Goodbye, Iraq

I was talking to someone today who works for the US Army Corps of Engineers. He said that they are building a base in Iraq that will be the second largest military base in the world. That seems rather like an exaggeration. However, the point is that the US has no intention of ever leaving Iraq completely. Period.

How's that for a spin on the issue? Anyone who thinks we're leaving Iraq after they establish themselves is sorely mistaken. And, misinformed. The US has no intention of leaving the oil. So, whatever government gets established there is going to have to live with this fact.. And, that's that.

was talking to someone today who works for the US Army Corps of Engineers. He said that they are building a base in Iraq that will be the second largest military base in the world. That seems rather like an exaggeration. However, the point is that the US has no intention of ever leaving Iraq completely. Period. How's that for a spin on the issue? Anyone who thinks we're leaving Iraq after they establish themselves is sorely mistaken. And, misinformed. The US has no intention of leaving the oil. So, whatever government gets established there is going to have to live with this fact.. And, that's that.

Ask your *friend* how big the naval base was that we walked away from in the Philippines. And then tell me again how we're never leaving Iraq.

We were in Subic Bay since the end of the Spanish American War. (with the exception of the time the Japanese held it during WW2 of course) It was closed during the base closure days of the 90's. The base was closed due to the end of the Cold war, and expansions of existing bases in Guam, and Okinawa. Basically it was rendered obsolete.

That puts it just shy of 100 years. Twice as long as we had troops in Europe for the Cold War and WW2.

That's a long time.

The US will have to maintain a strong military presence in Iraq for a long time as well. Mainly to insure that the Islamic fundamentalists don't take over. Oil is the second reason. And given our countries dependance on arab oil, i don't see how anyone can say we won't maintain a long term military presence in the country. If you remember correctly it's precisely why bush 1.0 kicked saddam out of kuwait in the first place. It was because our government didn't want Saddam (or any other enemy of the US for that matter) having control of that much oil. (Remember Iran in 1979?)

Anybody who thinks were outta there in a few years is just naive. As much as i hate to admit it.

Very good post BTW!

dabe: i agree that it will be a long time before we get out. my question is whether or not we CAN get out, now. let's suppose we removed our forces in two or three years. there's no way that iraq could survive, is there?

forget about oil, forget about any other political motivation for the moment. let's suppose we had one pure intention, and that intention was to help re-build a stable country with a sound infrastructure. could we do it, and also remove our forces?

we could discuss the reasons for this war, our reasons for pursuing several political and/or social goals. but my question is one of probability, really. can we leave and have the country survive?

tbt

dr.miller,

im not necessarily convinced that we are setting up a permanent installation the way dabe suggested, though i do see this as a possibility. but maybe im searching for a best-case scenario, regardless of whether or not we remove our forces.

again, im not there. im no soldier and im not looking to spin the situation to look a certain way from a certain political perspective. of course, i do have a political perspective, but at the moment i just feel overwhelmed by what i see as a long, and somewhat unlikely, road to stability.

do you see it another way?

tbt

thatoneguy,

i pretty much feel the way you do. very good reply: thank you. while i certainly wasn't convinced that a military effort should have taken place, right now i think removing the troops would be an unmitigated disaster for iraq, not even to begin speaking about oil or other local interests.

i wish i could flag one of the soldiers who post at this site regularly to give a 1st person account of how things look. my own morale has taken a nose-dive, at the moment. im surprised and somewhat excited by the large voter turn-out that just took place, but we also get reports that a large percentage of the voters had no clear idea what they were voting for. the fact that so many voted in the first place is encouraging regardless, but right now it seems like a small positive token in a middle of a sea of ominous signs.

tbt

You guys and your crazy oil conspiracies.

If Im not mistaken wasnt Subic Bay closed not because of the BRAC report persay but because it substained a sizeable amount of damage from a volcanic eruption? the costs of rebuilding it I believe were a prime motivator...at least I believe it was Subic Bay.

For those asking when we are getting out of Iraq...take a seat and learn some history....unless they missed the part of still having troops (bout 100,000+) still deployed in western europe....60 years after WW2....troops still in S. Korea (bout 35,000+) still deployed there 50 years after the end of that war (although there was never a peace treaty..only a ceasefire).

As to Korea..I believe US troops are still needed there as long as they are wanted....as for Western Europe....the need for anything more than a token force is lost to me...but hey...if they were not there...Western Europe might have to gulp!..pay for real military budgets instead of letting them wither on the vine of budgetary cuts...which is why when the issue of deploying troops from western europe to Iraq and Afghan, then after the global realignments of 75,000 troops from S. Korea and Europe planned for a 5 year period, the Euro's browned their trousers and created a diplomatic sh*tstorm bout "Nato commitments"....

As to Iraq...it is conceivable that US/Coalition forces will be there..in lower numbers..for years to come..I dont discount 1-2 decades....as to the media hype bout a possible theocratic goverment akin to Iran...get real...Iraqi shia's dont follow the same sort of religious sect as the mullahs in Iran...hell even 75% of the Iranians are 35 or under, very pro-west and increasingly pro-us....so many of the arguments are moot....when we try to predict what sort of goverment Iraqis will have too many try to compare it to American/European goverments which is the problem...most likely its gonna become something in between demorcracy and pan-arab rule....it may be good..it may be bad...but it will be a hell of alot better then under the former regime.....

"we could discuss the reasons for this war, our reasons for pursuing several political and/or social goals. but my question is one of probability, really. can we leave and have the country survive?"

TaBoo, we really are in a damned if you do / damned if you don't scenario in Iraq. Truly, I don't know what the answer is. But, it seems like there will be horrific bloodshed if we stay. There could be complete collapse if we leave. Either way, it's a lousy choice. Sometimes, it feels like there will be a civil war no matter what the Americans do, and leaving will only hasten this inevitable event. I dunno. That's really ugly, so we stay for now, because there is nothing else to do. That's why I hate Bush so much (at least one reason). He gambled away thousands of lives in order to eliminate a rather minor threat. He got us into this misery making quagmire, and I really hate the SOB. I hate him because he stuck it to us, and he stuck it to the Iraqis. And his neocon buddies are stealing billions of dollars in the process. What a total waste of resources, both material and human.

I was watching The West Wing on TV tonight. In the episode there was a character, played by Christopher Lloyd, who was working with the Belarus government to write a constitution. He and Toby were arguing about what the constitution should say, but Lloyd insisted that it was not the constitution that they were writing. Instead, they had to teach democracy to the Belarusans. He was insisting that you cannot write a democratic constitution for a country to follow, if the people do not understand, and have never lived under democratic government. The constitution can only come after the people learn democracy.

I thought this was interesting, because it seems in Iraq we are attempting to impose a democracy on people who have no concept of what it really means. We are putting the cart before the horse. This is something that should have been done diplomatically, rather than by force, and Iraqis largely see the US as an occupying force rather than there to teach democracy.

It's late and I'm tired. Tough day at work. Good artilcle, TaBoo. You pose some really tough questions, though unanswerable right now, are definitely not rhetorical.

......And then tell me again how we're never leaving Iraq."

We're never leaving Iraq.

couchman,

well, that definitely answers my question; your feelings about permanent installments are a little different than mine, but i agree with your take nonetheless.

we will be in iraq for a long while. im not certain where you were going with your media-hyped iran twin comment, but i wonder whether or not the us would have anything to say about the most enlightened elected theocracy, or about even your most enlightened pan-arab rule. forget about any oil issues for the moment. there are more voices here in the middle east and the us is going to have to deal. we are the infrastructure there, now, like it or not.

tbt

If Im not mistaken wasnt Subic Bay closed not because of the BRAC report persay but because it substained a sizeable amount of damage from a volcanic eruption? the costs of rebuilding it I believe were a prime motivator...at least I believe it was Subic Bay.

You would be WRONG! Although it did sustain damage from the volcano, that is NOT the reason it closed. It was closed at the request of the Philippine senate.

You would be WRONG! Although it did sustain damage from the volcano, that is NOT the reason it closed. It was closed at the request of the Philippine senate.

Along with Clark AFB.

Reply By: dabePosted: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 ......And then tell me again how we're never leaving Iraq." We're never leaving Iraq.

Thanks for letting us know your occupation.  Professional nay sayer, and always wrong.

im not certain i believe, like dabe, that we will be there forever. but dr. guy, i wonder where you are finding your hope. im not sure if you, like couchman, expect an extended stay with a positive end result, or you believe that we will be removing forces in the next few years. but right now, i have no idea what to hope for.

tbt

Actually couchman and miler are both correct. I forgot about the volcano and the philipine government. My bad!

But my point was that if the US government feels they have a legitimate reason to be there, they are fully prepared to stay.

im not certain i believe, like dabe, that we will be there forever. but dr. guy, i wonder where you are finding your hope. im not sure if you, like couchman, expect an extended stay with a positive end result, or you believe that we will be removing forces in the next few years. but right now, i have no idea what to hope for.

I get my hope from history.  While we have had extended stays in bases overseas, when we were told to get, we got.  The most recent one was in Saudi Arabia.  They told us go, we went.  Unlike the eurpoean poweres, America has never been an imperial power.  As Cesar would say, Veni, Vidi, Vici, and then go home.

Kind of Ironic that right now some of our oldest bases, we are trying to leave, and the host country is cryiing fowl!

But my point was that if the US government feels they have a legitimate reason to be there, they are fully prepared to stay.

And when we are told to go, we go.  Sure we loved those Phillipine bases for a long time, but they finally got tired of us and booted us.  Just as in Saudi Arabia, France, and any other country that has told us to leave.

im not disagreeing with you. maybe it's the simple fact that im here listening to varied news sources, and my understanding of whats happening there is filtered through so many perspectives.

i hope that at some point there will be someone in iraq backed by the popular opinion and with the understanding to determine that it is indeed time for us to leave.

what i believe, though, is that there is too much instability throughout the region and a severely gutted infrastructure in iraq itself for us to anticipate any likely pullout date. but as i said, i have no interest in having us pull out any time soon, because anyone can see, even some of us liberals, that the country would collapse if we did.

my other thought concerns the spirit of the surrounding nations. one could possibly make an argument that most of the regional unrest over the last twenty years stems directly from iraq. im not sure this is completely true, even if couchman seems to think that the days of a popular radical theocracy are over. but it would be nice to think that as the iraqi system stabilizes, so will the rest of the region. no doubt the issue of a reinstated palestine will continue regardless, but with increased stability everywhere else, one could at least imagine the possibility of decreased conflict in israel.

i just dont completely buy it. it seems that several radical stances exist amongst these countries--and not all are religious, of course. right now it seems that insurgencies will continue, that we do not have adequate forces there to solidify and train a local police force, or provide for other fundamental services that even the most bare-boned government must provide.

if you ask me for a better suggestion, i have none at the moment--hence this article. there is a stupid, idealistic chunk of me that wants me to find my way to iraq to see it for myself. you guys know that im not a soldier and it is stressful and difficult for me to make a case for what should be done without really knowing what is happening there. the last time i was in the middle east, i spent my time in egypt and israel. in israel, i was lucky enough to arrive between bombings, though scars on the buildings were still fresh, and busses and streets i spent a lot of time on suffered soon after i left.

israel is a place of order, in some ways, but i will never get over the memory of sitting in cafes with fellow traveler friends, and watching baby-faced girls walk in and sit down, dressed in fatigues and carrying assault rifles.

israel has a government, albeit a chaotic parliamentary system. i wonder what iraq has. . .and that is why i am looking for hope right now.

tbt

I agree with you for the most part Guy, but the fact of the matter is that the US felt that it was a stategic position in the pacific, and propped up the Marcos regime for all those years to insure that we wouldnt have to leave. When he finally was thrown out the phillipine people asked us to leave. Combine that with BRAC, upgrades in the military infrastructure, and a natural disaster cleanup are what finally led us out of there.

My point is that we stayed there for a long time. And we will be in Iraq for a long time as well.

Reply By: TaBoo TenentePosted: Thursday, February 10, 2005

TBT, all you rconcerns are valid.  And in the end, the government of Iraq might be closer to iran than we like, but that does not mean we whould abandon them.  When Saddam invaded Kuwait, what happened?

Do you think that if Iran tried to invade Iraq, that the world would sit by?  I dont fear the survival of Iraq, I do worry that they will drift into a theocracy, altho I think Bush is doing a better job than Carter did in Iran.  But in the end, it is up to the people.  Even today, many Iranis dont like the theocracy,a nd I think it will fail in time.

Truth is, we dont know the future.  But we can look forward to it with hope, or with dread.  Both will not be 100% right, but one lets you sleep at night,and also look to how you can fix the problems sure to pop up, without becoming despondant.

we are the infrastructure there, now, like it or not.

To a certain extent you are correct...problem is aside from Baghdad and certain small locations, the infrastructure of Iraq was basicly left to rot since the 1950's...what was there anyway....

Now on to some other things....first..the sect the iraqi shia's worship is of the modest sect (the name I forget) while Irans mullahs worship I believe its called Qum which tends to play to fanatics.....Iran's ruling goverment is on the clock counting down...why do I say this...simple, as I stated, 75% of Iranians are 35 and under, pro-west/pro-us, another point is the mullahs have been hiring non-iranians to help enforce their rule (damm outsourcing), and are dreading the possibility of economic sanctions..they love their oil revenue's.

Possible civil war in Iraq is laughable as the sunni's even with the foreign terrorists and hired arabs still would be out numbered for one (20% of a population never won a civil war), secondly, the best fighters bar none inside Iraq now are the Kurds(who are mostly sunni arabs) who have no love of the sunnis, very pro-democracy(been doing it for over 10 years now which explains why the north is so ecconomicly and socially stable) and are willing to rule along with the shia's of the south somewhat peacefully; finally the southern shia's are jumping at the chance of representative rule, willing to dispute differences with the ballot box instead of with a gun (how novel) and Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani has consistently declared that he doesnt want another theocratic goverment like Iran's (guess him telling off Iranian representatives while at a hospital in the uk several months ago doesnt give a clue)...iran offered men, material, financial aid...Sistani told them to get fucked (diplomaticly of course). For now Iraq is looking very hopeful for the future....but even if it de-evolves into a 2 or 3 way civil war...our best bet would be to throw our full aid and support to the kurds.

People who are nothing more than naysayers of doom love to spout that the terrorists and thugs in Iraq are akin to what transpired in Vietnam which means we will lose....hate to pop that myth bubble but after Tet of 68', the viet kong were no longer a threat in any sense ( low conservative estimates put their losses at bout 50,000 as a result of Tet) and never beat South Vietnam...the NVA military took over after that.....the south fell after years to the North Vietnamese regular military forces (after the dem controlled congress denied promised aid) but who am I to bicker...I'm just a conservative american whos been assaulted by left-wing "peace-protesters" called a nazi (my grandfather would roll over in his grave on that one..but thats another story) and called an idiot.... call me crazy but can we just once enjoy the fact that elections were held in Iraq...they are on the path to normalcy but are at a fork in the road...whichever path they take may have unintended consequences both good and bad...

hey couchman,

you're bringing a lot of good bits here, but you're too angry at someone who doesn't exist on this thread. it's hard not to become sensitive in such a polarized system, but you've got to know that youre throwing around as much anger as, say, an anti-war activist. "will you just calm the fuck down, man?" "calmer than you, Dude." sorry for the lebowski tangent.

im not sure if you are trying to label me one of your naysayers of doom spouting about terrorists making unnatural whoopie with thugs in vietnam, but, er, come on, dude. you're seeing things.

what i see is a gutted country (yes, the gutting process has taken place over several decades) in a very unstable region of the world. i see continued insurgencies there and highlt polarized political debate here (all right?) so it shouldnt surprise you that im looking for hope.

yeah im happy about free elections, and im surprisingly excited about the voter turn out. still, if youre breathing a sigh of relief, you may want to reserve some extra 02 for later, just in case.

i am cetainly a liberal, and there is no way that you would ever hear me call you a nazi, unless you suggested it yourself. some liberals have hyperbolically used the term and in no way do i sanction that or any other labeling. but i could pick two or three labels out of your rants, and add pinko commie hairy hippie-lettuce smokin skirt wearin bleeding heart sissy mary to not to mention the worst of all the labels (LIBERAL) to the list of accusatory, unproductive, and frankly unenlightened labeling done recently.

none of which, of course, has anything to do with this thread. there are soldiers dying on both sides . . .civilians, too. i have no interest in suggesting this is a worse human disaster than any other, but that doesnt bring a happy face out from me yet.

if the voting makes you hopeful, then good. me, too. but for me, it's not enough.

tbt

if the voting makes you hopeful, then good. me, too. but for me, it's not enough

Although good voter turnout was a surprising relief, it also tells us that despite its recent history of despotic rule, the Iraqis do have a concept of country. Such a mindset early in its US-occupation period will easily solidify into that of a sovereign nation conscious of its respectability in the eyes of its neighbors and the world. Whatever political mix of ethnic/religious rulers Iraq will finally have, attention will have to be given on the need of foreign troops in their land. When that happens, even a, say, liberal Al Sistani government can call a national referendum on US troops in Iraq early in the game. If the results turn the way the Philippine senate ruled on the US bases in the '90's, will the US government respect this? The answers will really test what the US intentions for Iraq are and if not dealt with correctly, could lead to an anti-US directed civil war, with neighbors Syria and Iran helping the fledgling government in Iraq. No "doomsday-naysayer" whatever here. Just cold political analysis that should be addressed early on.

Reply By: couchmanPosted: Thursday, February 10, 2005

Great Post Couchman.  Thanks for the info, some I already knew, but some very insighful.