Dem plans for Iraq neglect permanent bases

Time to pour cold water on the Democratic hopefuls plans for Iraq.

I disagree with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have promised to precipitously end the war in Iraq. In a perfect world we could end the war today. But if we lived in a perfect world we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place. Moreover, there wouldn’t be war in a perfect world. Since this isn’t a utopia, we need to assess situations for how they are, not how they could be. Iraq today is a humanitarian crisis.

Obama and Clinton plan to gradually withdraw troops in what would be a Vietnam in reverse: large scale troop deployments regressing in to small units of military advisors. Since the fledgling Iraqi security forces cannot possibly fill the void of the US military, there will be a vicious power vacuum, probably resulting with the country falling in on itself.

Moreover, the absence of Americans troops leaves open the possibility of Sunni/Shiite sectarian conflict boiling over into ethnic cleansing. In this situation, Iran would be forced to fully involve itself. That type of situation would not be good for Iraq, the region, and especially America since we would have created it.

Early Warning rightly sounds the false hope alarm on plans for withdrawal. It’s an option that cannot be chosen: literally. The US has built a constellation of permanent military bases throughout the Persian Gulf, including in Iraq. In other words, the US military has dug its heels into the Persian Gulf.

In Kuwait, for instance, the Army is completing the finishing touches on a permanent ground forces command for Iraq and the region, one that it describes as being capable of being a platform for “full spectrum operations” in 27 countries around southwest Asia and the Middle East.

Permanently deployed with the new regional headquarters in Kuwait will be a theater-level logistical command, a communications command, a military intelligence brigade, a “civil affairs” group and a medical command. “These commands now have a permanent responsibility to this theater,” Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace told the Mideast edition of Stars and Stripes. “They’ll have a permanent presence here.”

The Air Force and Navy, meanwhile, have set up additional permanent bases in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman. By permanent I mean large and continuing American headquarters and presences, most of which are maintained through a combination of coalition activities, long-standing bilateral agreements and official secrecy. Tens of billions have been plowed into the American infrastructure. Admiral William J. Fallon, the overall commander of the region, was just in Oman this week after a trip to Iraq to secure continuing American military bases in that country.

John McCain’s statement that we would be in Iraq for ‘100 years’ is clarified here. But I suspect that it is not a palatable policy for the ‘war-n’ down American electorate. Promises to scale down US involvement in Iraq war are, by contrast, popular and could potentially serve as a viable campaign ethos. I fully expect Iraq to be the General Election’s major issue and for the Democratic nominee to clean up because of it.

If a Democrat is sworn in next January, they will have to face a nearly intractable situation in Iraq: one in which internal security will still be largely dependent on American forces and the compliance of warring factions. This unpleasant reality will be compounded by regional turmoil coming from Iran, Afghanistan, and perhaps Pakistan–to say nothing of further strife in North Africa. The military realizes this today, Obama and Clinton at least do not let on that they do as well.

Even though a Democratic president may loathe the thought of continued troop deployments to the Persian Gulf, he/she and we must come to terms with the fact that we hate the thought of something else even more: an unhinged Middle East. That’s the consequence of a precipitous withdrawal. Let’s hope our president one year from now chooses wisely.

The time to stop an illegal invasion and occupation is now. It is always now. The death and displacement toll is so high in Iraq that the only way to begin healing the damage caused by the invasion is to pull out today.

[...] brian.mcguigan wrote an interesting post today on Dem Plans for Iraq Neglect Permanent BasesHere’s a quick excerptI disagree with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have promised the end the war in Iraq….Time to pour cold water on the Democratic hopefuls plans for Iraq…. [...]

[...] brian.mcguigan wrote an interesting post today on Dem Plans for Iraq Neglect Permanent BasesHere’s a quick excerptI disagree with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have promised the end the war in Iraq…. [...]

Tim, the insurgency, not the invasion, dealt most of the damage to Iraq.

It is a catch 22: If we leave Iraq there will be chaos and no possibility of stability for many years, if not decades. Eventually, a majority Shiite government would emerge, a huge boon to Iran, and a unsettling development for the nearby Sunni states.

If we stay, we will see continued low level violence continue for the same amount of time, but a relatively stable multi-ethnic government and country will emerge in the process.

The way you present it Brian, it would seem that there is no catch 22. If we stay we get low levels of violence AND a relatively stable multi-ethnic government (not sure why you chose to use “but”). If we leave, however, there will be chaos and no possibility of stability for many years.

I can see the merits in this analysis, but with these scenarios, it seems that you would support troops in Iraq for the near future. Is that the case?

I may have been unclear as to what I see the catch 22 to be. The president in January 2009 has two choices for his/her Iraq policy: Pull the US out and allow a bloody power vacuum to ensue vs. keep US troops in Iraq for an uncertain further commitment and cost.

On one hand we have the potential for unmitigated death and destruction. On the other, we have further commitment to a mission which is domestically unpopular.

I say ‘but’ because Americans are sick of our soldiers dying over there. The process of getting to a relatively stable situation there will presumably cost further loss of US troops. Hence further commitment to ensure a stable government and country pours salt on the wounds of those Americans who feel that way.

I would support US troops being in Iraq indefinitely–actively until the security situation is self sustaining. It’s not a question of time as much as it is the capacity of commitment, because as the article I quote in my post points out, we’ve built permanent bases around the region–we’re going to be there indefinitely.

So to revise your question: how long would I support US troops patrolling Iraqi streets? I don’t like timelines, but 4 years seems likely. That way the sitting administration can say that they got US troops out of harms way, even though it was right before the election.

Of course you are correct when you say the next Pres. will not pull out. It would make no sense - for anyone.

After that it comes down to an educated guess. Mine is that the country (Iraq) will become prosperous and their fear of Iran will make us welcome guests (at least in the North).

My guess for a timeline is three generations. It always takes three to morph from the past to the present. I don’t know how old the other readers are but do the math. The sins of the father becomes a folk tale to the grandson.

Brian, arguments along the lines of “they shouldn’t be resisting our illegal invasion and occupation” almost preclude serious debate. However…

Reporting on a recent study of opinion inside Iraq, Karen deYoung of the Washington Post wrote “Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of ‘occupying forces’ as the key to national reconciliation.”

Your first point is a shameless straw man argument, Tim. I never said that Iraqis “shouldn’t be resisting our illegal invasion and occupation.” I said that, thanks to the US, the situation there is now a humanitarian crisis and it is our responsibility to remedy it.

You go on to note that US presence there is doing just the opposite, which in comparison to your first point, is a fair contention. However, I believe that there is no tangible evidence supporting your argument that US occupation is the source of Sunni-Shia conflict. Sectarian violence has subsided in the past six months while we have seen a converse rise in US troop presence. This ratio debunks your ’sole source’ point. Violence has gone down while troop levels have gone up, the opposite of what one would expect if US troops were the sole source of sectarian conflict.

I checked out the WaPo article you cite. Another pollster in that article argues that while common ground is being established between the US and Sunni and US and Shia leaders, they are not reconciling with each other. “I just don’t hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say ‘We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can’t truly dominate.’”

He goes on to argue that the US is largely responsible for the downturn in sectarian violence. “While violence has gone down, one of the ways it has been achieved is by effectively separating people. That means mobility is limited, with roadblocks by the U.S. and Iraqi military or local militias.”

That severely undercuts your argument, Tim. Because it’s clear, to this pollster at least, that the Sunni-Shia rift is still boiling beneath the surface. It isn’t boiling over because the US has persuaded and/or forced them to stay peaceful/apart. In other words, if the US leaves now, with these wounds still open, we should expect civil violence to explode.