I think this is a very bad idea, for several reasons:
This situation is nothing like post-WWII West Germany, where the Cold War justified maintaining long-standing U.S. military bases. So long as we continue to have any military presence in Iraq, the people will see us as occupiers. They will not see us as “defending” them against the Iranians, nor against the insurgents. They hate and fear us much, much worse than they do the Iranians or the insurgents.
U.S. military bases will be targets for insurgents and terrorists. That will never change so long as there are U.S. troops in the bases.
Even having built the bases in the first place sends a strong message that we’re settling in for a long stay.
Or, worse, that we’re planning to use Iraq as a staging ground to attack Iran or Syria.
We should set a definite timetable for withdrawal and it should include a promise to hand all U.S. military bases in Iraq over to the Iraqi government.
At least concerning the Iranians, doesn’t the U.S. have a responsibility to Iraq to defend them from Iran as the Iraqi military is slowly rebuilt in order to deter any Iranian desires to intervene and protect Iraqi Shiites?
I think the question is that once the Iraqi military is rebuilt, should the US continue to have a presence there in the form of permanant military bases? General Abizaid seems to be hinting that that is indeed what the US plans to do.
One of the key questions is when will the Iraqi military be rebuilt? They have quantity, but at least according to DoD reports and the like, not the quality. Will this “quality” issue be used as a further justification for a permanent US presence?
Lol, I know the administration originally billed Iraq as a short trip to liberation and then we’re outa here, but did anyone seriously ever think we WEREN’T going to end up with permanent bases in Iraq?
I’m not sure about that. I doubt that any Sunni Arab or Kurd wants that, and that’s 40% right there. All you need is 11% of the Shi’a, and that’s a majority.
But let’s say they do. The grass is always greener. Give them 6 months and they’d be crying for the Amrericans to come back (assuming they had to one or the other).
Well, the Iranians might or might not want to consider actual military intervention. If they’re smart, they won’t. Diplomacy and money can get them whatever they want. My point is, we should not be concerned with keeping the Iranians out of Iraq. Not for the Iraqis’ sake, not for our own. That isn’t a good reason to maintain U.S. bases there.
But so can war. And war will only cost them the lives of their citizens (and Iraq’s citizens). Plus, the Iranians would likely have an easier time of keeping the peace since a) they’re not as worried as us about humanitarian concerns or winning the hearts and minds; and b) they’re not infidels, meaning they’re less likely to be attacked by religious extremists/terrorists.
What about the reason Gen. Abizaid set out? Let’s face it – the hottest region in the world right now is the Middle East, and it behooves us to have troops and supplies in the region to act quickly. [I think that’s the first time I’ve ever used the word “behoove” in a sentence.] I think that’s a good reason to maintain troops there.
Add in the fact that we should get our troops out of Saudi Arabia for a number of reasons – including the removing our troops from the Holy Land, and stepping down our reliance on the Saudis – and add in the fact that Iraq is a strategically important area within the Middle East, and I think it might be in our interests to have troops in Iraq.
Of course, this might all be a moot point if the Iraqis do hate us as much as you suggest. Because if they do, they’re probably not going to invite us to stay. And if I remember correctly, our promise was to leave when and if the Iraqis asked us to.
Because isolationism is an unrealistic foreign policy. Things that happen in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Palestine effect us. Ignoring the problems in the Middle East – one of the most strategically vital regions in the world – won’t make them go away, and certainly won’t make them any better. And we’re better able to protect our own interests than anyone else in the world.
Perhaps not, but, based on recent experience, having U.S. troops there won’t make things any better either – for them or for us. Quite the reverse.
Well . . . yeah . . .
As to who “they” might be . . . Obviously some (many) Iraqis want us to leave, and are making their feelings known. Violently. The government hasn’t asked us to leave yet . . . but I suggest it does not, really, have the freedom of action one would expect of a sovereign government. As it will find out if it ever proposes kicking Halliburton out of Iraq’s oilfields, or nullifying the reconstruction contracts granted to U.S. and British companies by the CPA.
Also . . . Just because we have an interest in intervening in another country’s problems, doesn’t mean we have the right – does it?
I mean, the Middle Easterners have just as much right to fuck things up in their own way, as they would have if there were no oil there, or no global demand for it. Necessity on our part does not constitute any obligation on their part.
We intend to keep enough of it to allow us to act decisively in the region if the people in charge feel that action is necessary - for example, if an Iraqi government that isn’t a US puppet comes to power.
You want me to leave your house? Sure. <cocks pistol> Just give me a minute to gather up my stuff…
