Submitted by greenhattedamigo on Sun, 03/01/2009 - 6:30pm
Posted in
Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.
With the statement above, President Obama let the world know that one of his main foreign policy positions has been actualized. American forces have created a timetable—however polished or rough it might be—for withdrawal from Iraq. However, he notes that "our combat mission" will be finished and we all remember that President Bush said the same thing in May 2003. While I do not intend to compare the two men, one question begs to be asked: just what presence will America have in Iraq on September 1st, 2010? To take that question a step further, what presence, if any, will America have in Iraq after the planned (but, in my opinion questionable) pullout of all US troops in December 2011?
As Iraqi politicians work toward a more stable government, they are tightening alliances with European powers; in particular, France. This could indicate that the driving force in domestic Iraqi affairs for the past five years (the United States) could soon be edged out of Mesopotamia entirely.
However, I don't think that will happen. While I do believe that Obama will pull out all combat troops by the end of August 2010, just like he promised at Camp Lejeune last Friday. I'm just not sure about his next pledge to "remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." An agreement made between former President Bush and the Iraqi government late last year stated that all American troops would be removed by then, and President Obama seems to follow through with that agreement, at least at this stage. Unfortunately, it's a pledge I find hard to believe.
Since American bases were established in Germany when the former domain of Adolf Hitler is partitioned among the victorious Allied powers, the US has maintained extensive bases there. The same goes for Japan, following MacArthur's treaty ending the War in the Pacific, and for South Korea, following the armistice that ended the conflict there in 1953. While these are all old examples, they illustrate one key concept of American imperialism: the establishment of military bases worldwide. Included is a map showing the states that have allowed American presence, or American use of sovereign military bases. On the list are countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Somalia, Bolivia, Iceland, Colombia, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Spain, Italy. Nearly every country that has seen major American troop involvement since the end of the Second World War (save only Vietnam, for obvious reasons) has some military agreement with the US. Other states who have seen no direct engagement of American troops, but have close economic and other ties with the US, also have allowed extensive American usage of their military facilities. With that in mind, is it really fathomable that the US will ever fully withdraw from Iraq?
I don't think so. In the end, it's almost obvious that we won't. America is obsessed with spreading her forces around the world, even in the most nonstrategic locations imaginable. (I mean, really, Iceland, Portugal?) The Persian Gulf, on the other hand, will remain important as long as oil and Israel both play a part in American foreign policy, let alone the rising power in Iran. There is literally no way the US won't move to establish permanent bases somewhere in Iraq. In my opinion, they will most likely be located in the south, near Basra, an area where any Iranian move to colonize her neighbor states will likely begin. Regardless of location though, one fact holds true—2011 will not see the end of close American military ties to Iraq.
Sun, 03/01/2009 - 8:35pm
#2
Wouldn't the U.S.'s bases nearby in Kuwait, Turkey and Saudia Arabia satisfy our hegemonic desires in the Middle East?
Perhaps. Regardless of what happens, you make a very good point. But, to rebut, don't you think that our bases in Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria would negate the need to establish bases in Croatia and Hungary?
A base in Iraq would not be used for movement of munitions and troops, such as the Manas airbase in Kazakhstan that has recently made so much news. It would instead be used as a first line of defense in case of an Iranian attack on another Gulf state, much the same way Saudi Arabia was used to launch Operation Desert Storm after the success of Desert Shield. While Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian bases would probably serve much the same purpose, I disagree that the US will stop there. That being said, even if a permanent military presence was denied, I believe that the US will secure rights to use any strategic air bases in-country before pulling out.
Furthermore, a base in southern Iraq would also be highly strategic in the sense that such a presence would allow the US to guard Iraqi oil pipelines.
I just don't think it's politically viable for the US to have a
visible, long term presence in a country that wants our withdrawal.
Define visible. In my opinion, any Iraqi base would require very few troops, very little logistical support staff, and would be mostly overlooked by American citizens. On the other hand, the average Iraqi citizen might not be particularly happy about an American base on their soil. You make a good point here. That being said, I'm not sure how strong the Iraqi political voice would be on such an issue. If the vast majority of American troops were leaving, perhaps they wouldn't care about a relatively insignificant base compared to what they were forced to live with for seven or eight years. This is of course complete conjecture; however, I think that we will work very hard to retain a presence in Iraq for several years after the end of our "combat mission".
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 5:03pm
#3
The bottom line is, Iraq is not stable, and will not be stable enough to hold itself up independently by the time the war officially stops in 2011. 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq probably until at least 2020, after which U.S. military presence will be slowly reduced. Permanent? No. The U.S. pulled its last military troops out of Japan last year. But it will certainly be a lasting presence--in the short term because it's necessary for Iraqi stability, and in the long term because it's in America's interest. Iraqi resistance, if there is any, really won't make any difference; and Iraq also won't move away from the U.S. to European countries, although it could move toward other countries in the region.
That's not to say I particularly like the idea. If I were president, I would increase the amount of troops briefly to put an end to whatever insurgency remains, and then remove all but 10,000 to 15,000 troops by mid-2010, which would all be gone by 2015 or so. But hey, what do I know. And of course that would derail the black hole that is a war in Afghanistan.
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 5:46pm
#4
Iraq is not stable, and will not be stable enough to hold itself up independently by the time the war officially stops in 2011.
According to Obama, the American combat mission in Iraq will end by the beginning of the third quarter in 2010. American troops will remain in a mostly advisory role until December 2011, when President Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement on December 14, 2008. Perhaps you knew this already; however, your post did not seem to indicate that. Your dates are off.
Permanent? No. The U.S. pulled its last military troops out of Japan
last year. But it will certainly be a lasting presence--in the short
term because it's necessary for Iraqi stability, and in the long term
because it's in America's interest.
At this point, both governments (the US and Iraq) seem to believe that Iraq is stable enough to stand on its own, indicated by PM Nouri al-Maliki's comments here. While I'm not sure about that, or sure about what will happen after American forces are reduced in 2010 and withdrawn in 2011, what I think doesn't matter. Treaties have been signed which will likely remain in place unless a new insurgency arises within the next eighteen months or so.
I also think you misread my earlier comments on permanent bases. While troops may not remain in any large enough numbers to make any difference, I think that the US will secure rights to use whatever military bases Iraq possesses in case of further conflict in the region, for example, with Iran. While the US may not have troops stationed in Japan right now, don't tell me you believe that we wouldn't have troops there in a heartbeat if war broke out between the Koreas.
Iraq also won't move away from the U.S. to European countries...
With Swipe at U.S., Iraq Builds Ties To French
If I were president, I would increase the amount of troops briefly to put an end to whatever insurgency remains...
While your plan is admirable, it is impossible. Most military strategists agree that an insurgency like this one will not be eradicated by hard power (military force). Instead, the way to win in Iraq is to fight the insurgency back to a point where most attacks are minor and isolated, then slowly build up indigenous security forces to take control of the precautionary measures in various areas. This strategy has been followed by our commanders in Iraq, and it has worked. Unless Iraqi security folds under pressure as American forces are withdrawn, the Surge and its subsequent strategic moves will be seen as a vast success for American commanders. In short, a quick fix like you suggest will not work for a conflict like Iraq.
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 6:09pm
#5
Perhaps you knew this already; however, your post did not seem to indicate that. Your dates are off.
At this point, both governments (the US and Iraq) seem to believe that Iraq is stable enough to stand on its own.
What both governments believe is that by mid-2010 Iraq should be stable enough for U.S. presence as an invading force to be replaced with U.S. presence as a force of stability. Iraqis are tired of U.S. occupation, which accounts for the Iraqi government's push to get U.S. troops out completely; but violence has not stopped, and Iranian and Kurdish tensions remain critical, which leads me to believe that although Iraq will be able to operate independently of the U.S. by the time American combat troops leave, American presence will continue to play a role in ensuring that Iraq maintains a stable and democratic path. Perhaps my earlier language expressed that sentiment too strongly.
Is it not obvious to you that that doesn't matter? No matter what the New York Times writes, there's not a country in the world whose single ally is their oppressor. Iraq will remain tied to the United States economically, politically, and probably militarily for some time, unless Iranian influences cause the country to collapse. It makes complete sense for Iraq to try to sell oil to France, too, and it is by no means an indication that U.S. influence is diminishing any more than it already has.
While your plan is admirable, it is impossible. Most military strategists agree that an insurgency like this one will not be eradicated by hard power (military force)... the Surge and its subsequent strategic moves will be seen as a vast success for American commanders.
That's contradictory. I was suggesting a second surge because, in contrast to what analysts (wrongly) predicted before the war and again before the surge, overwhelming force has proven more effective than drawing out the battle while slowly building up local police with very questionable loyalty, predictability, and training. Of course, in the long term it must be local forces who quench violent opposition, but history has demonstrated that it is stability and financial success that makes insurgency end, and it is powerful strikes that can create and hold that stability for the period necessary. Training of local forces wouldn't have to slow; the difference would be ensuring a more stable Iraq before we leave, and then leaving more quickly, rather than phasing out with the hope that insurgency will die out simultaneously.
Wouldn't the U.S.'s bases nearby in Kuwait, Turkey and Saudia Arabia satisfy our hegemonic desires in the Middle East?
This is not to say I outright disagree with you, I just don't think it's politically viable for the US to have a visible, long term presence in a country that wants our withdrawal. Furthermore, establishing a base in Iraq would be diplomatically unpopular in Iraq, considering how imperialist we already appear to the Iraqis. If we didn't already have a handful of prominent bases in the Middle East, I might think differently.