To Come

[NewsMan]

Not really a surprise... but at least they're finally saying it... according to NPR:

Washington - President Bush used to be fond of saying that American troops would stay in Iraq as long as needed and not a day longer. He isn't saying that anymore.

The new word from the White House is that American troops would be stationed in Iraq permanently on the "Korean model." The analogy is a little strained. The United States has helped to mend the rift between North and South Korea since 1953. But South Korea has had no internal insurgency to worry about.

The plan for permanent bases in Iraq must have been long in the making. The president ignored a recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission that he state that America seeks no permanent bases in Iraq. At one point last year, the Senate and House passed an amendment to the military-spending bill banning the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq. The bill went to conference and then the ban on bases, adopted by both chambers, mysteriously disappeared.

The building of four bases along with a gigantic new American embassy in the Green Zone on the Tigris River has been moving along rapidly. The bases will have runways two miles long to accommodate the largest American planes. The Balad base north of Baghdad covers 14 square miles. Another base is planned for the area that was ancient Babylon.

The new embassy, which will be the largest American mission in the world, will be complete with swimming pool and commissary. Retired General Anthony Zinni has said that permanent bases are "a stupid idea." He said that they will damage America's image in the whole region.

These huge installations must be intended for more than Iraqi stabilization. Former President Jimmy Carter said in a speech in February of last year that "the reason we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region." And few are missing the point that bases in Iraq will keep American might on Iran's doorstep.

• Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.

[Henry's Fork]

Thanks for the interesting read, as always Mr.Tate.

I wonder why the big deal over the new embassy? Bases i can understand but over a embassy?

Is there a link, or did you get it off a news ticker?

[schwarz]

Wow maybe someone is starting to realize this is going to be like the occupation after WW2. It's going to take more than 4-5 years to finish the job and have a working democratic govt. that can defend themselves. Especially there in the ME.

[NewsMan]

Thanks for the interesting read, as always Mr.Tate.

I wonder why the big deal over the new embassy? Bases i can understand but over a embassy?

Is there a link, or did you get it off a news ticker?

There is a link out there somewhere... just can't find it at the moment. Just for everyone's info: Daniel Schorr is a LONGTINE (six decades) journo who also happens to be one of Edward R. Murrow's last living teamates.

This will have to happen and it would be naive to think that "getting out of Iraq" literally means "to get out". I see the next few years as a time when US firepower will draw down, eventauly operating out of these megabases with a standing force of around 120,000 (roughly 20k combat troops). I suspect US troops will continue training the Iraqi Army. The SF mission will increase 2-3 fold and US airpower will be on the IA's left shoulder. My guess is within two years, US combat patrols will be out of the urban centers and into the countryside and along trouble border spots.

Balad, Arbil (area), then where?

[budgie]

[/QUOTE]
Wow maybe someone is starting to realize this is going to be like the occupation after WW2. It's going to take more than 4-5 years to finish the job and have a working democratic govt. that can defend themselves. Especially there in the ME.

To say that Iraq in any way resembles WW2 shows scant understanding of either. The postwar occupation of Germany and Japan was as much a strategic buffer against Russia and China as to rebuild those nations: in that sense at least US troops can be seen as a buffer against Iran. Apart from that, they're still at war with the locals.

However I have gained some renewed faith in the idea of a long term occupation - both to keep an eye on Iran and to stabilize the awful mess that Bush made. If Petraeus and the Ambassador Crocker - both much wiser men than their masters - can eventually bring stability to Iraq then it may eventually[/] be worth the effort. But that in no way vindicates the Bush administration for their ill-conceived and hubristic venture in the first place: it was never worth it [i]from the start.

[schwarz]

To say that Iraq in any way resembles WW2 shows scant understanding of either. The postwar occupation of Germany and Japan was as much a strategic buffer against Russia and China as to rebuild those nations: in that sense at least US troops can be seen as a buffer against Iran. Apart from that, they're still at war with the locals.

However I have gained some renewed faith in the idea of a long term occupation - both to keep an eye on Iran and to stabilize the awful mess that Bush made. If Petraeus and the Ambassador Crocker - both much wiser men than their masters - can eventually bring stability to Iraq then it may eventually[/] be worth the effort. But that in no way vindicates the Bush administration for their ill-conceived and hubristic venture in the first place: it was never worth it [I]from the start.[/quote]


I still dont see how you dissagree with my analogy? Anyhow maybe I should have made myself more clear. It took us 10+ years to turn over the govt. in some cases almost 30 years we also faced oppostion after we liberated those countries. Both Germany and Japan were great strategic positions against Russia. Iraq is the same strategic base against Iran and the rest of the ME. We are still fighting in Iraq its not over yet but at the same time we are working on their new govt. that takes lots of time. Also you have to remember to look at the bigger picture Iraq is only a battle in this war say and think what you want but the reality is, it has only just begun.

Oh and "it was never worth it from the start".

Tell that to those being held and tourtured by Saddam and the civilians of Iraq that we liberated. Ask them if it was worth it 10-15 years down the road. Also if we leave now all the brave men and women who died would have died in vain if we dont finish what we started. But I will leave thiis disscusion for another fourm and day.

[Sharp]

wich governments had problems to defend themself during the WW2?:roll:

[budgie]

I still dont see how you dissagree with my analogy? Anyhow maybe I should have made myself more clear. It took us 10+ years to turn over the govt. in some cases almost 30 years we also faced oppostion after we liberated those countries. Both Germany and Japan were great strategic positions against Russia. Iraq is the same strategic base against Iran and the rest of the ME. We are still fighting in Iraq its not over yet but at the same time we are working on their new govt. that takes lots of time. Also you have to remember to look at the bigger picture Iraq is only a battle in this war say and think what you want but the reality is, it has only just begun.

Oh and "it was never worth it from the start".

Tell that to those being held and tourtured by Saddam and the civilians of Iraq that we liberated. Ask them if it was worth it 10-15 years down the road. Also if we leave now all the brave men and women who died would have died in vain if we dont finish what we started. But I will leave thiis disscusion for another fourm and day.

The mess has so far outweighed the benefits with regards to Saddam's removal. People are not better off. How many have escaped Saddam's torture rooms only to be tortured at Abu Ghraib? Or Butchered by insurgents? The infrastructure is broken, the government deadlocked and the power is off. Iraq is a failed state. As evil as Saddam was at least he kept things stable. They don't even have that now and the excesses of the insurgency have proven worse than those of the dictatorship.

However I don't believe my last post advocates a pullout. Quite the contrary - if the right people are in charge a continued coalition presence may lead Iraq to stability. I only state that Bush doesn't get the credit because all he wanted was oil and he didn't have a plan to improve Iraq beyond the rather simple (and vindictive) removal of Saddam.

And let me explain how I 'don't understand' your WW2 analogy: Germany and Japan did not go all up in arms against the occupiers - nor were these countries flooded with foreign fighters of a religious bent. It took time and money but the reconstruction of these countries was peaceful. Iraq is not. There was no insurgency in these countries, former enemies. And if you mention werewolves you'll only make a fool of yourself.

[socom6]

Nah I dont think so. When the Dems come in 2009 the US will be out of there by 2010, or else El Hombre will have to burn his Democratic Party delegates card.;)

Still the permanent bases IF there will be any, should in my humble opinion be located in Iraqi Kurdistan. Its a win win situation to put the bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, having those bases in Iraq proper with hostiles all around is not wise and tantamount to be being continuously targeted by suicide zealots.

Until I see the US staying after 2010 in a Democratic Administration I wont believe it.

[z0rr0101]

There is a link out there somewhere...

Maybe this one:
http://time-blog.com/theag/2007/06/iraq_looks_grim_says_war_czar.html

[Hollis]

Nah I dont think so. When the Dems come in 2009 the US will be out of there by 2010, or else El Hombre will have to burn his Democratic Party delegates card.;)

Still the permanent bases IF there will be any, should in my humble opinion be located in Iraqi Kurdistan. Its a win win situation to put the bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, having those bases in Iraq proper with hostiles all around is not wise and tantamount to be being continuously targeted by suicide zealots.

Until I see the US staying after 2010 in a Democratic Administration I wont believe it.

In the back of my mind, I keep hearing D's talking about a draft.... Then add:

Also a little notation on history of the Viet-Nam war.

Eisenhower, R
Kennedy D
Johnson D (the height of the war)
Nixon R.

My bets, El H will be burning is delegate's card.

[Jobu]

Didn't the Democrats promise they'd stop the war when they won the Congressional election last November?

Here we are 8 months later...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Not really a surprise... but at least they're finally saying it... according to NPR:

Washington - President Bush used to be fond of saying that American troops would stay in Iraq as long as needed and not a day longer. He isn't saying that anymore.

I think that's exactly what he's saying.

As to the Democrats "ending" the war... If you listen closely to Hillary, you can hear distant echos of Bill parsing his language about the word "is". She says she would "bring our troops home" not "bring all our troops home".

[socom6]

In the back of my mind, I keep hearing D's talking about a draft.... Then add:

Also a little notation on history of the Viet-Nam war.

Eisenhower, R
Kennedy D
Johnson D (the height of the war)
Nixon R.

My bets, El H will be burning is delegate's card.

LOL!:) Nice one there HOLLiS.

[Laworkerbee]

To say that Iraq in any way resembles WW2 shows scant understanding of either. The postwar occupation of Germany and Japan was as much a strategic buffer against Russia and China as to rebuild those nations: in that sense at least US troops can be seen as a buffer against Iran. Apart from that, they're still at war with the locals

Budgie

How can you imply the occupation of Japan in WWII was being used as a buffer against the Chinese?

The Communists didn't gain power until 1949 and up until that time the United States was closely allied with the Nationalist Chinese government.....

[budgie]

To say that Iraq in any way resembles WW2 shows scant understanding of either. The postwar occupation of Germany and Japan was as much a strategic buffer against Russia and China as to rebuild those nations: in that sense at least US troops can be seen as a buffer against Iran. Apart from that, they're still at war with the locals.
How can you imply the occupation of Japan in WWII was being used as a buffer against the Chinese?

The Communists didn't gain power until 1949 and up until that time the United States was closely allied with the Nationalist Chinese government.....[/QUOTE]

The occupation of Japan continued after 1949 - in fact it still continues in a lighter form today. I might bother to answer your question with "Perhaps the administration at the time had more foresight than the coke-addled Retard that curtrently sits in the whitehouse" but that, like your angle, would be off-topic.

Oh, and the lower case W, like the uppercase R, is deliberate.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The occupation of Japan continued after 1949 - in fact it still continues in a lighter form today. I might bother to answer your question with "Perhaps the administration at the time had more foresight than the coke-addled Retard that curtrently sits in the whitehouse" but that, like your angle, would be off-topic.


Riiight. Please do favor us with tales of their superior foresight...considering that it was their lack of foresight that got us the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Berlin Airlift, the Iron Curtain, countless other proxy wars...and arguably today's entire Mideast situation. Up against that record, Bush looks like friggin' Nostradamus.

[budgie]

Riiight. Please do favor us with tales of their superior foresight...considering that it was their lack of foresight that got us the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Berlin Airlift, the Iron Curtain, countless other proxy wars...and arguably today's entire Mideast situation. Up against that record, Bush looks like friggin' Nostradamus.



2Sheds, I'd wager you were behind Bush from the start over Iraq. Up against that there are twelve year olds who look like Nostradamus these days. Sadly they also post on this site.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

2Sheds, I'd wager you were behind Bush from the start over Iraq. Up against that there are twelve year olds who look like Nostradamus these days. Sadly they also post on this site.

Yes I was, for a number of reasons, and I still am. Primarily because when the nation votes to do something, I think we'd damn well better do it and not use it as an avenue for self-promotion. I think that Bush did plenty wrong, but so has everybody who ever commanded an Army. But we're supposed to keep focus and get it done. I think many people suffer from an alarming lack of perspective.

Seen through the lens of history, all the harping and finger pointing around Bush will fade to nothingness, while our failure to do what needs doing in the ME will be the real story.

[Atlantic Friend]

Riiight. Please do favor us with tales of their superior foresight...considering that it was their lack of foresight that got us the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Berlin Airlift, the Iron Curtain, countless other proxy wars...and arguably today's entire Mideast situation. Up against that record, Bush looks like friggin' Nostradamus.

To be fair, I don't see exactly how, even with superhuman foresight, these past administrations could have prevented the fall of the Iron Curtain, or the Korean War, or even the Berlin Airlift.

The Vietnamese War... Maybe. But only maybe, IMHO. Too many moves had already been played on the board by previous players.

That makes me think... If there is ONE way I would look upon Iraq as another Vietnam, it would be in considering in both cases a decision was made to commit American power in an attempt to change the geopolitical equation. In the future of South Viet-Nam in 1965, there was its eventual absorption by its Communist neighbor. In the future of Iraq in 2003, there was its potential fragmentation as soon as Saddam's rule would weaken.

While the rationale - or succession of rationales - we heard about OIF were more than a little ho-hum IMHO, I find the idea of trying to pre-empt Saddam's demise so it could happen NOW, and not later, when the geopolitical board would have been far less favorable, very reasonable.

Saddam's aging and teetering regime was opening the road to many uncertain and dangerous futures. One day, he could no longer prove able to keep control of everything, and the country could erupt into civil war as long-stifled passions and ambitions would finally be let loose. Kurds would declare de facto independence, with no neutral power to dissuade or protect them. Turkey would probably intervene in force, with no third party to stop them. Iraq's neighbors would be destabilized by the conflict and the shockwaves would be felt everywhere.

I guess to the more cynical of its planners, launching OIF was like sending an OED team to detonate a time bomb. Better have the explosion at a time and place of your own choosing, than having the device blow up on you when you're not ready. Add to that a public opinion which still demanded blood after 9/11, or at least was ready to see some more shed. Add to that grandiose visions of democracy flourishing in the ME and Iraq turning into ME's Germany to keep in check Iran, the ME's Soviet Union. Add to that tactical and political considerations...

I wonder what were the unspoken dreams and ambitions in 1965. A reunited Viet-Nam as a prosperous republic, rolling back Communism and making democracy flourish in SE Asia ? Political considerations about public image and the advantage of being a "War President" ? Realpolitik and naiveté combining ?

[dedbunniez]

That makes me think... If there is ONE way I would look upon Iraq as another Vietnam, it would be in considering in both cases a decision was made to commit American power in an attempt to change the geopolitical equation. In the future of South Viet-Nam in 1965, there was its eventual absorption by its Communist neighbor. In the future of Iraq in 2003, there was its potential fragmentation as soon as Saddam's rule would weaken.

Saddam's aging and teetering regime was opening the road to many uncertain and dangerous futures. One day, he could no longer prove able to keep control of everything, and the country could erupt into civil war as long-stifled passions and ambitions would finally be let loose. Kurds would declare de facto independence, with no neutral power to dissuade or protect them. Turkey would probably intervene in force, with no third party to stop them. Iraq's neighbors would be destabilized by the conflict and the shockwaves would be felt everywhere.

I guess to the more cynical of its planners, launching OIF was like sending an OED team to detonate a time bomb. Better have the explosion at a time and place of your own choosing, than having the device blow up on you when you're not ready. Add to that a public opinion which still demanded blood after 9/11, or at least was ready to see some more shed. Add to that grandiose visions of democracy flourishing in the ME and Iraq turning into ME's Germany to keep in check Iran, the ME's Soviet Union. Add to that tactical and political considerations...

That IMHO is a very good point.

[Laworkerbee]

Some very good food for thought there AF

[ElHombre]

Back on topic. Let's take a moment to consider just how dumb an idea these bases are...

Has anyone given any thought as to what the troops stationed at those bases are supposed to do? Sit around and be targets while waiting for orders to attack? Placing thousands of troops in the middle of a hostile population shouldn't be considered the wisest move the US could make, especially since Kuwait is sitting right next door.

Threaten Iran? What, the mullahs are going to be more worried about a US invasion? Everyone (with a basic grasp of reality and the ability to read a map) already knows the score on that one: The US invades and promptly can't supply any invasion force from those Iraqi bases.

We're fighting a war of Islamic public opinion against AQ types. Confirming that the US invaded Iraq mainly to have bases from which to launch furhter attacks (excuse me, liberate them...[/sarcasm]) against Islamic countries isn't going to advance that worthy goal. Haven't we handed enough propaganda victories to AQ?

Then there's the fact that this idea was thought up by the neoconservatives. That simple fact alone should disqualify this idea from being considered. Haven't they created enough problems for the US to deal with?

And don't let the fact that these bases are going to cost the US taxpayer a bundle for years prevent anyone from considering how bad an idea they are.

[Atlantic Friend]

Back on topic. Let's take a moment to consider just how dumb an idea these bases are...

Has anyone given any thought as to what the troops stationed at those bases are supposed to do?

I think will, for a large part, depend on what the Iraqi troops stationed throughout the country will be able to do. Does the Pentagon still publish the classification of Iraqi battalions in categories A (fully operational), B (can operate if supported by US forces) and C (unable to operate), BTW ?

And what are the news from the War Czar ?

[ElHombre]

I don't see it likely that the Iraqi Army is going to improve that much. There was a report that US advisors to them were being pulled because of the 'surge'. Seems the troops involved had to go back to their own units to lead their own troops.

[Atlantic Friend]

Counterinsurgency is no easy task when the army is fully professional and lavishly equipped, so I guess it's an operational nightmare when the troops you have to rely upon are probably as fragmented in their loyalties as the country is, and have to be practically built from scratch.

Anyway, whatever one man's opinion is of OIF and the rationale that was behind it, I'm afraid I don't see how there can be talks of pulling out now. Iraq is exploding - leaving now is to let the explosion be, without any further attempt to control it.

[budgie]

The other part of me says let 'em have at eachother. Seriously, pullout and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves - no doubt with much bloodshed.

But if we can't stop it anyway, why be in the middle? Sure the Turks and Iranians might try to step in to fill the 'power vacuum' but they'll just end up being the targets of insurgent attacks themselves and soon learn the same lesson.

I sincerely hope that a change of leadership both on the ground and in Washington can eventually see this thing through but failing that - let the Iraqis sort it out themselves.

[dimasorokine]

The other part of me says let 'em have at eachother. Seriously, pullout and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves - no doubt with much bloodshed.

But if we can't stop it anyway, why be in the middle? Sure the Turks and Iranians might try to step in to fill the 'power vacuum' but they'll just end up being the targets of insurgent attacks themselves and soon learn the same lesson.

I sincerely hope that a change of leadership both on the ground and in Washington can eventually see this thing through but failing that - let the Iraqis sort it out themselves.

Well, now that Iraq is unstable and all f*cked up (a great way to describe the current situation) the United States must stay untill the country is stable again...otherwise this war would be even more unjust, evil and greedy.

-Dima

[budgie]

Oh and "it was never worth it from the start".

Tell that to those being held and tourtured by Saddam and the civilians of Iraq that we liberated. Ask them if it was worth it 10-15 years down the road

At the moment they're too busy slaughering eachother to pick up the phone. and if I went there in person I'd be kidnapped and ransomed or beheaded just for being a foreigner.

And at the rate they're killing, 10-15 years down the road there won't be any of them left to tell.