Permanent Bases In Iraq?

by hilzoy

Ron Brownstein of the LA Times did a good piece on the question of permanent bases in Iraq a few days ago, and I have been collecting links on it for a while, with the vague intention of posting something on it. Since it was brought up in the comments to von's last post, I thought: why not now? For starters, some excerpts from Brownstein's article:

"So far the administration has downplayed the possibility of permanent bases without excluding it. In Senate testimony in February, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said flatly: "We have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq." Pentagon officials echo that insistence today. But Rumsfeld last winter said he could not rule out the idea because the United States and the permanent Iraqi government would make the final decision. Bush took a similar line in January in an interview with Arabic television. "That's going to be up to the Iraqi government," the president said. "[It] will be making the decisions as to how best to secure their country, what kind of help they need."

Leaks from the Pentagon have deepened the uncertainty. In May, the Washington Post reported that military planning did not envision permanent bases in Iraq but rather stationing troops in nearby Kuwait. But the report noted that the Pentagon was also planning to consolidate U.S. troops in Iraq into four large fortified bases. On the theory that concrete speaks louder than words, critics see such work as a sign the administration is planning to stay longer than it has acknowledged.

John E. Pike, a defense analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, points to another indication. Although the United States is systematically training Iraqis to fight the insurgents, he notes, the Pentagon has not taken key steps — like making plans for acquiring tanks or aircraft — to build an Iraqi military capable of defending the country against its neighbors. To Pike that means that although the United States might reduce its troop level in Iraq, the fledgling nation, like Germany or South Korea, will require the sustained presence of a large American contingent, perhaps 50,000 soldiers. "We are building the base structure to facilitate exactly [that]," he says."

As far as I can tell, the situation is this. We are building four long-term bases in Iraq. But it's hard to know what to read into that. Consider this excerpt from an article in Mother Jones:

"At these bases, KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that works in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been extending runways, improving security perimeters, and installing a variety of structures ranging from rigid-wall huts to aircraft hangars. Although the Pentagon considers most of the construction to be "temporary"—designed to last up to three years—similar facilities have remained in place for much longer at other "enduring" American bases, including Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel, which opened in 1999, and Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in place since the mid-1990s.

How long is "enduring"? The administration insists that troops will remain in Iraq as long as it takes to install a functioning, democratic government, quell the insurgency, and build an efficient Iraqi fighting force. Given the elusiveness of those goals, many military experts believe that Rumsfeld's hope that the troops might be out by 2008 is wildly optimistic. Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000, recently predicted that American involvement in Iraq would last at least 10 more years. Retired Army Lt. General Jay Garner, the former interim administrator of reconstruction efforts in Iraq, told reporters in February 2004 that a U.S. military presence in Iraq should last "the next few decades." Even that, some analysts warn, could be an underestimate. "Half a century ago if anyone tried to convince you that we’d still have troops in Korea and Japan, you’d think they were crazy," says Pike, the military analyst. Suspicions also run deep both inside Pentagon circles and among analysts that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into the facilities in pursuit of a different agenda entirely: to turn Iraq into a permanent base of operations in the Middle East."

How would we tell the difference between the construction of bases designed for a presence we imagine to be lengthy but finite and the construction of "permanent bases"? On the one hand, when we intend to stay for the foreseeable future, we do not build bases that are literally everlasting: carved out of adamant and designed to loom over the empty Babylonian plains long after all human life has vanished from the face of the earth. So it's hard to tell the difference between our building a structure designed to be 'permanent' and one designed to last for, say, the eight or ten years that one might reasonably expect us to be in Iraq. On the other, even if we did build a base that had "permanent" stamped on it, we might intend to turn it over to the Iraqis. We are clearly trying to build 'permanent' electricity generators, but that does not mean that we intend to use them ourselves. So just looking at the permanence of the structures we're building seems to me a bad way to answer this question.

The point about how we're structuring the Iraqi forces, on the other hand, is quite worrying, though obviously I am not competent to assess it myself.There is also this:

"Now comes a report in the New York Sun by Eli Lake revealing that the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, a necessary foundation for any lasting troop presence. The new network will comprise twelve communications towers throughout Iraq, linking Camp Victory in Baghdad to other existing (and future) bases across the country, eventually connecting with US bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan."

(The Sun article is here, but it's behind a subscription wall. The communications system is also described here: "In January 2005 it was reported that the Pentagon was building a permanent military communications system in Iraq. The new Central Iraq Microwave System, is to consist of up to 12 communications towers throughout Iraq, along with fiber-optic cables connecting Camp Victory to other coalition bases in the country.")

As to what we have said: we have never said that we plan to build permanent bases in Iraq, nor have we said that we won't. The remarks by Rumsfeld cited in Brownstein's article ("Rumsfeld last winter said he could not rule out the idea because the United States and the permanent Iraqi government would make the final decision", and other similar statements) seem to me to provide some, though not decisive, evidence that we at least want to build them. Why is the decision up to "the United States and the permanent Iraqi government"? If we did not want to construct permanent bases, we could make that decision all by ourselves. Compare: if I do not want to sign over all my worldly goods to George W. Bush, then that's my decision, and if Bush doesn't like it, that's just too bad, however much he might fancy my 'Republicans for Voldemort' T-shirt. The decision what I will do with my property is one that George W. Bush and I have to work out together only if I would like to give it to him, since in that case I have to ask him whether he'd be willing to accept it. And therefore, if you asked me what I was planning to do with my worldly goods and I said: "well, I can't tell you; that's a decision that George W. Bush and I will have to make together", you might reasonably infer that I was planning to give them to him, since otherwise there would be no reason to involve him at all.

What really makes me think that we are planning to build them, though, is something Larry Diamond said on TPMCafe:

"One of the issues that most baffles me in a way is the question of long-term military bases in Iraq. It’s now pretty clear that the ambition to establish long-term American military bases in Iraq, in order to secure the Persian Gulf region, contain Iranian expansion, and enable us to draw down or withdraw altogether our forces in Saudi Arabia, was an important motivation for going to war. When we pressed so vigorously and relentlessly in the drafting of the interim constitution for the easiest possible means of ratifying a treaty, it became clear to me that we were looking to smooth the way for an eventual treaty with Iraq giving us long-term basing rights.

At the same time, we know from a variety of sources, private as well as public, that intense opposition to US plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency. There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq: Islamist and secular, Sunni and Shiite, Baathist and non-Baathist, Iraqi and foreign. The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism—resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion—by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely—is essential to winding down the insurgency."

We did work hard to make sure that treaties could be ratified easily under the interim constitution. But more importantly, stating openly that we have no intention of establishing permanent bases in Iraq is one of the few easy steps we could take that might actually help undercut the rationale behind the insurgency. And unlike e.g. trying to increase the size of the army dramatically, it's cost-free, if we do not intend to establish permanent bases in Iraq in any case. The only reason we haven't done it that makes any sense at all is that we do intend to establish them.

This strikes me as just insane, on any number of counts. Rather than rehearse them again, I'll just quote part of the Mother Jones article I mentioned earlier, which quotes people who say it better than I could:

"The presence of U.S. troops is a powerful recruitment tool for the Iraqi insurgency—as well as a source of bitter anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. Politically, the occupation is becoming increasingly untenable: Practically every significant Iraqi political figure—from Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to Iraqi president Ghazi al-Yawar, an influential Sunni Muslim—opposes the occupation and wants the troops out, and any leader who hopes to maintain credibility will have to make that a priority. "The presence of bases there is going to be a source of instability and anger for the Iraqi people, whether they are currently for the insurgency or not," says Jessica Matthews, the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. "It will convince people across the Arab world that we went there to install an American regime in the Middle East." (...)

[A US official] agrees the consequences of such a move would be disastrous: Permanent bases "would be under siege, a temptation for terrorists, a symbol of U.S. occupation. It would totally undermine our political strategy in Iraq." Adds Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The next Iraqi leadership has to show they are truly sovereign and independent. And that’s hard to do if they lease significant parts of Iraq to the United States. We've already seen the ability of these insurgents to target our facilities and attack them. I'd be very reluctant to say this is a good place to base our troops.""

Comments

[Kevin Donoghue]

From the bits and pieces I have read about this, the most plausible hypothesis is that Bush & Co would like permanent bases, but they don't yet know whether the Iraqis can be persuaded to accept them; I will be very surprised if they can. It seems pretty silly, really, given that Iran can probably be contained just as well without bases.

[Catsy]

Establishing permanent bases in Iraq seems to me like a great way to offer would-be insurgents a permanent training ground against which to test their latest and greatest tactics.

[Slartibartfast]

And, as an added bonus, encourage them to come out in the country and play with soldiers instead of killing children.

Not that I think any of this is real, but as long as we're supposing, we might as well just swing out.

[rilkefan]

"Not that I think any of this is real"

Be true, Unbeliever...

[Catsy]

And, as an added bonus, encourage them to come out in the country and play with soldiers instead of killing children.

Which, to be sure, is an improvement in that regard over the current situation. Just not the improvement we want. I don't know about you, but I'm not particularly okay with indefinitely offering up American soldiers--in a place easy to get to and difficult to defend--for target practice.

[sidereal]

"And, as an added bonus, encourage them to come out in the country and play with soldiers instead of killing children."

If they're killing children because the children endorse the wrong relative of Mohammed as the successor of Caliphate, or are in front of those who do, then putting the American troops in bases in the desert will only make it easier for them.

If they're killing children because the children are participating in the new government, or are in front of those who do, then putting the American troops in bases in the desert will only make it easier for them.

If they're killing children because they're standing in front of American troops, then putting them in bases will be an improvement, but taking them out of the country completely would offer the same improvement with other benefits.

I can't think of any circumstance that would argue for taking American troops out of the cities without taking them out of the country completely.

[xanax]

I think permanent (or at least very long-term) bases in Iraq are inevitable and have been part of the BushCo plan all along. Without them, the Republicans would have nothing concrete - in terms of ROI - to show for their hundreds of billions. I see the absence of such bases as a tremendous political liabiity for the red team.

[bernard Yomtov]

I tend to think the Bush Administration wants permanent bases in Iraq. My guess is that the main idea is to have an alternative to Saudi Arabia in the region.

[RSS Reader]

I just thought you should know the RSS feed for ObWi is messed up. It is spewing raw html where it should not be. The last working post was the kitten one last Sunday.

Sorry to report the bug here, now back to your regularly scheduled program.

[xanax]

Well for Christ sake call an RSS feed repair guy! We can't have raw html spewing all over the place! Before you know it, the EPA will be involved!

Help!

(WTF is an RSS feed?)

[sidereal]

Works okay for me.

Are you using http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/atom.xml
?

[Jay S]

RSS reader: I've just verified that the RSS 2.0, atom 0.3 and rss 1.0 feed are working for me under Firefox/Sage and livefeed. RSS 1.0 has been working all week.

[Trickster]

If Iraq is to be able to defend itself against its regional competitors before we leave, then we can't leave until they have a combined-arms military, with armor, artillery, and air components. None of those components are even on the drawing board so far as I know.

However, once there is an actual democracy in place in Iraq, should such a thing ever occur, I feel fairly confident that we will be shown the door in relatively short order. So, unless we're just playing foolies about the democracy thing, I think the whole discussion is fairly academic. We'll leave and Iraq will likely become a satellite of Iran, at least the Shi'ite parts. What happens to the rest of the country is anybody's guess.

[xanax]

Jay S: Thanks. Send the bill to Charles.

[Jay S]

xanax: Re WTF is RSS. That's probably the wrong question. The answer is that it stands for Really Simple Syndication (or possibly other flavors as I recall) and that it is an alternate way to query web pages. What you want to ask is why should I care or why should I use it? RSS from a practical perspective allows you to look at a large number of sources to determine if there is new content. Many web news sources and blogs implement RSS or Atom feeds that can be checked by software and "aggregated" together to see what is new out of a number of sources. If you only go one place on the web, it isn't much use, but if you have several places you visit and they provide feeds, it can help you see what's new without visiting each place separately. If you have Firefox you can use the built in livefeed (not very useful in my opinion) or get the Sage plugin (the one I use) to access RSS. If you have Thunderbird for email you can add RSS feeds similar to news readers for news groups (I don't care for that interface myself). Other options are available with stand alone programs, web based aggregators and plugins for other browsers.

[xanax]

Thanks, JayS: after I asked the question, I googled RSS and found most of the info you just provided. The one piece missing is/was whether or not the RSS software is Mac compatible. Do you know if it can function absent some Windows application? I'm kind of a techno-retard (most normally-computer-literate people could figure this out on their own I suppose) so I appreciate any further input you'd care to provide... tho this may not be the most appropriate thread for it.

So, what do you think about permanent bases in Iraq?

[hilzoy]

xanax: If you're running 10.4, it's built into Safari. If not, try here (scroll down the page for the free version.)

Disclaimer: I have heard that this is good, but have not actually used it.

[Jay S]

xanax: See Mozilla.org for Mac OS X versions of firefox and thunderbird. You can find the sage plug in for firefox there from the search bar. I believe the plug ins work with any supported version of firefox. You can try the concept via a number of web based implementations but I have found them painfully slow or limited implementations.

As to permanent bases, what I think would take a while to explain. I believe that some individuals within the DOD have them on their agenda, hence the rumors that have circulated for the last few years. It appears that we are building bases with a useful life that exceeds the public projections of our presence. Whether that is a reflection of current white house policy, an anticipation of the possibility of policy changes, or something else is hard to tell.

[xanax]

Thanks hilzoy & Jay S. I'll have a go at your suggestions when I get back to my office. Also, is it just my computers (home & office), or did the "time of day" display element of follow-on posts suddenly mysteriously disappear across the board?

[hilzoy]

It vanished on mine too, but only on some pages. Sigh.

[xanax]

hilzoy: "It vanished on mine too, but only on some pages. Sigh."

Probably my fault. Never ceases to amaze me the scope and extent of things I can screw up. I'll log off for a while. Maybe it'll come back???

[CharleyCarp]

I can't think of any circumstance that would argue for taking American troops out of the cities without taking them out of the country completely.

Border control.

If we're going to keep having our military in Iraq, and it seems clear enough that we are, I'd like think about whether our focus can shift as much as possible to fighting foreigners and jihadis, while letting Iraqis fight Baathists and whatever other native Sunni elements there are. I suppose there is plenty of overlap, but with hard work surely we can do something along these lines.

To the extent that what is going on is a civil war -- and there is an extent to which it is -- I don't want us to have a dog in the fight.

[victor falk]

If I had my way, the US would have bases in Kurdistan only.

I think it's the best choice between a number of very bad options.

No US troops in Iraq means a very high propability of escalation of the civil war and intervention of the neighbours, setting the middle east ablaze.

More troops does nothing: it's not more troops that are needed, it's better counter-insurgency tactics. The French army had more and better tanks than the Germans in 1940, but they hadn't adopted Blitzkrieg manoeuvres; that's what lost them the war.

Conscription would be disaster. Currently, the US are doing OK in fighting at small unit level because of the professionalism of its soldiers; with conscripts, that advantage disappears.

It is by no means impossible to military defeat the insurgents. What's extremely improbable is the US military making the fundamental doctrinal pardigm shift needed to adopt the alternative doctrines.

US presence in Kurdisan neutralizes it's call for independence; it deters the neighbours from intervening; it provides the "lily-pad" to lauch operations against the different fractions in the civil war, minizing their capcity for mayhem and the death toll, to hinder this or that side from achieving victory, until an "acceptable" party emerges, in a secure area where logistics and support are not threatened.

US absence from 'Mesopotamia' (Iraq minus Kurdistan) removes the common enemy of the insurgents and leads intercine fighting, and reduces the population's support for them.

This is called "Lebanization" of Iraq, as in "Power taking over a country through a bloody civil war by having proxies fighting for it". The US gets to play Syria.

I'm at a loss to find words to describe my sentiments that it has come to pass that the best realistic scenario for Iraq beeing lebanization.

I have often said that Iraq would the given "fifth folly" of Barbara W. Tuchmann: The March of Folly - from Troy to Vietnam.

But now I think they pale in comparaison, seeming like minor snafus.

[Troy]

Hopefully we won't put one at Habbaniya.

[victor falk]

Oh yeh, for those you that might think the partition might be the solution: that would "Yugoslavification".

There are two varaints of Yugoslavification: If the US leaves it becomes, it becomes like the post-cold war Balkan war, with Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece as added belligerents.

If they leave, then it's WWII Yugoslavification, the kurds beeing the ustachas loyal to the foreign occupiers , the sunnis the serbs left over with are a rump bantustan, and the Shias and sunnis the playing the role of the neighbours annexing the rest.

[abb1]

Victor, why do you think the Kurds aren't going to object to US military bases? Right now there's basically no US troops there and they are supporters, but you start moving troops in there and you'll see nationalist resentment growing. Sure, they have to appreciate the protection, but on the balance - who knows. I suspect that it only takes just a few incidents - a couple of girls raped here and there, a couple of bystanders shot - and it might turn into open hatred.

Protection racket is a tricky business.

[NeoDude]

abb1,

Protection racket is a tricky business.

Posted by: abb1 | August 20, 2005

Brilliant!!!

[hrc]

CNN reports the army is planning for another 4 years in Iraq at 100,000 troop level strength. Can any get the word to them what FUBAR means???