The Forever War

Kevin Drum snarks that "the surge is working so well that we have to keep it up forever."

What this highlights is the gap in strategic vision between proponents and opponents of the war. To opponents, the deep U.S. military involvement in Iraq has become a problem. The problem needs to be solved. That doesn't mean we need to start sprinting for the exists in a mad dash tomorrow, but it does mean that we need to be taking troops out as rapidly as can be done in a safe and responsible way. On another view, though, an indefinite military presence in Iraq isn't a problem, it's the goal of the policy. Under the circumstances, a policy is "working" not if it contributes to solving the problem, but just if it makes the continued presence of U.S. troops somewhat less costly.

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Timothy Kingston

Comments

We are winning the Iraq War. We always have been, and we always will be.

Posted by Mister Go | February 26, 2008 2:50 PM

It's obvious to everyone involved both Afghanistan and Iraq will devolve into Hell on Earth once NATO and U.S. troops exit. They're already a bloody, confusing mess but they'll suffer a tenfold magnification of killing and destruction once we're gone. That among other byzantine motives is why we'll not leave. Who wants tagged with causing that? It's the proverbial "Holding a wolf by it ears" scenario. Keeping it in your grasp is a teeth gnashing struggle. Letting go is unthinkable.

Posted by steve duncan | February 26, 2008 2:55 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:56 PM

This is also a key element of the Incompetence Dodge -- if you believe that the agenda in Iraq was to invade, topple Hussein, install a new democratic government, and then leave, then the Administration can look pretty incompetent. But it was clear from the beginning that the war was about establishing permanent US military basing in Iraq for the sake of Pax Americana. The administration as been so competent at pursuing that agenda and keeping it hidden that the conventional wisdom is that they've been incompetent.

Posted by Galen | February 26, 2008 2:56 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:56 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the SeriousP

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:56 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:56 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM

It's also worth noting that the people (that is all the Serious

Posted by jayackroyd | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM

The surge is over, as the article makes clear. What's left--the 8000 additional troops--are support forces: "Among the support forces needed beyond July, General Ham said, are military police officers, logistics troops, aviation forces and a headquarters staff to command combat forces in an area south of Baghdad."

The Bush administration does not have (and the McCain campaign does not have) as a goal an indefinite presence for US troops in Iraq. The goal is a stable Iraq in a stable region.

Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2008 3:01 PM

That doesn't mean we need to start sprinting for the exists in a mad dash tomorrow..

I disagree. Know war. Know Iraq war. No Afghanistan war. We should get out know.

Posted by gregor | February 26, 2008 3:01 PM

This is also a key element of the Incompetence Dodge -- if you believe that the agenda in Iraq was to invade, topple Hussein, install a new democratic government, and then leave, then the Administration can look pretty incompetent. But it was clear from the beginning that the war was about establishing permanent US military basing in Iraq for the sake of Pax Americana. The administration as been so competent at pursuing that agenda and keeping it hidden that the conventional wisdom is that they've been incompetent.

Posted by Galen | February 26, 2008 3:02 PM

I think the proponents don't see the overall ramifications of an unwinnable and unpredictable war.The failures of occupation has shown the limits of American power; at least the Iranian have noted that. Further failures will only reinforce that perception.

www.americaforabetterworld.wordpress.com

Posted by Abiye | February 26, 2008 3:10 PM

I think the proponents don't see the overall ramifications of an unwinnable and unpredictable war.The failures of occupation have shown the limits of American power; at least the Iranian have noted that. Further failures will only reinforce that perception.

www.americaforabetterworld.wordpress.com

Posted by Abiye | February 26, 2008 3:10 PM

I wish I could jump into the fucking time shuttle or whatever they called it in the Forever War, and just run out the clock on the remainder of the occupation.

Posted by BobJ | February 26, 2008 3:12 PM

The Bush administration does not have (and the McCain campaign does not have) as a goal an indefinite presence for US troops in Iraq. The goal is a stable Iraq in a stable region.

And since the only thing that enables them to keep up the pretense that a stable Iraq is possible is a huge U.S. troop deployment, this goal requires an indefinite presence for U.S troops in Iraq.

Look, Iraq has a government that is considered illegitimate and powerless by everyone except Robert Powell. It is in a civil war with casualty rates comparable to the horrors of 2005 (when we were trying the same failed strategy Petraeus is using now, and when we were also told that we were "winning" because violence was "only" at this level). And the U.S. occupation is in the weird position of being both the cause of the violence and holding down the violence, meaning that Iraq can't get better until we leave, but there will be a spike in casualties in the immediate aftermath of our withdrawal.

With all this, it's pointless to say that we're staying until Iraq is stabilized. Since the occupation is itself a destabilizing force, when Bush and McCain say that troops will stay until Iraq is stabilized, then they are saying that they want Americans to die in Iraq forever and ever.

Posted by T.B. | February 26, 2008 3:19 PM

To coin a phrase: "Its the bases, stupid."

Posted by MCC | February 26, 2008 3:22 PM

Was this post a specific reference to The Forever War, the Hugo and Nebula award winning mil-scifi novel by Joe Haldemann?

Because if so, that is an amazing book.

Posted by Abe | February 26, 2008 3:33 PM

Matt is apparently just mailing it in now on Iraq. Another false dichotomy post, as if everyone who doesn't want to bail on Iraq, come what may, wants Iraq to be dependent on U.S. personnel forever. As if the whole point of the surge in Provincial Reconstruction Teams isn't to get the Iraqis on the path self-sufficiency by strengthening their economic and governmental institutions.

"To coin a phrase: "Its the bases, stupid.""

You didn't coin it, and your comment has little merit. We already have bases in the region (e.g., Kuwait, Qatar). There's no bombing mission we could fly from Iraq that we couldn't fly from Qatar or Kuwait with far less cost or hassle.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 3:43 PM

"What this highlights is the gap in strategic vision between proponents and opponents of the war."

This is an idiotic statement. There are no "proponents of the war", just people who accept its reality. To the extent that someone would define a group today as "opponents of the war", the idea of "strategic vision" is already off the table.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 26, 2008 3:44 PM

TB, you equivocate. What are the likely consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq? If the most likely consequence is a brief spike in violence followed by stability, then, yes, we should withdraw. But you suggest that a stable Iraq isn't possible, but that we should only see a brief spike. What happens after the brief spike?

Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2008 3:46 PM

"What this highlights is the gap in strategic vision between proponents and opponents of the war."

This is an idiotic statement. There are no "proponents of the war", just people who accept its reality. To the extent that someone would define a group today as "opponents of the war", the idea of "strategic vision" is already off the table.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 26, 2008 3:47 PM

TB, you equivocate. What are the likely consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq? If the most likely consequence is a brief spike in violence followed by stability, then, yes, we should withdraw. But you suggest that a stable Iraq isn't possible, but that we should only see a brief spike. What happens after the brief spike?

I said a stable Iraq isn't possible as long as American troops are occupying the country (and pretending that Iraq has a government and that we're only there at its request doesn't fool anyone, least of all the Iraqis). If we stay, Iraq is guaranteed to remain unstable.

If we leave, the "brief spike" might be followed by the formation of an actual Iraqi government with actual power. Then again it might not. It may be that we've destroyed Iraq so badly that it can't be saved. But Iraq has a far better chance of saving itself if we leave than if we stay, because by staying we are guaranteeing that the civil war will continue and Iraq will never have a government with any legitimacy.

And since the surge was followed by a more-than-brief spike in violence (specifically, 2007 levels of violence remained higher than the year before even as the surge went on, and violence dropped only after Sadr declared his cease-fire, leading to the conclusion that the surge doesn't have much to do with it), I don't see the horror in advocating an action that will cause a "brief spike." The surge caused a spike in violence and the end result was that Iraq is just as bad as it was in 2005. Withdrawal is the only thing that has even a chance to make Iraq genuinely better, yet Bush doesn't want to do that because he values his ego over the safety and security of Americans and Iraqis.

Posted by T.B. | February 26, 2008 3:56 PM

I admit, it is annoying having to listen to these bragging idiots insist that their pointless war should continue. But the more they insist, the closer we get to 60 senators.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 26, 2008 4:33 PM

Iraq is soon going to be the longest war in American history. And it's not like Vietnam, where people served a tour and were done.

What's going to happen as you get larger contingents of soldiers who've spent 4, 6, 8, 10 years in Iraq? And who exactly is going to sign up knowing that's what they're getting in for?

There's a lot of vague talk about "breaking the army" but I don't know that peope have really thought through the implications of this. It's more or less without precedent and a little bizarre.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 26, 2008 4:37 PM

TB, your view then is that Rumsfeld had the right plan--invade, decapitate, and exit. Is that right? If we had executed that as planned, Iraq would now be stable (if it were capable of being stable)?

Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2008 4:40 PM

TB, your view then is that Rumsfeld had the right plan--invade, decapitate, and exit. Is that right?

"The right plan" would have been not invading at all. I do think that Rumsfeld was right to want to get out as soon as possible and that the situation was made worse by the idiots who thought we were going to create a glorious democratic people's revolution in Iraq.

If we had executed that as planned, Iraq would now be stable (if it were capable of being stable)?

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly much more of a chance of stability than now. The government that took over would not have been pro-American or democratic, but that's a lost cause anyway since no legitimate Iraq government would ever look kindly on America for occupying and destroying the country.

Posted by T.B. | February 26, 2008 4:45 PM

Where have Obama or Hillary publicly committed to ending our military presence in Iraq by some specified date? Not committed to "starting" to withdraw troops. Not committed to withdrawing only our "combat brigades." But committing to ending our military presence, period.

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 4:45 PM

"Where have Obama or Hillary publicly committed to ending our military presence in Iraq by some specified date?"

They haven't. The bail-on-Iraq Left is letting its collective chain get jerked for a second time.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 5:19 PM

We seem to be a society of no patience anymore. Despite the support and statement of circumstances going in, too many seem to favor a drive-thru war, where the troops can turn around and come home immediatly. These people haven't had a very broad spectrum of hearing from the soldiers there doing it. And yet this too, seems to be a tabloid media. There is no-or at least very little of the mythic 'journalistic integrity' anymore. They don't understand the true meanings of the words they use, they only understand what they're trying to use it to do. Is called liberal propoganda.............

Posted by kENNY | February 26, 2008 5:44 PM

We seem to be a society of no patience anymore. Despite the support and statement of circumstances going in, too many seem to favor a drive-thru war, where the troops can turn around and come home immediatly. These people haven't had a very broad spectrum of hearing from the soldiers there doing it. And yet this too, seems to be a tabloid media. There is no-or at least very little of the mythic 'journalistic integrity' anymore. They don't understand the true meanings of the words they use, they only understand what they're trying to use it to do. Is called liberal propoganda.............

Posted by kENNY | February 26, 2008 5:45 PM

Fred, if you think that Obama isn't authentic enough in his opposition to the Iraq war, then I think the Republican candidate (McCain or his possible replacement Romney) has an opening-- he could attract the votes of independents and democrats by making a much more public, firmer statement that he will begin pulling troops out of Iraq immediately. Think the Republicans will go after that big vote-getting opportunity?

Posted by Tyro | February 26, 2008 5:50 PM

TB, sorry to belabor this, but I think it is important and useful. I mean, what you propose is that Shinseki had it wrong, and that those who say he had it right are also wrong. We didn't have too few troops; the number of troops was irrelevant--the problem was the presence of the troops themselves.

I wonder if that analysis translate to Afghanistan as well. Do you think that the "problem" in Afghanistan is similar to the problem in Iraq? Would more troops help, or hurt?

Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2008 5:51 PM

Fred, if you think that Obama isn't authentic enough in his opposition to the Iraq war,

Oh I think Obama's refusal to commit to ending the U.S. military presence in Iraq, or even to give any clear indication of how many troops he wishes to keep in Iraq and for how long, is entirely authentic. Like McCain, Obama apparently favors an indefinite military presence in Iraq. For some strange reason, Obama's supporters don't seem to have realized this.

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 6:01 PM

"Think the Republicans will go after that big vote-getting opportunity?"

No, I think the GOP candidate will stick with his principles (and his base) on Iraq, and let the Dem candidate try the tack of deceptive opportunism.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 6:05 PM

Mixner, evidence for your claim? And, as I said, if, as Fred believes, Dems and Independents are going to have their hopes dashed, then I would say that Republicans have a huge opening to attract all those voters by coming out in support pulling out of Iraq. Think they'll go for it?

The calculus for Repubilcans will work like this; they will lose, and lose badly by tying themselves too closely to the war in Iraq and pandering to the extremists in their own party who are the only constituency left supporting the war. The Democrat will win, and the Republican candidate in 2012 will end up running on an "I will end the occupation of Iraq" platform if there is anything more than a token force left in the country by that point.

Posted by Tyro | February 26, 2008 6:06 PM

Fred, they're not sticking to their principles, they're pandering to a faction within the republican party that is WAY out of step with the American people. If the Republican candidate wants to lose, and you think that the Democratic and Independent voters are being fooled by Obama, then the only hope for a Republican candidate winning is to appeal to those voters by getting on over to their side. But the Republican won't, because he can't credibly claim that Obama isn't serious about ending the Iraq war.

Posted by Tyro | February 26, 2008 6:11 PM

Tyro,

Mixner, evidence for your claim?

What claim? I asked where Obama has publicly committed to ending our military presence in Iraq by some specified date. Or even just some vague date. Do you have an answer?

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 6:12 PM

Yes, Mixner, Obama has consistently run -- if you watch his ads -- on a platform of getting us out of Iraq. It's one of the very bases of his popularity as a candidate. And, as I said, if the Iraq war is still a problem in 2012, the REPUBLICAN candidate is going to come out running on a platform of getting our troops out.

If, as I said, Obama isn't credible in his claim to want to end the occupation of Iraq, then the logical choice for the Republican would be to call him on it and claim that HE will more credibly get out troops out in order to make a play for Obama's supporters (whose views on the war are in line with 2/3rds of the country). Since the Republican isn't doing that, it's a tacit admission that he can't compete with Obama's anti-war bona fides.

Posted by Tyro | February 26, 2008 6:15 PM

Tyro,

Yes, Mixner, Obama has consistently run -- if you watch his ads -- on a platform of getting us out of Iraq.

You're not answering the question. Where has Obama publicly committed to ending our military presence in Iraq by some specified date? Give me a link to a speech, press release, campaign ad, or whatever in which he says he will do this. Since you appear to believe Obama is strongly committed to "getting us out of Iraq" you should have no problem citing a source in which he makes that committment.

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 6:29 PM

TB, sorry to belabor this, but I think it is important and useful. I mean, what you propose is that Shinseki had it wrong, and that those who say he had it right are also wrong. We didn't have too few troops; the number of troops was irrelevant--the problem was the presence of the troops themselves.

I think that Shinseki, and those liberals who like to cite him, are engaging in the incompetence dodge: the idea that if we'd just done things better, the invasion and occupation of Iraq would have worked out fine. I've never believed that more troops would have made Iraq work out OK. The key factors in Iraq are sectarian civil war and resistance to a hated foreign occupation. Those factors would have manifested themselves no matter what we did.

I wonder if that analysis translate to Afghanistan as well. Do you think that the "problem" in Afghanistan is similar to the problem in Iraq? Would more troops help, or hurt?

I don't really know if more troops would help or hurt in Afghanistan. The situation isn't analogous, though. One important difference is that there is an actual justification to point to for the Afghan invasion. Once the Iraqis discovered that there were no WMD, they naturally came to the conclusion that we were just there to establish permanent bases and bleed them dry. Whether Bush intends that or not is almost irrelevant; that's what the Iraqis think, since we have no other reason for being there. An occupation with no legitimate basis always failed, whereas it might succeed if the occupation has a basis that the country itself accepts as legitimate, as Japan and Germany did.

Posted by T.B. | February 26, 2008 6:34 PM

Re Shinseki

We don't know if General Shinseki was right or wrong because his claim that 300,000 or more troops would be required has never been tested. Clearly, it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that the policy of sending in 140,000 troops was less then successful. It can be definitively said that a force of 300,000 or more was more likely to be successful then a force of 140,000.

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 6:37 PM

Mixner, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? As is clear, Obama has staked out electoral support on the basis on getting us out of Iraq, and that has paid off massive electoral dividends for him while the Republicans have suffered tremendously for their support for continuing the occupation. If his Republican opposition believes he is insincere, then the Republican's only hope is to win by outflanking Obama on that score by presenting a more credible support for ending the occupation of Iraq. The Republicans aren't because they can't. But if, in 2012, there is anything more than a token force of soldiers in Iraq, the Republican WILL run on an anti-war platform.

Obama is precisely credible on this matter because if he weren't, other candidates would try to stake out space as the "authentic" candidate who will get the country out of Iraq. Republicans are commiting electoral suicide with their current stance on Iraq, but they have no other option, because Obama has credibly become the candidate of getting the country out of Iraq.

Posted by Tyro | February 26, 2008 6:40 PM

Mixner wrote:
You're not answering the question. Where has Obama publicly committed to ending our military presence in Iraq by some specified date? Give me a link to a speech, press release, campaign ad, or whatever in which he says he will do this.

He's always said he'd get all combat brigades out within 16 months of taking office, though he'd keep a small number of troops for protecting embassies, (I assume we have a few troops protecting US embassies in every war-torn country?) and possibly some to strike against al Qaeda bases. For instance, look at "Barack Obama's Plan" on the Iraq section of his website:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Posted by Jesse M. | February 26, 2008 6:51 PM

Tyro,

Please stop repeating, for the umpteenth time, that you think Obama has committed to ending our military presence in Iraq, and show me where he has actually said this.

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 6:54 PM

Jesse M,

He's always said he'd get all combat brigades out within 16 months of taking office

Our combat brigades comprise only around half of our troops in Iraq. Even if they were all withdrawn, that would still leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq. As the text you just quoted says, Obama wants to keep an unspecified number of troops, including combat troops, in Iraq for an unspecified period into the future. Based on Obama's "plan," as stated on his website, we could have a military presence in Iraq for another 100 years, just like John McCain suggested.

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 7:01 PM

TB, it seems to me that it's a stretch to say that "once the Iraqis discovered that there were no WMD, they naturally came to the conclusion that we were just there to establish permanent bases and bleed them dry." I mean, I don't find that reasoning persuasive in any sense, so why would the Iraqis "naturally" find it so? Are they bad at thinking clearly?

On the rest: I think your view is an intersting contract with, say, SLC's. To the extent that the US troops in Iraq are the source of the difficulty--are a provocation of sorts, then it isn't clear to me at all that 300,000 troops would have been more rather than less successful.

Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2008 7:01 PM

Obama will get us out of Iraq fast enough. No one will care if some soldiers remain for this or that, as long as they're not getting killed. If Obama doesn't get American casualties completely out of the news, he'll have little chance of re-election in 2012. He knows that. He's not an idiot.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 26, 2008 7:09 PM

TB, it seems to me that it's a stretch to say that "once the Iraqis discovered that there were no WMD, they naturally came to the conclusion that we were just there to establish permanent bases and bleed them dry." I mean, I don't find that reasoning persuasive in any sense, so why would the Iraqis "naturally" find it so? Are they bad at thinking clearly?

It's not that at all. It's that when one's country is invaded and occupied by foreigners (who claim, as invaders always do, to be "liberators"), and the invaders can give no legitimate reason for being there, the occupied people tend to come to the conclusion that the invasion is meant to be permanent and for the invaders' benefit. It's not like that part of the country doesn't know what it's like to be part of a foreign empire.

If we wanted the Iraqis, or anybody else, to think that we didn't intend to take them over and remain there forever, we needed an actual reason for the invasion. But the reasons given, like WMD, turned out to be false and Iraqis aren't dumb enough to believe that this was an honest mistake. So what else are they supposed to conclude?

Posted by T.B. | February 26, 2008 7:10 PM

Mixner, for some strange, unfathomable reason no doubt having to do with the phase of the moon, is correct.

Obama has NOT specifically stated that all US troops will be removed from Iraq, let alone on a definite timetable.

Where Mixner gets it wrong is that Obama hasn't said he WILL commit to keeping US troops in Iraq indefinitely, in the manner McCain has. But it is unfortunate that Obama thinks he's being "reasonable" and "moderate" by suggesting that the US has some reason to remain in Iraq AT ALL, whether to protect US assets there, or to attack "Al Qaeda", or whatever.

None of those reasons are good ones for keeping ANY US troops in Iraq.

Nobody from the US is going to be able to walk around Iraq for the next generation or two of Iraqis without getting shot. So the notion that the US can do something useful there for the next fifty years is brain dead.

The morons who think Iraq is going to stabilize and become pro-US or at least neutral don't realize that things are moving toward a major confrontation, probably next year.

First of all, the Sunni "Awakening" forces want a say - and jobs - in the government. The Shia aren't going to let that happen. Put 100,000 armed Sunnis into the government forces, which are mostly Shia now? Hah! Fergeddaboudit!

Second, the "Iraqi nationalist" crowd, which includes al-Sadr, are moving toward the parliamentary elections, intending to gain control of parliament, throw out the US "puppet regime" of Maliki, and install an Iraqi "nationalist regime". That regime will demand the US get out, and then try to make deals with the Sunnis and the Kurds to get some sort of (no doubt fragile and unstable and fractious) coalition government working. When the US doesn't get out - and it won't because the US is there for the oil - that government will turn a blind eye as the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgency beat the crap out of the US forces remaining in country.

This might not happen until next year or even later. But it's inevitable. It's inevitable because neither the Sunni nor the Shia, for the most part, and that includes even the major Shia parties who have been US allies up to this point, many of them backed by Iran, want the US to remain in country indefinitely. The particular people who represent the "government" might - because they depend on US forces to keep them from being killed - just like Karzai in Afghanistan, who's protected by 600 US mercenaries. But nobody outside of them wants the US to remain in Iraq.

Read my lips: NOBODY.

And that means the US is going away, whether the oil companies like it or not. Of course, whatever Iraqi government remains will end up selling the oil anyway - and they might be able to be bribed to sell it at good rates. But the oil companies will not get the PSAs that guarantee they get to rip Iraq off for decades - unless their bribes are really good.

US bases? Not in the cards. Those bases will be under attack for the next generation. No Iraqi is going to lie down under a major US military presence in that country. No way, Jose.

If nothing else, Iran is not going to accept any major US military presence on its land borders. It will use its influence in Iraq to get the US kicked out sooner or later. But its influence won't even be needed, as I said, because the Iraqis themselves are going to force the US out, someway, somehow, sometime, no matter what it takes.

The question devolves thus to: will Obama get US forces out in time, or will they get cut to shreds before he can get them out?

And make no mistake: as William Lind has pointed out, it's quite possible for the US to LOSE its entire military force in Iraq, if the Iraqis more or less unite in forcing the US out. And that level of unity is in the cards if the nationalists can win in parliament next year.

The alternative to a nationalist coalition is renewed civil war between the Shia and Sunnis - and that alternative is worse for the US. Because the so-called "Awakening" strategy will have been demonstrated to be a farce - which it is. Petraeus and the US will be "tapped out" on strategies to control the situation. At that point, the US will either have to turn to massive overkill of either or both Sunni and Shia, or it will have to evacuate under fire.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 26, 2008 7:22 PM

TB, if the Iraqis believed prior to the war that their government had WMDs, then why would it be unreasonable for the US to think the same? Do you mean to suggest that their "discovery" occurred prior to the war?

Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2008 7:26 PM

Obama will get us out of Iraq fast enough. No one will care if some soldiers remain for this or that, as long as they're not getting killed.

Really? "No one will care" if we retain a military presence in Iraq indefinitely into the future, as long as our troops aren't getting killed? Unless it's John McCain who mentions such a presence, in which case you seem to care very much.

Where Mixner gets it wrong is that Obama hasn't said he WILL commit to keeping US troops in Iraq indefinitely, in the manner McCain has.

McCain made no such commitment.

Posted by Mixner | February 26, 2008 7:29 PM

Matt: Hey, have you ever read the science ficiton novel The Forever War? Quite good; one a big science fiction award when it was published, and last time I checked, the author was teaching a science ficition writing class at MIT.

Posted by Frank | February 26, 2008 7:31 PM

I used to come here all the time and say that permanent bases and thus a permanent presence in Iraq was one of the primary goals of the invasion. I'm not sure what Matt's take was on that but he's at least on board now with the idea that this is feature held by many proponents.

My other whine was that the Pentagon will never allow us to abandon those giant bases. They are too sweet strategically to ever give up. The giant airbases have strategic implications for the Gulf of course, to the Caspian region and as far as China and South Asia. Never ever will we have the chance, the chance politically, to move so many men and so much material into the Gulf region. No president will be able to enact a near total pullout in Iraq. The push back will simply be too much.

It is little realized that permanence was ordained the day we crossed the border. We never leave anyplace once we are there. (the Philippines being the only exception but that was unimportant enough to allow it) Cheney and the hawks knew it down to their bones.

Posted by rapier | February 26, 2008 9:07 PM

rapier, there is a US air base in Turkey, and of course by 2003 we knew there would be US bases in Afghanistan. So what's the strategic benefit of adding air bases in Iraq?

Posted by Thomas | February 27, 2008 12:25 AM

Thomas, I'm not sure anybody is directly arguing that the Iraq invasion was done strictly to get new places to put military bases.

But the reality is that military bases cost money, and have to be built by contractors. So the military-industrial complex definitely benefits by more and larger bases everywhere.

And strategically, more and larger bases everywhere do give the US military more options for forward deployments - especially if you plan to attack Iran next, which, as everyone except SLC and a few other idiots knows, was the initial neocon plan.

Bottom line: bases next door to your targets are better than bases a couple countries away - especially if those bases are sitting on oil reserves.

As for Mixner, I'm not going to waste time arguing about the definition of 'indefinitely", but since McCain has not said he will bring US troops back from Iraq in a specific time frame, then it's definitely indefinitely. If you argue Obama has made no commitment to remove US troops, then so has McCain. And Obama hasn't said any utterly stupid bullshit like "100 years - if they aren't getting killed."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 27, 2008 1:08 AM

Notwithstanding the "data" from crystal ball gazers, there's significant evidence of widespread acquiescence, if not approval, for a continued US presence among Iraqis. A lot of Iraqis, including Iraqis not in government, see us as either a hedge against massacre by their enemies, or an ally in overcoming the influence of their enemies. Many others see the obvious benefits of having an ally in the world's dominant military power when dealing with the neighbors in perhaps the world's toughest neighborhood.

The idea that Iraqis, or anyone else who has a remotely serious knowledge of the history, thinks we are in Iraq either for the wmd's or "to get the oil" is ridiculous. To the extent wmd's were significant, and they were, it was because getting rid of them "pro-actively and transparently" was a major term of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. The oil will be sold on the open market at the going rate whether or not the US is in Iraq. There will be more of it if the place is stable, which is good for the world economy in general, but the US does not get the majority of its oil from the Persian Gulf, with or without Iraq.

Obama will almost certainly maintain a significant presence in Iraq for most, if not all, of his two terms if he has them. No serious players in either party would do otherwise. The key question is not so much how many troops as what they are tasked with doing. People who imagine that we'll just bail out and abandon our interests, allies, and honor are extraordinarily naive.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 27, 2008 4:54 AM

Powell: "The oil will be sold on the open market at the going rate whether or not the US is in Iraq."

That, of course, has nothing to do with the PSA deals the oil companies are floating for Iraq.

"the US does not get the majority of its oil from the Persian Gulf"

So those US oil companies are there for the scenery?

Nitwit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 28, 2008 2:37 AM