Iraq Forever

Can't say it's much of a surprise that despite all the Friedman Units and talk of victory and how Iraq won't really play in the 2008 campaign that four years after the 2008 campaign there'll be the 2012 campaign. And four years after that comes the 2016 campaign. And two years after that comes 2018 when Iraqi officials say it might be possible for American troops to leave. My then you'll have 20 year-olds serving in Iraq who were five when the war started. But a couple of key phrases from The New York Times's account:

Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated.

Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir’s projections, which were even less optimistic than those he made last year.

One, if the surge is working so well, why is it that Mr. Qadir's projections are getting less optimistic? Answer -- maybe the surge isn't working so well and maybe this Upright Citizens Brigade strategy doesn't contain the seeds of any kind of stable equilibrium for Iraq. Two, why is it that officials "expressed no surprise" at projections that "suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated"? Answer -- both governments have not been indicating things accurately. They've been misleading.

This is, in my view, the key to breaking the political deadlock over Iraq in the United States. A large number of people agree with my preference for an expeditious withdrawal from Iraq. Unfortunately, though, it's not a majority of people. But the number of people who favor the sort of decade-plus engagement that constitutes the actual alternative to expeditious withdrawal is incredibly small. What's needed, however, are political leaders who are willing and able to re-enforce the point that's been revealed again and again by American reporters -- the alternative to leaving is staying for a very, very, very long time.

U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Jonathan Snyder

Comments

We'll bring the troops home once we've squeezed Iraq's little oil wells dry.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 15, 2008 8:39 AM

Hillary Clinton has stated repeatedly that immediately upon taking office she will order the Pentagon to prepare a withdrawl plan and that within sixty days she will begin withdrawing troops.

She believes, from her research, that it should be possible to withdraw at the rate of one brigade a month from Iraq.

I do not think she is bound by any agreement Bush makes with Iraq. To be binding, a treaty has to be ratified by the Senate, and that will not happen.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 8:42 AM

Hillary Clinton has stated repeatedly that immediately upon taking office she will order the Pentagon to prepare a withdrawl plan and that within sixty days she will begin withdrawing troops.

She believes, from her research, that it should be possible to withdraw at the rate of one brigade a month from Iraq.

I do not think she is bound by any agreement Bush makes with Iraq. To be binding, a treaty has to be ratified by the Senate, and that will not happen.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 8:42 AM

It's probably worth noting that the Iraqi defense minister may not be speaking for his government on this subject.

Posted by Swopa | January 15, 2008 8:56 AM

"It's probably worth noting that the Iraqi defense minister may not be speaking for his government on this subject."

It's probably worth noting that the Iraqi defense minister IS speaking for President Bush on this subject.

Posted by Jennifer | January 15, 2008 9:07 AM

Yes, exactly, Jennifer -- as noted in the link, we're probably the ones who appointed him (as opposed to the "sovereign" Iraq government).

Posted by Swopa | January 15, 2008 9:18 AM

"Providing its own security" is a medium-term goal in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Long term, "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure."

Posted by croatoan | January 15, 2008 9:45 AM

I do not think she is bound by any agreement Bush makes with Iraq. To be binding, a treaty has to be ratified by the Senate, and that will not happen.
Posted by ken

Incorrect. We are ending the UN-approved occupation mandate in return for Iraqi sovereignity with a series of bilateral agreements including a status of forces agreement of the sort we have with 100 other countries. These bilateral agreements, negotiated and renewed and/or modified periodically by military liaison and ambassador staff, typically do not rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate aproval.

With funding of ops in those 100 countries under DOD budget and other branches. We have had a military presence in many of those countries for a long, long time - some over 80-100 years.

Meaning cut 'n runners are pretty much out of luck. The UN will not end the occupation agreement until Iraq can defend itself from air, land, and sea attacks.
Michael Hirsch explains this in Newsweek:

"Sorry, Barack, But You've Lost Iraq"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

Another source says 10 years to rebuild Iraq's Air Force, air defense network and a reconstituted, modernized but smaller Iraqi Army that moves away from the Soviet-designed one they used to have. Suitable for defense and maneuver, but not mass invasions of other countries.

Along with helping the Iraq Gov't in instability ops and ensuring AQ stays crushed and the Persians and Turks stay out.

We built 6 superbases in Iraq from scratch or by upgrading the Russian built ones. Plus cover Iraq airspace with radar and missile defense. We would operate from bases and certain out stations and with Iraqi units outside those bases, with plans on turning over 3 in ten years time and remain holding a lease on the other 3 long-term - that operations out of would work with other US and friendly forces in the area to stabilize the Gulf region..from conventional and unlawful enemy combatant threats.

Yep, sorry Obama, but Iraq and Bush aren't going to play "retreat and defeat" in a year.

Next up after the "re-baathification" law passing is the biggie - how the oil revenue must be divvied up and spent.

Then the package that includes status of forces, oil field exploration and development contracts, air defense protocols, training agreements comes up that will have compelling benefits for the Americans, the Iraqis, and side benefits that Israel, Turkey, KSA and the Gulf States will strongly favor. Which, if Dems want to wreck it can only do so by cancelling the whole agreement in Budget meetings - which with perhaps a 15 dollar decrease in oil prices, abandoning Iraq to AQ, jeopardizing Israel and the Gulf and the money for oil contracts - will not likely succeed if the Far Left pushes to end it.

Posted by chris ford | January 15, 2008 9:55 AM

Chris F,

So, if I read you correctly, there is a precedent for the US being bound by UN mandates for military occupation, ...err, "presence", that go back 80-100 years. Interesting, seeing as the UN is 60 years old. That idiocy aside, it's obvious that this president can't bind the next on where forces are deployed and in what numbers. Denial is not a river in Egypt, you know.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 15, 2008 10:25 AM

This Chris Ford post took surrealness to a new level. We can't leave Iraq b/c agreements not approved by the senate are binding. I'm not sure what spirit this was written in: bitterness? desperate hope? a desire to insult, hurt or frustrate? or is this just a setup for later criticisms of withdrawal policy?

The idea that a democratic president should regard itself as bound by the agreements of this republican administration is hilarious.

Posted by mpowell | January 15, 2008 11:24 AM

Please explain this UCB reference, Matthew?

I've seen everything they ever aired, acted in a movie with Matt Walsh, and still don't know what you mean.

Posted by Rickm | January 15, 2008 12:16 PM

You do not read very well, Jeff S.

We are under a current UN agreement, which will hopefully end soon, to be replaced by a bilateral agreement of the sort we have done for over 100 years which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN.

JeffS and mpowell should at least read the Hirsch article I linked that explains why Obama and Pelosi and Reid are getting finessed.

SOF agreements are not traditionally considered as formal treaties requiring Senate approval. Congressional control is only with the power of the pursestrings - leaving a country high and dry, which only the S Vietnam betrayal exists of a case of funds cutoff.

And once Iraq occupation ends - something the Iraqis, Bush, NATO, the Dems all say they want - the bilateral agreement will instantly add so many stakeholders as I mentioned in my 1st post, that Mike Hirsch rightly concludes it will run it's course and cannot be broken without pissing off stakeholder groups of great influence on the Democrat Party. Not the least Israel&AIPAC, KSA lobby, US defense contractors who will sell to build Iraq' s AF, Army, and modest naval capacity, those interested in a 10 dollar to 15 dollar drop in oil prices as the terror risk premium is lowered. With another 10 dollar drop possible with new oilfields joining the existing oilfields boosting production 1 -1.5 million bbd.

The American public does not mind troops stationed overseas in Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, S Pacific, Oman, Djibouti - provided what they are doing makes sense and not many of them are being gratuitously killed by the host nation.

Or the 100 other countries we visit in the military, work with, and coordinate economic activities and trade in conjunction with the military partnership.

You two guys really should read Hirsch - just to confirm the retreat and defeat rug is on schedule to be pulled out from under your feet.

Posted by chris ford | January 15, 2008 2:01 PM

N-kay. So I read Hirsch. He asserts that a bilateral agreement would make it "difficult if not impossible" for a future president to breach, and back this up with...wait for it...bubkis.

Bilateral agreements can and are breached, Chris. Ever heard of Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 15, 2008 4:13 PM

I am well aware of the degree to which going to war makes it more difficult to remove yourself from involvement than simply avoiding the war in the first place. I think the political dynamics are pretty clear. But the idea that some bilateral agreement in the works is going to substantially push this dynamic in one directions is poppycock.

Also, I love the comparison to S Vietnam. You're trying to make the argument ahead of time that if a tremendously unpopular, lameduck Bush admin forms a bilateral agreement without the consent of Congress that is a huge disadvantage to the United States, we should blame the Democrats if, once they get into office, they dismantle the agreement. I'm sorry, but that is horse shit. Yes, it damages our reputation to pull out of bilateral agreements, but in this case I think just pursuing sensible foreign policy would be the best mechanism to improving our reputation worldwide. It shouldn't be too hard after the last 7 years of disaster.

Posted by mpowell | January 15, 2008 4:35 PM

A frequent remedy for great powers controlling government and military appointments in colonial dependencies etc is for mid-ranking nationalist officers to stage a coup. Should make for an interesting few years.

Posted by otto | January 15, 2008 5:02 PM

"Bilateral agreements can and are breached, Chris. Ever heard of Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines."

That arrangement was terminated at the request of the government of The Philippines. I'm sure we'd pull our troops out of Iraq after a similar request by the Iraqi government. Chris Ford's point, echoing Hirsch, is that we are extremely unlikely to break the pending agreement with Iraq.

Posted by Fred | January 15, 2008 6:15 PM

None of this "agreement" horseshit is relevant, because the existing Iraqi "government" (i.e., Maliki and Dawa) is toast.

Iran (through Hakim of SIIC) is maneuvering with al-Sadr and the Sunnis to dump Maliki for a coalition government of Shia and Sunni factions (and Kurds, who now despise Maliki) which will focus on one thing: running the US out of Iraq.

No guarantees that this plan will be successful because it depends to some degree on the sides actually putting aside their mutual hatred for each other to deal with their complete hatred of the US. But I'd say it stands a good chance of working.

Which means within six months, Maliki will be gone, the government will request the US to leave by end of 2008, and when Bush refuses, the combined forces of the SIIC, the Mehdi Army, and the Sunni insurgents will drive the US out within the next 12-18 months.

Then they can get down to the business of figuring out how to double-cross each other.

So the US isn't going to be in Iraq much more than another 12-24 months, tops, no matter who is President next year.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 11:02 PM

Spell check police:

My then you'll have 20 year-olds serving in Iraq who were five when the war started.

Should be "By then".

Are we past 1,000 errors yet? Is anyone keeping track? :-).

Posted by stonetools | January 16, 2008 10:14 PM