Iraq Forever

Thomas Ricks reports on the plans for a permanent "post-occupation" force of 50,000 or so troops in Iraq. This is probably the best way to operationalize talk of "winning" the war. The goal, according to the war's proponents, is to create the kind of situation where the country is sufficiently stable and under sufficiently docile leadership as to be willing to play host to a series of permanent bases.

But, of course, it's precisely the widespread -- and, crucially, accurate -- Iraqi perception that US forces aren't there just to help them out and aren't planning on leaving that drives the appeal of both Sunni and Shiite nationalist groups that are opposing us.

UPDATE: Re-reading the piece it dawns on me that this plan is tragically consistent with the Democratic mantra of withdrawing "combat forces" from Iraq but leaving troops for training, force protection, and counterterrorism. Bill Richardson says let's really withdraw.

Comments

All they need is someone in Iraq to sign a piece of paper, and then they'll be sitting there for the next 99 years like they do in Guantanamo Bay.

Posted by abb1 | June 10, 2007 1:43 PM

Maybe, it is time to recognize how the goal of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq has interacted with the "means" -- i.e., a "sufficiently docile" government, "willing to play host" -- to create the strategic meltdown, which is Iraq.

A strong Iraqi state would not need U.S. support, and would not tolerate a U.S. presence. In the interests of achieving its goal of a permanent U.S. base, the U.S. policy has always aimed at a weak Iraqi state. Disbanding the established Army, banning the baathists, even the libertarian reforms of the CPA aimed at creating the libertarian ideal of a weak state, all add up to the same thing: a weak Iraqi state. And, a weak Iraqi state is necessary for the U.S. to achieve its goal of permanent bases.

Unfortunately, a weak Iraqi state is not sufficient for a stable Iraq. The U.S. strategic goal of a weak Iraqi state, dependent enough on U.S. power to acquiesce to permanent U.S. bases, has backfired, and Iraq has spun out of control.

A stable Iraq and a weak Iraqi state are contradictory and strategically incompatible goals, which can never be achieved.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 10, 2007 2:20 PM

It's just possible that so many people from so many different ideological perspectives have either signed on or allowed for the possibility that in the future they may sign on to such a plan because, unfortunately, it's the best available plan given the situation we find ourselves in.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 10, 2007 2:26 PM

So I suppose I'm the only person who's not a dem candidate who's against the war but doesn't have a huge problem with "withdrawing "combat forces" from Iraq but leaving troops for training, force protection, and counterterrorism."?

It makes sense to me that we should begin withdrawing the majority of our combat troops while still maintaining a commitment to train and equip the Iraqi army and police forces.

Posted by Ben | June 10, 2007 2:31 PM

This "plan" is absurd. I claim without evidence that if and when the US withdraws down to 50k combat troops in Iraq, the Iraqi resistance fighters will force those 50k out in short order. Like our glorious exit from Saigon, except with sand.

Remember, when you see those rooftop helicopters leaving from the new Crusader Castle oops I mean American Embassy in Baghdad:
you heard it here first.

Even if we leave the entire "surge" in place, they'll kick us out. Look at the violence trendline, the American military deaths trendline -- we're giving it everything we've got right now, and we're steadily losing ground.

Posted by joel hanes | June 10, 2007 3:03 PM

How in the world would that improve our position, Ben? We'd still have 50,000 troops settled in 'permanent' bases - I sincerely doubt this would placate the Islamists and Arab nationalists that suspect we plan on turning Iraq into the Saudi Arabia of the 2000s. And if we, over the past five years, have not been able to train/convince enough Iraqi police or military units to stay loyal to the U.S. puppet government while we have 150,000 soliders in the field, what do you think will begin to happen when we withdraw?

Posted by Tim P. | June 10, 2007 3:04 PM

A permanent presence is the worst possible idea. Enclaves and limits on action always bring continuing attacks in irregular wars. There is simply no reason for the enemy to do otherwise.

Take a very good look at the advise, train, and equip roles too. The Iraqis know how to police and fight. They can actually understand things. The problems lie in politics and the nature of the enemy.

Irregular war, covert attacks, religous conflicts, tribalism, and terrorism are always hard to contain. And often what works is not suitable for family viewing. This not unique to Iraq or to our time.

I am not sure we should withdraw. But, if not, we should not weaken our force. And if wedo leave we can best help by providing a sensible array of equipment to improve communications and transport to the government. And international services such as intelligence sharing and diplomacy.

Posted by K | June 10, 2007 3:21 PM

Iraq is not a restaurant with an a la carte menu of delectable policy options.

The combination of 50,000 U.S. troops, out of combat, on permanent bases, in a stable Iraq, is simply not within the realm of the possible.

If the Iraqi government is strong enough to make Iraq "stable" that Iraqi government will kick us out.

If the Iraqi government is weak enough to want us to stay, then the Iraqi insurgency will engage U.S. troops in costly combat.

It is not clear to me that an Iraqi government weak enough to want the U.S. to stay, would ever be strong enough that a mere 50,000 troops would suffice. An Iraqi government weak enough to want the U.S. to stay, needs a U.S. force of 150,000 to survive.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 10, 2007 3:42 PM

Someone refresh my memory: aren't U.S. and other Coalition troops in Iraq serving under a U.N. mandate -- a mandate the Iraqi government has requested the U.N. extend?

Why are some of you so reflexively quick to think the worst of your own country? France asked us to remove our troops from France, and we did. The Philippines asked us, and we did. Every other country where American troops serve, they do so with the consent of that country's government (or in the special case of Cuba, under a pre-existing agreement before the current dictatorship took power).

Posted by Harry | June 10, 2007 4:41 PM

You read poll after poll and about 90% of the Iraqis want us out, and about 70% would help someone who attacks us. The American side is dead already- they just ain't lied down yet.

The only question now, as Gorbachev commented when the Soviet Union found itself in a similar situation, is whether we withdraw now or go on to completely militarily disgrace ourselves.

Maybe the saddest part is that the Democrats might go on to disgrace themselves in this arena, just as the Republicans have, and then we the American people would be stuck with two failed parties, both propped up by the big-money donor system.

The living will envy the dead.

Posted by serial catowner | June 10, 2007 5:52 PM

Of course, permanent bases have always been the “real” reason for the invasion. (The chance to make a bit of money also figured in, as well). Permanent bases are actually a “good” strategic idea- if you are an imperialist. Ask Kerry, Biden, Clinton…. (W may not know anything about this, but Cheney certainly does). Look for a slew of new arguments during the next few months. (“Korea” is only the first one ).

Posted by M. Carey | June 10, 2007 7:07 PM

Drawing down troops in Iraq is also consistent with minimizing your exposure in the aftermath of an attack on Iran.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 10, 2007 7:18 PM

Here would seem to be the key part:

It is based on officials' assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009. The questions officials are grappling with are not whether the U.S. presence will be cut, but how quickly, to what level and to what purpose.

Does that timeline coincide with any significant political events anyone can think of?

Posted by AJ | June 10, 2007 7:39 PM

Matt, I know I'm just some crackpot who posts here on occasion and maybe you don't read these comments but I've been harping on this here a lot. The bases were one of the prime reasons, and perhaps the only legit strategic military reason to invade Iraq, and they have become by default the only reason left that is politically palatable. For us that is. As to the Iraqis, they don't matter, to be frank.

Nobody but Richardson to my knowledge has suggested abandoning these bases. In other words they are already an accepted reality among Democrats. withdrawal talk from now on must be understood to mean withdrawing from most contact between our forces and the Iraqi populous.

This has all been obvious for a long time, and punch in the face obvious since the new year when Baker Hamilton went bye bye.

Get with the program.

Posted by rapier | June 10, 2007 9:33 PM

The funniest part of that article is the comment that secretly, without saying so, even Moqtada Al Sadr would be down with the remnant force.

"U.S. officials also calculate that underneath the anti-American rhetoric, even Shiite radicals such as cleric Moqtada al-Sadr don't really want to see a total U.S. pullout, especially while they feel threatened by Sunni insurgents. Also, officials think any Iraqi government will prefer to keep a small U.S. combat force to deter foreign intervention."

This is, of course, the kind of slop American journalists love to serve up. American officials, probing into the hearts of those foreigners, are so good at reading minds that, hell, there's no need to even ask those Iraqis themselves. If you asked them, the anti-american get out get a timetable leave rhetoric is actually a disguise for "we love you, stay". This is foreign policy as stalking. If you will rememeber, back in February, 2003, everybody in punditry predicted - as Chris Suellentrop, that "in the end, France will go along with the Bush administration on Iraq." Before that, in 2002, the Press was full of the secret Arab approval of U.S. plans to invade Iraq. Cheney made a whirlwind tour that was supposed in March, 2002, of the Middle East, and people like Michael Gordon would do the usual shuffle about the secret support of the Arab leaders: "American officials said before Mr. Cheney's trip to the Middle East that they thought Arab leaders would eventually acquiesce in an American military campaign against Iraq, even if they made a public show of disapproving of it. But the persistence and calculated nature of Arab response show how Middle East politics has intruded in Mr. Cheney's mission." The "intrusion' was a denunciation, by the Saudis, of any planned war on Iraq. This is what the papers are for, though: syrup of a pretty low quality. Get some American official to say what the Iraqis leaders want and two days later, it becomes a talking point about... what the Iraqis want. This was what was so amusing about Michael Gordon's recent story about how the Iraqi leaders really really want us to stay, which is how the NYT reported that the Parliament had voted a resolution that they really, really wanted the U.S. to adopt a time table to go.

The difference between American newspaper reporting and the old Soviet style was that Pravda would simply lie - American reporters, having more honor and integrity, quote anonymous American officials to do their lying. We are, after all, a democracy.

Posted by roger | June 10, 2007 9:43 PM

Left wing loons: Before the Iraq war we already had permanent bases right next door in Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey, not to mention naval control of the Gulf, and semi-permanent bases in Afghanistan. Why would we need permanent bases in Iraq?

And how have "we" made money by invading Iraq? From stealing Iraqi oil?

Posted by Fred | June 10, 2007 10:41 PM

If a colony as huge as the Raj could be controlled with less than 5000 members of the Indian Civil Service, we should definitely be able to control a region at least one tenth the size with ten times as many soldiers and weapon systems that are at least a thousand times as lethal as what the British had.

Liberals are such pessimistic pussies.

Posted by gregor | June 10, 2007 11:06 PM

Right wing loons: You are so right! So, now that 80% of the Iraqi people have elected a non-sectarian government which they fully support, the US should be able to withdraw all its forces, secure in the knowledge that the existing Iraqi government and the Iraqi people will be trustworthy allies of the US for the forseeable future.

...right? I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either they love us, or they don't.

Posted by James Gary | June 11, 2007 12:06 AM

The money going to CACI, Titan, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater USA, etc, doesn't come from Iraqi oil (mostly). It mostly comes from American taxpayers and the Chinese central bank (which makes up for the inadequate revenue/excessive expenditure of the U.S. government).

Posted by Julian Elson | June 11, 2007 2:11 AM

"The money going to CACI, Titan, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater USA, etc..."

1) How does that money help Bush, Cheney & Co., whose assets are in a blind trust?

2) How did the guys in companies like Blackwater, mostly mid-level ex-military, get Congress to authorize the war in Iraq?

Cheer up. Remember last year this time when you were demanding Rumsfeld's head? He's gone. General Casey was kicked up stairs, replaced with the Princeton Ph.D. Gen. David Petraeus. The Afghan neocon has been replaced with the ultra-competent Ryan Crocker. Now Peter Pace is out. You got a whole new crew running things. Even the Iraqis are getting into the spirit, removing the speaker of their parliament.

Instead of being perpetual Cassandras, why not take credit for some of these changes? Neither Petraeus nor Crocker are ideologues and both represent the best the U.S. military and diplomatic corps, respectively, have to offer. Why not let them do their jobs without trying to undermine them?

Posted by Fred | June 11, 2007 8:03 AM

How consistent this is with the Dems' plans really depends on which Dem, and what numbers they're talking about. It makes a big difference whether you're leaving a force of 3,000 troops to train Iraqi troops (but clearly not much else), or whether you're leaving 50,000 troops, which would continue to constitute the power behind the throne.

This is why, for several weeks now, the one question I'd like to see asked of all candidates in both parties is this:

"Suppose that things in Iraq stay pretty much the same over the next three years as they are today. Give or take 10,000, how many troops would you envision having in Iraq in June 2010?"

If we could get every candidate to give a number in response to this question, we would have a much clearer idea of what their words mean.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 11, 2007 2:24 PM

Low tech cyclist, it makes no sense to me to leave any American soldiers in Iraq, except as guards at a tremendously stripped down embassy. If training is needed, I'd say that finally, there is a place for mercenaries in Iraq. Since there are 60,000 + over there, maybe 6,000 of them, or whatever, could be of some use.

I do hope that the issue of keeping a force in Iraq does get clarified in the Democratic primary. Just as Clinton thinks that the war on terror is a fine slogan, I have a gut feeling she thinks 50,000 American soldiers on bases in Iraq is a fine and dandy extension of American power in the Middle East. I think that would be a disaster. It would definitely effect my vote. But I would like to know. There was something so curious about the major incompetence of the Dem leadership to pass any sort of restriction on the supplemental that one does wonder if they are sincere, or if this is just a con job.

Posted by roger | June 11, 2007 3:08 PM

And then there's this, from the same authors, on June 8th, with regard to the Korea analogy:

But here's the rub: None of the reporters we read bothered to pick up a phone and call Baghdad to get reactions from, well, actual Iraqis.

So we did -- we called Iraqi lawmakers from different parties representing the country's different ethnic and sectarian groups, and found that, without exception, just hearing that there were official whispers in Washington about plans for a decades-long U.S. troop presence in their country shocked and awed them, and not in a good way.

But it didn't only inflame the Iraqi nationalists with whom we spoke -- politicians who have long opposed the occupation -- it also absolutely incensed those officials who have been among the coalition's most vocal supporters. Even those who approve of George Bush's Middle East adventurism were infuriated by the idea and insulted that the administration would make the statement publicly.

But that was one viewpoint that didn't find its way into any of the stories we read. Which leads to a question: What would the reporting out of Iraq look like if all reporters embraced the simple idea that Iraqis' views on the future of their country are worth a few column inches or a couple of seconds on American television screens?

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53469/

Posted by pow wow | June 11, 2007 5:54 PM

Ironically, none of the Dem bills to deauthorize will for work Richardson's plan. Only the bipartisan bill by Abercrombie (D) and Paul (R) will work (HR2605). Most bills are contaminated with clauses such as requiring that the president secure oil. That threatens the whole legal basis.

Posted by Thomas | June 18, 2007 4:58 PM