That was directed at Brain Glutton, of course.
eponymous: I would hope they’d settle for whatever else we have in the Middle East, like Qatar and Kuwait
This statement is “inaccurate and unfortunate” – They’re not permanent bases, they’re enduring bases! 
Yeah, I forgot about the bases… I tried googling, found no recent news about the plans for those don’t-call-them-permanent bases. But lotsof opinion that they’ll be untenable.
Was it? You could probably find that in some PNAC policy paper, but, so far as I know, it certainly wasn’t something anyone from the Admin ever said out loud prior to the invasion.
I have considerable sympathy with XT’s position: indeed, bailing out of situation entirely of our making is repugnant, and morally bankrupt. But against the better angels, I am gradually becoming more and more receptive to the “Get the Hell out of BaghDodge!” camp.
Firstly, there is the question of whether or not our presence has any real value. Just recently, we destroyed Fallujah in order to save it. Their streets are open sewers, etc. etc. I find it hard to imagine that we haven’t created more enemies than we killed in this excercise. Perhaps if we install a TV and VCR on every street corner, with a loop of Marines painting schools and handing out chocolates to Iraqi tykes…
Second, is the catastrophe we are sacrificing to prevent avoidable? If only our presence prevents an immediate outbreak of civil war, is there any reason to hope that at some point in the forseeable future this will no longer be true? If I could be convinced on this point, I can see how I might be more accepting. Big “If”.
Worse, the only sources of information are contaminated by agenda. What little faith I may have had in the candor and reliability of the Bushivik admin. is long, long gone. But who else? And in order to believe that someone is telling us the truth, we have to believe that they know the truth in the first case.
My dark suspicion is that the Bushiviks are pinning their hopes on the election. Even if an outbreak of ergot poisoning rendered 85% of the Iraqi public into howling baboons, we will declare the election valid, and the Allawi government the possessors of a ringing endorsement and mandate. Mission accomplished, hand out a bunch of medals, run like hell. Then whatever happens after that, well, heck, we gave them a government, they fucked it up. Not our fault.
On what facts do I base this assessment? None. I don’t have any, because all the sources are suspect.
So, all in all, I am gradually gravitating to the position that our efforts are futile, if not actively counterproductive. As repulsive as it is, and it most certainly is, pulling out may be the only sensible alternative, or at least as close to “sensible” as the situation permits.
With cringing reluctance: Get the Hell out of BaghDodge! Sacrificing American soldiers is bad enough, sacrificing them in a futile and vain endeavor is obscene.
Well, that’ s true, but didn’t the administration publicly announce that we were going to remove our “enduring” precense in Saudi Arabia? Those people and resources, I can almost guarentee, are not going to be leaving the region. Kuwait and Qatar are important, but I highly doubt that the US intends to concentrate manpower/resources entirely within those two countries.
(I should point out that if the US does leave Iraq, will this mean that we maintain our presence in Saudi Arabia, or would we still remove our presence there? It’s possible, but I can’t envision any military planner that would be happy not having access to the region via Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Much more difficult to counter potential Iranian/Syrian threat from just Kuwait and Qatar alone).
Rumsfeld had also reported that the US will begin repositioning its military presence around the world (reducing troop levels in both Germany and South Korea). I would seriously doubt that this repositioning wouldn’t impact the Middle East in some fashion.
Also, we are already making significant headway in establishing an “enduring” presence in Central Asia, as well as Afghanistan. So I think it relatively safe to assume that one of the outcomes in the war with Iraq was to establish some sort of “enduring” presence in the region. Whether this will play out as expected remains to be seen. But it’s a safe assumption based on the underlying strategic military policies undertaken by the current administration.
I think the permanent bases have become less attractive since they discovered the permanent supply of people willing to fire mortars into the bases they have now…
The military isn’t responsible for policy decisions…that rests solely on the Administrations head. However, the military IS responsible for things like logistics, while frankly the Administration isn’t. So yes…I most certainly do blame the military for what I see as a failur of logistics.
Partitioning??? You want to fracture Iraq along what lines exactly? Or did you have in mind simply turning them all lose and letting whoever is the more effective killer get whatever they can get? Sounds like a great plan to me. I’m sure the body count will make the Iraq invasion and the occupation look like a boy scout picnic.
The current approach is to have an interrim government while the Iraqi’s get their shit together and TRY and have an election. You can try and spin that for ‘prop up a corrupt puppet with little popular support in Allawi’ all you like, but that doesn’t make it reality.
And it really isn’t ANYTHING like what we did with Thieu and ‘vietnamization’ despite what RedFury cited later. I can find links to just about every war imaginable that are just as compelling as those to Vietnam. Relating Iraq to Vietnam is a fevered attempt by the anti-war crowd to link Iraq to Vietnam in the minds of American’s. So far its not working because unfortunately for those making the case, the real underlieing situations aren’t really close. Only a few superficial similarities…like the battle linked in the OP…are shown, then some smoke and mirrors to try and brush off all the dis-similarities between the two situations.
Er…are we talking about the ‘hypothetical’ situation where if the US pulls out the Iraqi government collapses, or are we talking about…what, here? This: “The present reality is that the volunteer troops we have are being made to bear a disproportionate burden.” is a no brainer…no one disputes that the ‘volunteer troops’ bear the burden in Iraq…they bear it ALL, not a ‘disproportionate burden’. Why? Well, because our entire military is all volunteer. This: “The fact is that the country fell into disorder as a direct result of the invasion. Stating that our leaving would cause disorder is, therefore, absurd on its face.” is also stating the obvious. Obviously the invasion of Iraq by the US/UK has destabalized the nation. Who is stating differently. Afaik the pro-invasion folks are saying that even though Iraq is currently destabalized, in the long run Iraq will be better off out from under Saddam and sons. While I don’t fully agree with that position (i.e. I don’t see it as a sure thing) I think that its POSSIBLE that Iraq will be better off in the long run because of US intervention. Doesn’t make it a wise course for the US to have taken of course…but it IS a possibility.
Well, you know…I can hypothicize all kinds of thing. I can hypothicize that space aliens may come down and world peace may reign…or they may destroy us all. I think probability wise, its a much more probable event that if the US pulls out that the Iraqi’s will collapse into a general and multi-sided civil war than that such an event will happen if the US stays. Why? Well, for one thing, the Kurds will certainly break away if the US tucks tail, so thats at least a two sided civil war right there. Only thing keeping them in line is the US. In addition, its a good bet the Sunni and the Shi’ite will go at each other hammer and tongs for control of whats left. Turkey will probably be a bit cheezed at the Kurds for breaking away, so they will probably stick THEIR thumb in the pie. Iran will certainly want to support the more radical Shi’ite elements sticking THEIR thumb in the pie. Its possible some in Saudi will want to support some of their Sunni bretherin as well, sticking THEIR thumb in. Then you have the bit players like Syria who will probably be feeling left out.
You can poopoo all this as mere 'hypothetical’s on my part…but again, I think the probability is on MY side in this. Believe what you will though…luckily for the US (and the Iraqi’s) your opinion on us tucking tail and bolting isn’t likely to happen any time soon. It wouldn’t have happened under Kerry either, but you can always fantasize if you like.
Well, I appreciate that you at least understand where I’m coming from on this. I also have some sympathy with your position as well…I just can’t bring myself to agree with it, at least not at this time. If things are still like they are a year or so from today, then I may have to re-think my positions and assumptions. But today…no, I think its way to early to be looking to bolt.
-XT
I might imagine that permanent bases in Iraq is a dead idea no ? Especially with hostile “natives” and political climate. The bases were supposed to be stepping stones to other invasions that Bush Jr. can’t afford anyway.
I doubt they are dead. I figure we are going to be in Iraq for decades to come (well, unless the fantasy is fulfilled by some, Bush is assassinated along with the VP, the entire cabnet, all the 'Pub Senators and Congressmen, and we have no choice but to insert Kucinich into the WhiteHouse 
)…just like we are STILL in Germany, Japan and South Korea. As to ‘hostile natives’ I seriously doubt they are going to be able to do anything substantial to our perminent bases RM.
As to your ‘stepping stones’ assertion…you say that as if its proved and not mere speculation on your part RM. Do you have proof, or is this just YOUR assertion?
-XT
I think you are asking that the planners solve an impossible problem. I think, consonent with Rummy’s doctrine of “lean and mean” they were not allocated enough troops because to have done so would have destroyed the Administration’s claim that the war could be concluded without pain or strain on out other tasks requiring military forces around the world.
140000 sounds like a lot but when you factor in the ratio of combat to support troops that means there are only about 25-30000 troops who are actually trained and propertly equipped for combat. There is no front line with a safe communications zone for logistical activities and there aren’t enough combat troops to both battle the insurgents and protect the supply lines.
With inadequate personnel resources and a President and SECDEF determined not go allocate more, how could the military planners have done better?
You haven’t been getting those leaked memos XT ?
Well its hard to invade Syria without being in Iraq… its even harder to invade Iran without a land base. You remember the “Axis of Evil” statements ? Why else have bases in Iraq if not to pressure their neighbors and the Iraqi government to keep the goodwill of the US ?
When the idea of permanent bases were thrown around they were probably still thinking of the flower throwing Iraqis. If Iraqi becomes a civil war I doubt the US wants to stick around… and if Iraq does manage some stability… I think permanent US bases won’t help. (even if temporary might)
Add to that list… that they were probably told to expect a very different post invasion scenario (flowers) and mission (quick exit after “mission accomplished”).
Bad planning and bad post invasion I think are clearly in the rosy scenarios presented by the White House yes sayers. The military should of course have been a bit more skeptical… but they just follow orders.
Sorry, Can’t let this go. It’s a common misconception. Reality is, innocent Iraqi civilians are bearing a disproportionate burden. Just stating the obvious…
I don’t think the Kurds want to break away. What they want is a sufficient measure of autonomy. I don’t see why they aren’t going to agree to reasonable compromises all around.
As for the rest, first of all, note that Iraq doesn’t want other countries (least of all, Iran) meddling in their internal affairs, thus counterbalancing their influence. Second, can anybody imagine that Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria would do even close as terrible a job medding in Iraq, as the U.S. is doing??
Well, I sure hope that the opinions of these guys from my earlier cite are going to count…
Yes…I think they could have done a better job personally. I think the planners underestimated what it was going to take, and didn’t plan on the contingency that there COULD be an insurgency that would last for years. Perhaps I’m being unfair to them and they really couldn’t have done better…but I just don’t believe it, and lacking evidence otherwise I will continue to believe that until shown something that changes my mind. Do you have anything showing that logistically there was absolutely no way the US could have met its personnel commitments with an invasion and occupation in Iraq besides how they have handled it?
Well, if I’m going into speculation mode, I’d say Iran would be the more likely target. However, its pure speculation…the bases not withstanding. The US has always wanted secure basing in the ME so we could react to flareups if we had too…that has nothing to do with plans for invasions of other ME nations. And there is no direct evidence that the US planned or plans to invade any other nation…including Iraq. Perhaps the bases are there so we can simply allow the next president to toss a few bombs the way of any nation that steps out of line a la Clinton.
I disagree. The bases didn’t have anything to do with flower throwing Iraqi’s…and I think they were pretty much the POINT of the invasion. Not as stepping stones to further invasions, but as an end in themselves. As I said before, we’ve wanted perminent and secure bases in the ME for a rather long time…and now we have them. If the entire nation of Iraq goes tits up, we’ll STILL have those bases (unless we get another president who pulls the plug on them). If Iraq goes nova and civil war rages, our bases will still be there…and still be secure.
Unless you are opperating under the delusion that the Iraqi insurgents in the middle of a full blowin civil war would be stupid enough to stick their collective cranks into a hornets nest…something they seem increasingly reluctant to do these days, even though the current insurgency is far from a general civil war. Note that they have pretty much switched to softer and easier targets these days, not even wanting to tangle directly with US patrols, let alone our bases. There is a rather good reason for that you know…
-XT
I’ve pretty much given up watching the Iraqi situation. It is like a car crash - you close your eyes and start praying to whatever god will listen. In this case, the brick wall is going to be the Iraqi elections. They will do one of a few things:
- Be a reprise of Kundera’s The Joke and get laughed off the stage while the insurrection continues
2a) Islamic faction gains majority control, asks us to leave, we say, um, no, while the insurrection continues
2b) Islamist faction gains majority control, asks Iran to help in the peace keeping process, the insurrection continues with better planning
-
It turns into Afghanistan, where we poll the friendliest 10% of the people we can find and call it a day, while the insurrection continues
-
Islamists win the elections, then start killing each other over it, while the insurrection continues
So much for only having to cry at one election every 4 years…
Anybody taking bets for 5) Islamic faction gains majority control, asks us to leave, we say, um - well - okay - ifyouinsist, occupation ends, U.N. peacekeepers from Muslim nations move in, insurrection ends, the new Islamic government’s first action is to repudiate all contracts with Halliburton and other American and British corporations made by the CA government and the interim Iraq government – and kick all foreigners out of Iraqi oil facilities, and their second action is to award fat lucrative reconstruction and oil exploration contracts to their good old buddies the French, Russians and Chinese…
You have a gift for both stating the obvious and talking about things that are tangential to the point being made…as if you are scoring points. I never said that the current situation OVERALL is not that the Iraqi civilians are bearing a disproportionate burden as far as casualties goes. In fact, I’ve made this very point in several other threads. Again, reading things in context is usually a good idea. I was talking about US troops only…not broadening things to encompass the entire war. If you want to widen things, we certainly can…but please try and at least comprehend what I’m saying in the context I’m saying it…and don’t attempt to put positions in my mouth.
Er…on what exactly do you base this thesis that the Kurds don’t want to break away? Because everything I’ve read pretty much says that the US is the only thing keeping them there and NOT breaking away. And the main reason the US is doing this is split between appeasing Turkey and wanting to keep Iraq intact if possible. I’m curious as to what you are basing this thinking on.
Did you REALLY say that Iraq doesn’t WANT other nations meddling in their internal affairs? 
Thats one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. Of COURSE they don’t want that. But they aren’t going to be able to DO anything about it if they are in the middle of a civil war. What do you suppose they could do? Send a heated note to Iraq telling them to leave them be to fight things out and not meddle? Too funny for words. If the US leaves, and if the Sunni and Shi’ite go at each other (even disreguarding the most likely event of the Kurds bolting to form their own little nation), they aren’t going to exactly be in a position to STOP anyone in the region from playing in their reindeer games. Hell, WITH the US there we haven’t been able to stop Iran and Syria from covertly playing in our park.
They aren’t. I can find opinions from OTHER military people that run directly contrary. Its the beauty of a free society that people can express different opinions on things, can disagree even about fundamental issues. For every ‘cite’ you can bring up showing that we should tuck tail and bolt, I can find one where some ‘expert’ says just the opposite. And, unfortunately for you, the current administration isn’t likely to change its position on this unless things radically change. So, at the minimum you are going to have to wait 4 years to get your wish of an American free Iraq…and probably longer depending on who the Dems run (and whether or not the Pubs win yet again).
-XT
Neither you nor I know what constraints in initial and future personnel resources were placed on the operation.
You think they could have done better and maybe so. But do you really believe that a planners’ estimate of 500000 troops and a buildup time of 8 or 9 months to get the ducks in line would have been accepted by GW, Rummy, Wolfie, et al.
And would the Iraq invasion have been politically saleable if such numbers had been public?
You think, without any evidence and without knowing what their constraints were that the planners could have done better.
I think, based on GW’s past performance in the business world, that the whole thing was laid out by him and Rummy based on the idle daydreams of a self-indulgent, sophomoric playboy.
Oh, slightly more on topic, no, Iraq is not like Vietnam, in many ways. The Iraqi insurrection is child’s play compared to the Viet Cong, and the only way we’re avoiding daily shame and suffering is by avoiding direct confrontation and hiding the total US casualties instead of total US dead (given today’s better medical conditions and armor, US soldiers who would have died 30 years ago pull through, making a direct comparison of deaths between the two somewhat warped in Iraq’s favor.
Viet Nam:
147 Marines were killed and 857 wounded
Iraq:
104 killed and more than 1,100 wounded
And that battle was considered heavy casualties for Iraq. The result is that fewer, less organzed, more poorly trained insurgents injured more US soldiers than the combined NVA/VC did in comparison of these two battles. Part of this can be accounted for by them having things like better RPGs, but not totally. There’s something very wrong going on in Iraq.
And this
is laughable. The Iraqi regular army and Saddam’s “elite” Republican Guard collapsed like a house of cards, mostly fleeing with the weapons to use as insurgents or sell to insurgents. They didn’t stand and fight in any meaningful way. Of all the clips I’ve watched, only pockets of resistence that collapsed quickly are ever shown. No major engagements with heavy vehicles or masses of soldiers. The US rolled straight to Baghdad and walked in, minus a few pitched battles at key junctions by holdout units. The Iraqi army simply didn’t exist as a controlled command. They were mostly gone by the time we go there. Even Saddam had 0 faith in them protecting him in any way whatsoever.