(alternatively : “the bombings will continue until peace improves !”)
With a chance of genocide.
Right after we invaded Iraq, I asked a military officer friend how we were going to extract ourselves when it was over. He looked at me like I was crazy and assured me we would never leave. Now that we have strong bases all around the Middle East, why would we just give them up? Have we ever give up a single base anywhere in the world?
Yes. If I remember correctly, we finally left Spain or Italy or somewhere in mainland Europe about a decade ago, confident that WWII was really really finally no-kidding, all done with.
Travel time is a component of war. If I want to hit you, giving you 12 hours of advance warning that I’m going to come do it is a big negative on the surprise quotient. If it’s more like 15-30 minutes then getting people back from lunch, everything powered on, etc. is harder to swing.
The more bases we have, the more likely it is that we’ll have a short hop to go slap someone in a hurry.
I can think of a few bases nearby in Northern California that have been abandoned. I guess we Left Coasters are not hostile enough to justify maintaining base exchanges for our occupying forces.
A USMC light colonel I trained with in rock-climbing and back-country rescue in 1977-78, before Perestroika etc, had a great plan to overthrow Communism. The Commie boot depended on tight control of communications. Samizdat was only a safety valve. Col. Jim’s plan: airdrop zillions of solar-powered CB radios across Red Eurasia. A loose flow of commo would surely undermine the regimes without us bothering to bomb.
Has anyone a plan to undermine Islamic states? Ayatollah Khomeni took the Shah’s Iran with audio cassettes. Can the effect be replicated now, but opposite? How to convince Muslims their overlords must go? Ah, but if militant mullahs are ousted, will the US foster self-determination, or just go with the usual installation of thugs?
OP: Why is the US still in the MidEast? Because it’s there.
During W’s time, the US actually tried to distribute communications equipment to people in Cuba, all they managed to do was get an elderly American arrested: Alan Gross - Wikipedia
The invasion of Iraq pretty much killed the aspiration for democracy in the Muslim world. Democracy became a code word for US imperialism and the Muslim world intellectuals who had been advocating it for years were instantly discredited.
I’m in Kabul right now and I was here in 2002 when the US started talking about invading Iraq. I was watching BBC with a colleague back when W was first floating the idea of invading Iraq and I turned to him and said, “whelp, we’ve lost this war.”
This is incorrect.
Ayatollah Sistani, and the century-old Shi’ite constitutional tradition for which he stands, was in no way “discredited” by the American savagery. Quite the opposite. He doubled down on it in the aftermath of the invasion, and has ever since defended it against any and all foreign scheming - in 2003, famously, against the Americans…
… And, notably, against his fellow Iranians as well:
For a frail octogenarian quietist, he has been remarkably active in his attempts to steer Iraq towards real, authentic democracy:
Far from “discrediting” him in the eyes of his Iraqi hosts and his co-religionists abroad, this has made him wildly popular.
As stated above , to help the defense contractors.
The ideal would be to turn the Middle East into a region like Western Europe, where the local populations have no desire to upset world order. Our stated aim is for our military to provide a period of security to allow these conditions to develop and then let the local governments maintain the status quo.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the local populations are moving towards a desire to maintain world order. Most local populations seem to be revisionist in one form or another and favor the use to extreme means to achieve the changes they want.
So we have a lesser unofficial goal of getting stable local governments established which are capable to maintaining themselves while keeping their populations from expressing their revisionist desires; in other words, we want dictatorships.
The problem (putting aside the human rights issues) is that most of the local regimes find that they can more easily maintain their own power by making deals with the local extremists. They agree to ignore the activities of the extremists as long as the extremists agree to direct their efforts outside the country and not undermine the regime.
Our military offers an alternative; we can suppress the extremists. This means the regime feels less pressure to make deals with the extremists. And realistically, it means the regimes become obligated to the United States for the military support they need to maintain themselves.
They have quit quite a number of bases in England; some have been repurposed and some are just decaying quietly.
Afghanistan is an old country, a proud country, a country which has settled it own problems for centuries in its own ways, e.g. with the governmental system called Loya Jirga. There was a broad consensus among Afghanis that they wanted liberalization, not the Taliban.
Had the U.S. opted to strengthen pro-Afghan anti-Taiban sentiment, and help create a government of, by and for the Afghan people, then Afghanistan might have been a success story. The U.S. would have needed only a token force, to keep Afghani forces trained to fight Taliban resurgence.
Instead U.S. “nation-building” endeavours (and lack thereof) failed in many ways. For starters, contracts were awarded to connected people, often U.S. or Kuwaiti companies and NOT Afghanis. American arrogance meant that Afghan cultural values played homage to America values. Instead of nurturing a pro-Afghan politician, Hollywashingwood imposed an election: Other Americans applauded the purple fingers, but I cringed.
Is there evidence that Afghanistan must always suffer civil war? Aren’t many of their problems due to invasions from other countries?
Trump left a base intact for Russia when he bailed on the Kurds. There’s video of Russians giddy over Trump’s gift.
Clark afb and subic Bay Navy base in phillipines
So the Iraqi Prime Minister has told the Americans to start making plans for the withdrawal of its troops.* The Americans have ignored him.
I wonder: Let’s say the Prime Minister (whether it’s Abdul Mahdi or his replacement, whoever that’ll be) takes things one step further, and signs the bill – already passed in the Iraqi Parliament – calling for American withdrawal, and the Americans continue to ignore him even then, wouldn’t that be a violation of the U.N. General Assembly’s Res. 3314, which under Article 3 condemns…
… As an unlawful “act of aggression”?
(Not that I’d make a real-life difference – if the Americans want to stay, they’ll ignore all rules and regulations and stay anyway – but, ah, just for the record.)
*) While also, maybe just maybe, secretly asking them to stick around. It’s complicated.
Well, technically it won’t be breaking the rules. Because one of the rules say that the United States has the right to veto any UN resolutions it doesn’t like.
True that.
The Rome Statute of the I.C.C. also condemns sticking around after being asked to leave as an “act of aggression,” but then the U.S. aren’t signatories to that one.
Also, the Americans have now resorted to straight-up blackmailing the Iraqis, warning that if they keep pushing for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, they’ll “shut down Iraq’s access to the country’s central bank account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a move that could jolt Iraq’s already shaky economy.” So much for respecting the country’s sovereignty, the will of its duly elected representatives, its democratic processes and all that good stuff.
Follow the money.
Most people are unaware of the fact that the US was in negotiations with the Taliban over an oil pipeline (Unocal) before 9/11.
Sorry, but the US is in Afghanistan because we consider it to be in our geopolitical and economic interests to be there, and to use our power to control resources. Iraq is more complicated because there’s the Israeli factor and our long-running feud with Iran (which itself circles back to Iraq). But the bottom line is the same: the government concludes it’s in our interests to be there and to impose America’s will on others.
People in these countries we occupy aren’t stupid. Most of them probably know we’re not there to liberate them but there to extract their resources for our own national interests. Additionally, we sometimes use these countries as quasi-democratic/privatization/"free"market political and economic laboratories. We’ve tried to sell this to the locals by offering the promises of market economies in return, but the reality is that more often than not, we fuck it up because we have little understanding of how these societies function, what’s important to them, and what they want. We focus on what we want first and try to figure out the rest on the fly – you can see the results.
You sure you didn’t get your ideas from an Oliver Stone film?
I feel like it’s unlikely that the OP did nor will give anything like a balanced view of the matter to his grand-daughter, but here is a decent video to watch:
I always assume that if the US and any other NATO countries pull out than it would give the likes of Russia and maybe even a future more ambitious China the opportunity to move in and control the region instead. In fact we’re already in a proxy war with Russia in Syria and when Trump pulled troops out of the region the Russians moved in within hours. Even if/when oil becomes a complete non-issue the US will not want to completely surrender the strategic positions in the middle east, nor the influence that can have over their governments and the related benefits of that within the UN.