Maybe We Can Call Them "Ponies"

The plan, it seems, is for perpetual military occupation, except the term "lily pads" is going to be involved. Jim Henley has more. Fascinatingly, permanently stationing tends of thousands of American soldiers on Iraqi soil in order to "act as a deterrent to other countries in the region" (i.e., control Iraqi foreign policy) seems to be being bruited about as the alternative to George W. Bush perpetual war strategy.

One wonders, at any rate, why all these Arabs are running around believing crazy conspiracy theories about American plots to control the Middle East when it's obvious that we're just trying to promote democracy.

Comments

Having a U.S. military base in a country doesn't imply controlling that country's foreign policy. After all, we have a base in Turkey and Turkey rejected our request to allow us to invade Iraq from the north. We also have bases in, Germany, Italy and numerous other countries which still manage to decide their own foreign policies.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 9:55 AM

In a way, it would be heartening to hear that there is some truth to the "crazy" consipiracy theories, about us wanting to control the region, steal the oil, etc, etc.

At least that would mean there would be some rational motivations, however despicable, behind this whole crazy Iraq invasion scheme.

Posted by Jim W | May 22, 2007 10:02 AM

Isn't this also the Clinton plan for Iraq?

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 22, 2007 10:12 AM

Lily Pads? Lily Pads?

Quelle Defeatocrat! That'll never fly in Peoria.

Anyway, though, you'd think that if "sensible people" were paying attention they might remember

Fascinatingly, permanently stationing tends of thousands of American soldiers on Iraqi soil in order to "act as a deterrent to other countries in the region" (i.e., control Iraqi foreign policy)

This was the key part of the PNAC's plan to begin with. What's with the collective amnesia in this country, especially among people influential in policy decisions and reporting said decisions? (George Santayana quote goes here) Is it something in the water coolers?

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 10:13 AM

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder whether Atlantic thinks they got a good deal with little MY.

Two or three sentences, smarmy, supposedly a good snark, but easily refutable (see Fred, post #1).

One important characteristic of good snarks is that they be either factually correct, or at least factually ambiguous. But clearly, easily, and quickly wrong? Kind of ruins it, doesn't it?

Sk

Posted by Sk | May 22, 2007 10:15 AM

Not credible. Where's the logistics? "Lilypads" in Iraq?

Posted by Alex | May 22, 2007 10:17 AM

"We also have bases in, Germany, Italy and numerous other countries which still manage to decide their own foreign policies."

Your thinking is spot on! Iraq is exactly like Germany, Japan, and Turkey in every possible way.

I sure hope some disruptive liberal pessimist doesn't try to ruin your perfect analogy by bringing up trivial, unimportant differences, like: "citizens of Germany, Japan, and Turkey who openly associate with the Americans don't have to fear for their lives." or "Germany, Japan, and Turkey don't have armed insurgencies with a wide base of support among the genral population" or "Germany, Japan, and Turkey possess--and have for a long time--a functioning rule of law."

Posted by James Gary | May 22, 2007 10:18 AM

But as the linked to article says, there are some significant differences between our Japan and Germany bases and what is being proposed. Maybe Fred just didn't bother to click through.

And it's worth noting that our base in Japan has been a significant source of diplomatic headaches over the years with that country. I think that's the last thing we need in Baghdad.

Posted by AB | May 22, 2007 10:20 AM

Maybe we should call them "cactus blossoms", or something a bit more appropriate to the local climate. These boneheads do know by now that Iraq is mostly desert, don't they?

Posted by Jim W | May 22, 2007 10:20 AM

One wonders, at any rate, why all these Arabs are running around believing crazy conspiracy theories about American plots to control the Middle East

The Iraq War was sold in certain quarters as "it'll be good for Israel" (why this should be a selling point -- and why certain people are encouraging us Jews to act according to anti-Semitic stereotypes of how we should act -- is a whole 'nother topic) and in other quarters with "the only people who are against it are those dirty hippies who hate it 'cause it might benefit Israel -- so hence those hippies are anti-Semitic, so you should support the war 'cause they oppose it".

And yet, considering that part of the bad perception of Israel is that it is perceived as an American foothold for Middle Eastern control (or, alternatively, the brains behind conspiratorial American actions), it doesn't help Israel for America to even be perceived as acting in a conspiratorial manner.

The neo-con crowd argues that "they already hate us, so we shouldn't worry about them hating us more ... if they hate us it's their fault, so why do you want us to change? isn't that blaming the victim?" And yet, how is it that the hatred propagates itself? Perhaps because those who hate us have "evidence" (how ever much that evidence is merely confirmation bias) of our malfeasance? Perhaps things would go better for Israel in its bargaining for peace deals (and hence for its long term security) if it weren't perceived as a tool of / controlling a conspiratorial American policy?

Of course, bargaining does not interest the neo-cons. Because they've swallowed the fundie kool-aid. But why would they swallow the kool-aid given to them by those who want most Jews to die at Armeggeden and don't care if Israel survives in the long term. The neo-cons might not believe in dispensationalism, but even if I don't believe in your theory as to how I'm gonna die, if you want me dead, I'm not gonna drink the kool-aid you give me. Yet these Jewish neo-cons have so bought into racist stereotypes of Jewish cleverness they think they won't be outsmarted by a bunch of rube dispensationalists.

Which is an attitude that'll guarantee you'll get conned, nu?

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 10:24 AM

all fred is doing is citing the latest in right-wing talking points, althogh somewhat more coherently than most.

it's hard to figure out what sk thinks he or she is doing.

as for matthew's comments, the original "plan" (as testified to in congress in may or june of 2003) was to be down to 30K troops in september, 2003: now the idea is apparently have more than 30K troops forever.

ta da!

Posted by howard | May 22, 2007 10:24 AM

"But as the linked to article says, there are some significant differences between our Japan and Germany bases and what is being proposed."

Whatever the differences are, we sure didn't invade Germany and Japan apropos of nothing and set up our bases there by force.

Comparing an American military presence (however unpopular, but nevertheless negotiated with an existing regime) to the situation in Iraq is ridiculous.

Posted by James Gary | May 22, 2007 10:30 AM

Re: "Of course, bargaining does not interest the neo-cons. Because they've swallowed the fundie kool-aid."

If only someone would give them the real kool-aid, not some half-assed metaphorical kool-aid.

Posted by Jim W | May 22, 2007 10:31 AM

Two or three sentences, smarmy, supposedly a good snark, but easily refutable (see Fred, post #1). - SK

Fred, of course, is right. The very difficulty of even maintaining an occupation in Iraq shows how different the situation in Iraq is from, say, Germany or Japan. Which, pace James Gary, would likely make a base in Iraq even less of a likely lily-pad (so to speak) for future foreign policy adventures. Once there is a sovereign Iraqi government that can actually govern, they certainly ain't gonna wanna be seen as our patsies.

OTOH, what Fred seems to be missing is that there is a difference between actually being able to do something and intending to do it. Some people did have a bona fide view that we could cake-walk into Iraq and establish a democracy. That people intended this is not disproven by the fact that there were spectacularly wrong (and their -- those considered "serious thinkers about foreign policy" -- being wrong was predicted by those of us the punditocracy deems "not serious about foreign policy"). Similarly, that Iraq is not likely to be a functioning lily-pad doesn't disprove that those who want our forces to remain in Iraq feel that those forces will act as a deterent to other countries (which is a de facto imposition on Iraq's foreign policy -- what if Iraq otherwise would join with those other countries?).

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 10:35 AM

"Dienbienphu" is Vietnamese for "lily pad", you know. Little known fact.

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 10:42 AM

After all these years, still comparing Iraq to Germany? All we need is a reference to the murder rate in Philadelphia and the idiocy is complete.

Posted by Steve | May 22, 2007 10:45 AM

In a way, it would be heartening to hear that there is some truth to the "crazy" conspiracy theories, about us wanting to control the region, steal the oil, etc, etc.

At least that would mean there would be some rational motivations, however despicable, behind this whole crazy Iraq invasion scheme.

I think that the goal all along has been to establish a permanent footprint in the Middle East, from which Iran, Syria, and ultimately Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could be intimidated. Motives are control of oil, and protection of Israel. Human rights, women's rights, democracy, WMD, and al Queda were always secondary or purely fake.

To say this out loud put you on the far puppet-hippy dove fringe, however -- even though something like this was pretty openly expressed by the unofficial warblogger / AIPAC / PNAC advocates of the war.

Plans for a permanent presence are continuing as schedules, and none of the major Democratic candidates have really renounced these plans.

And it was also recently reported that "Plan B" for Iraq is to invade Iran.

The Bush team's setbacks over the last couple years have not caused them to back off an inch. They really have no fall-back position. It's the same with civil liberties -- someone in the administration just now proposed a plan authorizing one-man extraconstitutional rule during any national emergency (e.g. an invasion of Iran).

Bush needs to be confronted and destroyed. He can't be persuaded or forced to compromise. The media will be no help at all, as we can see, and I doubt that the Democrats have the heart -- as their recent backdown shows.

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 10:54 AM

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder whether Atlantic thinks they got a good deal with little MY.

Two or three sentences, smarmy, supposedly a good snark, but easily refutable . . .

Dude, they're paying Andrew Sullivan just next door.

Posted by Swopa | May 22, 2007 11:08 AM

"Bush needs to be confronted and destroyed. He can't be persuaded or forced to compromise. The media will be no help at all, as we can see, and I doubt that the Democrats have the heart -- as their recent backdown shows." ...JE

Many people consider me pessimistic or uselessly and unnecessarily apocalyptic, but I don't think you can change this system from within the system.
It is not as simple as capitalism = militarism, but I don't think attacking militarism and war directly will ever work in America.

You pretty much have to eliminate the possibility, the capability. A variant on "starve-the-beast" you have to increase taxes and the welfare state to the degree that people will actually suffer severely if resources are diverted to militarism. You can't have a cushion of surplus available wealth.

Rome lost its empire when it lost its tax base.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 22, 2007 11:15 AM

to establish a permanent footprint in the Middle East, from which Iran, Syria, and ultimately Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could be intimidated. Motives are control of oil, and protection of Israel. Human rights, women's rights, democracy, WMD, and al Queda were always secondary or purely fake. - John Emerson

You forgot as a fake motive (albeit related to a real motive -- your "control of oil") "cheap oil". Also, "protection of Israel" being a real rather than fake motive depends on whose motives you are talking about. "Protection of Israel" was used to sell the war, but the whole scheme is so obviously bad for the long term security of Israel (if only 'cause it gives truth to wacky conspiracy theories that tend to perturb Arabs away from the peace table) that those proposing the war for the sake of protecting Israel were either being fake about that motive or they are such idiots we shouldn't have listened to them (or both).

To say this out loud put you on the far puppet-hippy dove fringe, however -- even though something like this was pretty openly expressed by the unofficial warblogger / AIPAC / PNAC advocates of the war.

Yep. Bingo!

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 11:19 AM

DAS:

"Similarly, that Iraq is not likely to be a functioning lily-pad doesn't disprove that those who want our forces to remain in Iraq feel that those forces will act as a deterent to other countries (which is a de facto imposition on Iraq's foreign policy -- what if Iraq otherwise would join with those other countries?)."

How far does your concern about "de facto impositions" on Iraqi government policies extend? The democratically-elected Iraqi government opposes a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Does this mean you oppose such a withdrawal as well, since it would be an imposition on the Iraqi government's preferred policy? Wouldn't the consistent position be to respect the Iraqi government's sovereignty, even when their position isn't aligned with yours?

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 11:37 AM

The Iraqi government's position on withdrawal is unclear, but regardless, it's not a violation of a nation's sovereignty to withdraw occupation troops from the nation.

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 11:39 AM

"The democratically-elected Iraqi government opposes a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq."

The "democratically-elected Iraqi government" to which you're refererring is a US construction established by force of arms and has absolutely no legitimacy beyond that provided by the US military.

Its support for the continued presence of US forces in Iraq is both expected and entirely irrelevant.

Posted by James Gary | May 22, 2007 11:47 AM

Now Fred is lying about what the Iraqi government wants? A majority of the Iraqi parliament signs onto a bill demanding the US set a timeline for withdrawal, and he wants to point to a couple "senior officials" and claim that they, and not the parliament, speak for the "democratically-elected Iraqi government"? Positively shameless.

Posted by Steve | May 22, 2007 11:54 AM

James Gary:

"The "democratically-elected Iraqi government" to which you're refererring is a US construction established by force of arms"

The Iraqi government was freely elected in UN-monitored, multi-party elections, with nearly 80% turn-out. You know that, I'm sure, so why would you state such an obvious falsehood? It doesn't even make sense from a Machiavellian, conspiracy-theory standpoint: do you really think, if it were up to the Bush administration, that Sadr's party would have been given a piece of Iraq's parliament, or that so many parliament seats would have gone to other Shiite religious parties? The Iraqi government is what Iraqis voted for, for better or worse.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 12:06 PM

> I think that the goal all along has been to
> establish a permanent footprint in the Middle
> East, from which Iran, Syria, and ultimately Saudi
> Arabia and Pakistan could be intimidated. Motives
> are control of oil,

Although they weren't the brightest bulbs on the earth, Cheney did (and does) have a lot of experience ratf***ing global society. So while I think you are correct in your assessment of their primary objective, even Wolfowitz et al were not so stupid as to not have a backup objective. Which was to roil the Middle East into so much turmoil that (1) oil prices would go high and stay high forever and (2) it would be difficult for any single entity (be it Saddam or the Sauds) to take control of it ever again.

They didn't fully succeed in their primary plan, but the backup plan is proceeding nicely.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | May 22, 2007 12:10 PM

Steve:

"Now Fred is lying about what the Iraqi government wants? A majority of the Iraqi parliament signs onto a bill demanding the US set a timeline for withdrawal..."

138 of 275 Iraqi members of parliament did give preliminary support to a draft bill demanding a time line for withdrawal, but some of those who supported it seem to feel they were deceived into doing so. According to the Washington Post:

"There was also some disagreement over the terms of proposed timetable legislation. Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman told the Associated Press he had agreed to back the measure on the condition that it included an accompanying timeline for the buildup of Iraqi forces, but this was not included in the draft. Othman called the omission a "deception."

Hassan al-Shimmari, a Shiite who leads the Fadhila Party in parliament, also signed the petition and had similar concerns."

Without those two MPs, of course, the draft bill wouldn't have a majority in Iraq's parliament. In any case, the bill hasn't been officially voted on or even debated in Iraq's parliament yet, so it doesn't represent the policy of Iraq's government now.

"...and he wants to point to a couple "senior officials" and claim that they, and not the parliament, speak for the "democratically-elected Iraqi government"? Positively shameless."

Um, those "senior officials" -- including the deputy prime minister and national security advisor -- do speak for the Iraqi government.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 12:40 PM

The American people and the Iraqi people, as represented by their elected leaders, speak with one voice on the proposed withdrawal: No!

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 1:19 PM

How far does your concern about "de facto impositions" on Iraqi government policies extend? - Fred

Others have dealt more effectively than I could with whether or not our withdrawal would be a "de facto" imposition on the Iraqi government -- e.g. whether they really would oppose our withdrawal or whether, even if they did, it's an imposition for us to remove our troops in spite of what their government says. E.g. if the government of The United Federation of Schnipischook and Hotzeplotz were to request U.S. troops remain in their country, and we didn't, would that really be an imposition on their foreign policy in the same way as if due to our troops being present, they didn't seize Chelm and the road between Minsk and Pinsk like they wanted to?

What I will point out is you may have mistaken the nature of my "concern". I was just pointing out what likely would happen. I wasn't saying this would be a bad thing or that we shouldn't impose policies if we are in a position to do so. I was saying that if we are in such a position, we naturally will -- and this is realized by everyone in the area. Which makes the very desire to be in such a position a dangerous thing -- essentially it's "why they hate us", nu?

Remember the days when pride was considered a sin?

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 1:40 PM

if it were up to the Bush administration, that Sadr's party would have been given a piece of Iraq's parliament, or that so many parliament seats would have gone to other Shiite religious parties? - Fred

Call me paranoid, but given the influence of former Iran/Contra types on this administration, I'd answer "yes".

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 1:42 PM

Exactly. The bases are permanent. There is no way we will ever wabandon the biggest of them. Permanent bases in the Gulf region was the only real strategic aim of the entire Iraq adventure. Everything else was just putting lipstick on the pig, rhetorical games, fantasy or outright lies.

The biggest bases are forward self contained airbases with strategic implications beyond the Gulf, all the way to China and Russia.

There is almost no possibility that any political coalition could ever abandon the bases. There is no way the Pentagon would allow it. The latter is probably too strong a statement, but maybe not. They represent a gigantic strategic coup.

It might get messy if any so called Iraqi government demands withdrawal. Which come to think about it is one reason why everything we do there seems to be insuring a stable government will never form.

It is possible that at points, grass roots sentiment for total withdrawal might develop. Another big terror attack here would be helpful, in not crucial l to maintaining political support. Not that the US political system anymore requires popular support of a majority. It's handy but not necessary.

Tom Delay said it best. I'll paraphrase: 911 was unfortunate but it provided us a great opportunity.

Posted by rapier | May 22, 2007 1:51 PM

"Facts on the ground". Ariel Sharon was a prophet. Expect more.

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 2:04 PM

I think it was apparent from the beginning that this was part of the Cheney faction's plan all along. Maybe starting from Cheney's meetings with his Big Energy cronies. I found it hard to believe at the time, but it was the only thing that could explain what was being done (eg, huge airbases only part of occupation and reconstruction that was being done competently). Sickening.

Posted by anon | May 22, 2007 2:11 PM

Can one of you von Clausewitz channelers explain to me why permanent airbases in Iraq would be so crucial when we already have bases in Quatar and Turkey? Plus these big floating airbases called aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean? We don't need bases in Iraq to drop bombs on Iran, Syria or any other country an American president feels could use bombing.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 2:49 PM

Can one of you von Clausewitz channelers explain to me why permanent airbases in Iraq would be so crucial when we already have bases in Quatar and Turkey? - Fred

Beats the fecal matter out of me -- and I reckon all of us alleged von Clausewitz supporters (btw -- how come is it that whenever one of us moonbats makes a moonbatty comment, we're immediately compared to Kissinger or von Clausewitz even as those who do the comparison are probably closer to such "realists" than we moonbats are? project much?) feel the same.

We aren't saying such a base is so crucial. We're just pointing out those who agitated for the war were, as recently as 8 or so Friedman units ago, were making the point that this is why we must go to war.

So who's the von Clausewitz channeler? Us or the PNACers who slur us as "realists"?

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 3:43 PM

OK Fred, so if the Iraqi parliament passes a bill at any time in the future that the US should withdraw fully (as in everybody, no bases, just go home and never come back) you'll be wholeheartedly supporting them - deal?

Posted by novakant | May 22, 2007 3:56 PM

Why don't you ask Cheney, Fred? He won't talk to us.

This is the best sense we can make of Bush's policy, now that all the other justifications have turned out to be fake. The alternative explanation on the table is that everything they did was a big stupid mistake.

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 3:58 PM

"We aren't saying such a base is so crucial. We're just pointing out those who agitated for the war were, as recently as 8 or so Friedman units ago, were making the point that this is why we must go to war."

Can you cite a prominent war advocate for whom this was greater than a tertiary goal of invading Iraq? Because it seems like an awfully expensive way to get an unneeded base with our pre-existing bases in Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 3:59 PM

"OK Fred, so if the Iraqi parliament passes a bill at any time in the future that the US should withdraw fully (as in everybody, no bases, just go home and never come back) you'll be wholeheartedly supporting them - deal?"

Deal. It's their country, after all.

And if the Iraqi parliament decides it's in their interests to invite us to keep a base there, you'll be wholeheartedly supporting them - deal?

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 4:17 PM

Damn, that's dumb. If I ask you to leave my home, you have to leave. If I ask you to stay, you can still leave if you want. I can't believe I just answered that nonsense.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 22, 2007 4:27 PM

Certainly. (Personally, I'm one of the few lefties still regarding the US presence in Iraq as the lesser evil.)

And to expand a little further: if the majority of democratically elected US representatives in Congress decided it was time to go home, you would support that wholeheartedly too, no?

Posted by novakant | May 22, 2007 4:28 PM

Certainly, novakant.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 4:59 PM

Maybe not quite what Fred's looking for but here goes:

I think that's highly possible. We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies. - Donald Kagan (one of the original PNACers), sometime in 2002(?)

So I guess the force in Iraq is a secondary goal and oil supply is a primary one?

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 5:05 PM

And, Fred, I have no idea what the authors of Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century (1997?) could mean by this:

The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein

( / playing dumb )

Posted by DAS | May 22, 2007 5:08 PM

Can one of you von Clausewitz channelers explain to me why permanent airbases in Iraq would be so crucial when we already have bases in Quatar and Turkey?

Because a permanent airbase without a puppet regime is worthless. See e.g Turkey, March 2003.

Attacks on Syria and Iran, dearly desired by the neocons, will not take place from Turkish or Qatari bases because their respective governments won't allow it. The Iraq "government", on the other hand, has no say whatsoever in what the US army does on "their" territory.

Posted by BP | May 22, 2007 5:20 PM

Interestingly, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was actually published in September, 2000.

It's almost like they...no, it couldn't be!!!

Posted by Jon | May 22, 2007 5:28 PM

"Because a permanent airbase without a puppet regime is worthless."

So why do we have so many "worthless" airbases?

BTW, the U.S. Incirlik base in Turkey is being used to support the war in Iraq. As is, of course, the Ramstein base in Germany, another country which opposed the U.S.-led invasion.

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 6:06 PM

So why do we have so many "worthless" airbases?

Welfare.

Posted by BP | May 22, 2007 6:17 PM

BP got it. We don't want to depend on or consult with Qatar and Turkey. Not really that hard a question.

Posted by John Emerson | May 22, 2007 6:37 PM

the U.S. Incirlik base in Turkey is being used to support the war in Iraq. As is, of course, the Ramstein base in Germany, another country which opposed the U.S.-led invasion.

As Fred pointed out at the very beginning here, it sure is a good thing the presence of U.S. military bases in Germany and Turkey doesn't help us influence their foreign policy. The only reason Turkey and Germany are acting this way is because their people have demanded it. They just love the war in Iraq, and want to be more involved.

Posted by Jon | May 22, 2007 6:49 PM

Jon:

"As Fred pointed out at the very beginning here, it sure is a good thing the presence of U.S. military bases in Germany and Turkey doesn't help us influence their foreign policy. The only reason Turkey and Germany are acting this way is because their people have demanded it. They just love the war in Iraq, and want to be more involved."

I think it's more accurate to say that when a country agrees to host an American military base, it does so with the understanding that we might use that military base in support of our military activities. In case you missed it the second time I noted it Jon, both Germany and Turkey opposed the war in Iraq. Contrary to your supposition, hosting American bases influenced neither country to provide troops or other help in Iraq.

BTW, some of you may be interested by Democrat Bob Kerrey's essay on Iraq in today's Wall Street Journal: The Left's Iraq Muddle

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 7:28 PM

I really don't say this lightly, but Bob Kerrey is a terrorist. He should really be rotting in a cell or strung up instead of whining to the WSJ opinion page.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 22, 2007 7:42 PM

hosting American bases influenced neither country to provide troops or other help in Iraq.

Well then, thank god no one has claimed this:

the U.S. Incirlik base in Turkey is being used to support the war in Iraq. As is, of course, the Ramstein base in Germany

Anyway, the interesting part of all this is the way America's imperial reach is waning. If this had happened even ten years before, the Turkish and German governments would have been completely onboard from the beginning, with troops and everything else, no matter how strongly their populations opposed it. But now they have to knuckle under to the U.S. in quieter ways, so that the people in their countries don't notice as much.

Posted by Jon | May 22, 2007 8:00 PM

Jon:

"Well then, thank god no one has claimed this:"

You can't be so obtuse as to confuse U.S. military support of the Iraq war from a U.S. military bases with Turkish or German military involvement in Iraq, so I'll chalk that up to a half-assed attempt at sophistry.

"Anyway, the interesting part of all this is the way America's imperial reach is waning. If this had happened even ten years before, the Turkish and German governments would have been completely onboard from the beginning, with troops and everything else, no matter how strongly their populations opposed it."

Interesting, reflexively anti-American, explanation. We've always been such bullies to the Germans and Turks, so true. During the first Gulf War, the Turks massed troops along their border with Iraq, but didn't fire a shot. The Germans donated some hardware, but provided no troops (although they have troops in Afghanistan today, despite our "waning imperial reach").

A more reality-based explanation is that Germany and Turkey are sovereign countries that base their decisions on whether or not to join an American-led war coalition on their own views and concerns. Their views and concerns have changed over the last decade or so, for a variety of reasons, having little to do with the U.S. (e.g., Turkey electing an Islamic government, its campaign to join the EU; Germany's evolving view of the role of its military, etc.).

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 8:39 PM

You can't be so obtuse as to confuse U.S. military support of the Iraq war from a U.S. military bases with Turkish or German military involvement in Iraq

hosting American bases influenced neither country to provide troops or other help in Iraq.

the U.S. Incirlik base in Turkey is being used to support the war in Iraq. As is, of course, the Ramstein base in Germany

I guess now you'll say that letting the U.S. use the bases actually isn't helpful. Which would make some wonder why the U.S. wanted to use the Turkish bases to begin with. And of course just letting us use the bases is far from the only things the Turkish and German governments have done to be of assistance.

Germany and Turkey are sovereign countries that base their decisions on whether or not to join an American-led war coalition on their own views and concerns.

Yes, exactly. The U.S. has never tried to influence either countries' decisions, and certainly has never succeeded. For instance, after the massive resistance in Germany to the deployment of the Pershing II missiles, the United States said: We understand, and will never ever try to infringe on your sovereignty! Those missiles are staying right here in America

I assume there are probably old Soviet apparatchiks proudly recalling the sovereignty of their socialist brothers in the Eastern Bloc. Maybe you can get together with them for a drink sometime.

Posted by Jon | May 22, 2007 9:08 PM

Oh, please, Jon. There was no question of sovereignty with the Pershing 2s. The German governments of the period supported the deployment of those missiles.

The popular resistance simply didn't win in the German political process. Now, they might have -- a nonaligned West Germany was considered a real threat at the time. But the so-called "peace" movement didn't even really threaten the Kohl administration, as it happens.

And Kohl (and his predecessor, Schmidt) wasn't letting the missiles in as a favor to the US. He genuinely though it was in Germany's interest to do so.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 23, 2007 1:44 AM

The German governments of the period supported the deployment of those missiles.

Right, right. And the U.S. never tried to influenced the German political process, and definitely never used its power to pressure governments once they were in office.

That's what's really inspiring about this story. Every other powerful country in history has tried to manipulate and control governments elsewhere. But the United States simply refused to do this, even with all its military bases and economic influence. It seems like a made-up fairy tale, except it's real!

Posted by Jon | May 24, 2007 4:09 AM