# PNAC's new line: U.S. military presence in ME is a "generational commitment" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044 "2005-02-20T19:21:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/21 "2005-02-21T02:57:20Z")
The issue is less whether it would be militarily prudent than whether it becomes politically prudent. In the US politics (and the attendent campaigns) trumps military need almost every time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/22 "2005-02-21T02:57:20Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Considering we have been “de facto occupying” SA for the last decade or so . . … How? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/23 "2005-02-21T03:02:04Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > The issue is less whether it would be militarily prudent than whether it becomes politically prudent. In the US politics (and the attendent campaigns) trumps military need almost every time. Yep. If we have large troops levels in Iraq suffering regular casualties (even “just” several per month) 4 years from now, the political pressure to bring them home will be too great to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/24 "2005-02-21T03:10:18Z")
Here’s a cite about U.S. bases and troops in SA – [http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia3.html](http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia3.html) – but it gives no numbers. In any case, it’s clear they can’t be considered an “occupying force,” in the sense of dominating the government or keeping order on the streets. They’re there at the Sauds’ sufferance and on their terms. Christian preaching is not even allowed on the bases because it’s against SA law to promulgate religions other than Islam. ““Morale centers” on U.S. bases serve as the functional equivalent to churches and synagogues.” Females soldiers until recently were required, and still are “strongly encouraged,” to wear a robe and head-scarf when off the base. The date of this info is unclear, but it’s from after 9/11/01 and before the invasion of Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/25 "2005-02-21T03:10:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How? [http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html](http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html) ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/26 "2005-02-21T03:10:42Z")
I could see a scenario where it could be maintained. But it would have to be tied to signficant political gains in the middle east to which the administration could point. But if, in early 2008 we’re just where we are now. Some deaths per month, more causalties, and no real evidence of democracy on the march… Well, at that point the smart money is on a troop withdrawal or the election of the Democratic candidate to the Presidency. Hell, if the burning keeps up it could have a real impact as an issue in the midterms. It’s one of those issues that could ‘nationalize’ what should essentially be local elections. ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/27 "2005-02-21T03:13:53Z")
> [@Well](#): > > [http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html](http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html) Damn. Looks like I didn’t need the cite. Of course you can debate Osama on whether we were _actually_ occupying SA or not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/28 "2005-02-21T03:14:39Z")
> [@Well](#): > > [http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html](http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html) That site gives the number of troops in SA as 5,000. Hardly an “occupation,” though of course it rankles some Muslims that they’re allowed in the country at all. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/29 "2005-02-21T04:25:26Z")
**BrainGlutton’s** original question: > [@](#): > > 1. If we do have to maintain our military presence in the ME for the long haul, where are we going to get the troops and the funding? > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > If the military must claim a larger and larger share of the American tax base while killing social services we’ll find ourselves in the same position the Soviets did in the late 1980s…spending so much on military personnel and hardware that the very infrastructure of the nation collapses…leading to a political revolution that puts the neo-cons and their followers on the bench for a generation or more. If they can’t see this I don’t see a way to explain it to them. > [@David Simmons](#): > > No problem as long as foreigners are willing to buy our trillions of dollars worth of bonds. The problem is paying the interest on the bonds while still maintaining some semblence of an societal infrastructure here in the US. At least two of us are in agreement on this one point. **Jonathan Chance** spelled out the political perils of spending a large fraction of the national wealth on supporting military action while I left it as an exercise for the reader but we both agree that the cost of such an effort in Iraq is formidable. But how about it? Has the easy, 'We’ll walk in on a carpet of rose petals thrown by grateful Iraqi’s and their oil will pay for the operation … ’ disappeared to the extent that we are goint to have to stay there for a decade or so and bear the bulk of the cost? If not then talking about the cost of staying is just an academic exercise without meaning. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/30 "2005-02-21T15:44:04Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > But how about it? Has the easy, 'We’ll walk in on a carpet of rose petals thrown by grateful Iraqi’s and their oil will pay for the operation … ’ disappeared to the extent that we are goint to have to stay there for a decade or so and bear the bulk of the cost? If not then talking about the cost of staying is just an academic exercise without meaning. At the beginning of the war, the Admin predicted we would have to spend only $2 billion on postwar reconstruction of Iraq; further costs would be paid out of Iraq’s oil revenue. IOW, reconstruction would pay for itself. Now we’ve spent $200 billion and the oil industry is still just limping along. That will change only if things quiet down – i.e., if the Iraqis are satisfied with whatever government and constitution the new National Assembly gives them that the insurgency dies down. But it seems to me we’re stuck with even further costs, either way. If the insurgency does not die down, we’ll have to maintain our troop presence indefinitely, or else write off the country as a loss and pull out – and then what happens to our oil supply? If the insurgency **does** die down – what excuse do we have to continue a military presence in Iraq? Unless by that time we need Iraq as a staging ground to invade Iran or Syria – which I’m very much afraid is what the PNAC people are thinking of when they speak of “generational commitment.” Either way, it’s going to cost us money. And lives, if that matters to PNAC. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/31 "2005-02-21T16:55:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > At the beginning of the war, the Admin predicted we would have to spend only $2 billion on postwar reconstruction of Iraq; further costs would be paid out of Iraq’s oil revenue. IOW, reconstruction would pay for itself. Now we’ve spent $200 billion and the oil industry is still just limping along. That will change only if things quiet down – i.e., if the Iraqis are satisfied with whatever government and constitution the new National Assembly gives them that the insurgency dies down. > > But it seems to me we’re stuck with even further costs, either way. If the insurgency does not die down, we’ll have to maintain our troop presence indefinitely, or else write off the country as a loss and pull out – and then what happens to our oil supply? If the insurgency **does** die down – what excuse do we have to continue a military presence in Iraq? Unless by that time we need Iraq as a staging ground to invade Iran or Syria – which I’m very much afraid is what the PNAC people are thinking of when they speak of “generational commitment.” Either way, it’s going to cost us money. And lives, if that matters to PNAC. A grim scenario but a quite possible one. It looks like a typical GW enterprise in the business world. His history was to start an enterprise, fail, and be bailed out by being bought out. I don’t see anyone on the horizon willing to “buy out” our enterprise in Iraq. As to the Mid East oil. We have pissed off enough OPEC members to be a possible source of trouble. I don’t think they will cut off their noses to spite their face by going against their interests just to cause us problems. However, with India and especially China becoming economically stronger we could be in for serious problems. Given India and China as booming consumer economies there will be enough world-wide demand for oil that OPEC won’t need to cater to the US in any way. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/32 "2005-02-21T17:22:48Z")
1. We’re stuck 2. There are no easy or pleasant exits. The trick will be to find the least bad of possible options. all of which are terrible. 3. The costs of continued presense will have to be paid by American taxpapers and consumers. If the level of violence and physical danger can be greatly reduced then we will be able to maintain or increase somewhat present levels. If not, increases will have to come from conscription(draft). 4. No. The era of cheap and easy energy is over. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/33 "2005-02-21T22:30:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That site gives the number of troops in SA as 5,000. Hardly an “occupation,” though of course it rankles some Muslims that they’re allowed in the country at all. I didn’t see the date on that cite but I think it was before [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml) happened. > [@](#): > > America began a historic reshaping of its presence in the Middle East yesterday, announcing a halt to active military operations in Saudi Arabia and the removal of almost all of its forces from the kingdom within weeks. > > The withdrawal ends a contentious 12-year-old presence in Saudi Arabia and marks the most dramatic in a set of sweeping changes in the deployment of American forces after the war in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/34 "2005-02-21T23:18:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. Has the U.S. taken on a “generational commitment” in the Middle East, in the sense that we’re going to have substantial numbers of American troops fighting in, or occupying, one Middle Eastern country or another at all times for a decade or so to come? “Substantial,” yes. But I don’t think we’ll be taking on anything Iraq-sized anytime within the next decade if we can elp it. The political support just won’t be there (absent another 9/11 type event, naturally). Depending on how one defines “substantial” we had those forces there before, in Qatar. IOW, I agree with the “generational committment” assessment. I don’t see them getting their force increase, though. > [@](#): > > 1. Is there any way out of that? If so, is there any good reason not to take it? Sure, we could just bug out and leave now. Of course, that would throw away all the progress, just as the Iraqis are starting to create their own gov’t, and leave the place to fall into a worse mess. And make the deaths of 1200 servicemen in vain. But a gradual drawdown as Iraq’s training wheels will come off makes far more sense. I’d imagine we’ll have “substantial numbers” – say a divison or so – in Iraq for a decade. > [@](#): > > 1. If we do have to maintain our military presence in the ME for the long haul, where are we going to get the troops and the funding? From the same place we found the troops and the funding to make “generational committments” to Europe, Japan and Korea. In fact, since we’re reducing the sizes of our deployments in those places (a generation having passed), that’s probably exactly where they’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/35 "2005-02-22T00:03:10Z")
> [@furt](#): > > From the same place we found the troops and the funding to make “generational committments” to Europe, Japan and Korea. In fact, since we’re reducing the sizes of our deployments in those places (a generation having passed), that’s probably exactly where they’re coming from. In those cases, we got the funding by deficit spending (or at least lavish spending during economic boom times that produced lots of tax revenue), and the troops mainly through conscription. Is either a politically viable option for the next decade? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/36 "2005-02-22T16:44:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > "Sure, we could just bug out and leave now. Of course, that would throw away all the progress, just as the Iraqis are starting to create their own gov’t, and leave the place to fall into a worse mess. **And make the deaths of 1200 servicemen in vain.** I see. So if we invade a place and people get killed – no matter how stupid the pretext for invasion – we can’t pull out except under circumstances you approve of, else “the deaths of the serviceme will be in vain.” Yah, you’d have a point if we were all REALLY stupid. But we’re not, so you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/37 "2005-02-22T17:34:11Z")
Nitpick: as of 22 February 2005, that would be the deaths of [1651 servicemen and -women](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/), 1480 of them Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/38 "2005-02-22T17:46:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nitpick: as of 22 February 2005, that would be the deaths of [1651 servicemen and -women](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/), 1480 of them Americans. 50,000 died in Korea, and now South Korea has a prosperous economy and good standard of living, was that not worth it? Iraq is absolutely worth it, we just have to be patient. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/39 "2005-02-22T18:10:23Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Sure, we could just bug out and leave now. Of course, that would throw away all the progress, just as the Iraqis are starting to create their own gov’t, and leave the place to fall into a worse mess. **And make the deaths of 1200 servicemen in vain.** :dubious: **furt,** the concept of “throwing good money after bad” applies with even greater force to lives. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044/40 "2005-02-22T18:23:32Z")
**RL:** _50,000 died in Korea, and now South Korea has a prosperous economy and good standard of living, was that not worth it?_ That depends on whether such a large loss of life was really necessary to produce the good consequences for South Korea, and on whether the good consequences outweigh the rest of the bad (e.g., the isolation, immiseration, and continuing menace in the case of North Korea). No fair just pointing to the positive outcomes as proof of success and claiming that the negative outcomes don’t count. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pnacs-new-line-u-s-military-presence-in-me-is-a-generational-commitment/291044.md?page=3)