Friday, March 24, 2006
Of course we want permanent bases in Iraq
Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.
When have we ever fought a war and invested our strategic hopes in a new government and not kept permanent bases? I can think of but one example.
The argument, of course, is that a "permanent" presence will incite al Qaeda:
"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such as Iraq.
Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would make it official policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. He noted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia as grounds for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Why do people, especially Republicans from Texas, insist on legitimizing bin Laden's view of the world? Who cares if bin Laden "cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia" as grounds for the September 11 attacks? He also cited the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 and American support for Israel. He thinks that Spain should be a Muslim country called al Andalus, that women should walk around with bags over their heads, and that the only legitimate source of governmental power is Allah. Do we think that al Qaeda will pack it in -- "all right, then, you're out of Iraq, no hard feelings" -- if America withdraws? Indeed, I can't think of a better reason in support of permanent bases in Iraq than bin Laden's opposition to them. That, and the containment of Iran.
Let us agree on several propositions, which I believe to be self-evident but apparently require endless reinforcement.
First, we will keep no troops in Iraq over the objections of its legitimate government.
Second, having been the midwife of that government, we will not abandon it as long as it is legitimate in the eyes of most Iraqis.
Third, if the legitimate government of any country offers basing privileges to the United States and if it is otherwise in our strategic interests to accept those privileges, we should not allow the objections of Osama bin Laden to dictate a contrary decision.
Fourth, al Qaeda has publicly vowed to expel the United States from Iraq. We are far more likely to strengthen al Qaeda's credibility and therefore its ability to attract men and money if we grant it that victory than if we deny it.
Anybody who thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq will weaken al Qaeda because there will no longer be the "incitement" of the "crusader occupation" is a fool. Victory begets victory, and defeat begets defeat. Whether or not the Iraq invasion has worked out precisely as its supporters had hoped -- it obviously has not -- it is surely in the interests of all Americans, and indeed all Westerners, that it be perceived as a defeat for al Qaeda. Any American who argues otherwise does so from a narrower agenda, such as the political advancement of Democrats. Any other Westerner who argues otherwise does so from misplaced anti-Americanism. There is no other plausible explanation.
25 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Mar 24, 11:48:00 AM:
By , at
Fri Mar 24, 01:00:00 PM:
I live (and vote) in Texas, but Ron Paul is not my representative. I'll be sure to get in touch with my rep, Lamar Smith (R) and tell him I don't agree with Re. Paul's proposed legislation....
By 
honestpartisan, at
Fri Mar 24, 01:31:00 PM:
I don't think it's necessary to adopt the Al Qaeda view of the world to be concerned about the political implications of permanent bases in Iraq. When people (like those on this blog) defended the Dubai Port deal, part of the reason was concern over how its rejection would play in the Arab/Muslim worlds. It's this same attention to Arab /Muslim public opinion and its propensity to support Al Qaeda that demands caution about establishing a permanent base in Iraq. Indeed, isn't the whole idea that establishment of a democracy in Iraq would aid in the fight against Al Qaeda made with an eye toward the political terrain (that is, Arab/Muslim public opinion) as well?
I think your statement that "victory begets victory" is true to some extent, but it contradicts in some ways the plan of fighting terrorism by setting up a democratic government in Iraq: we're supposed to be winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims with democracy promotion at the same time that we're impressing them with our ability to kick their ass. It strikes me as really hard to do both, and planning for a permanent base there only makes it harder.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Mar 24, 01:37:00 PM:
So point 3 argues that we shouldn't let our behavior be dictated by terrorists, and then point 4 turns around and says we should.
Why not just say we'll have bases if we decide it's in our national interest and the Iraqis agree to it?
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 24, 03:01:00 PM:
Indeed.
Why not just say we'll have permanent bases? Why not say that in the run-up to the war and in all the subsequent speeches, statements, and policy statements?
Why not tell the truth?
By , at
Fri Mar 24, 03:37:00 PM:
Screwy...
There were millions of things that were not said in the long march to this war. When preparing for war, it is a really good idea to not tell the enemy everything you intend to do. The words and deeds of Iran have have changed the situation a lot. Thus, you will see in the years to come thousands of decisions made that were not discussed publicly before the war.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 24, 04:34:00 PM:
And, tyree, as we've seen in the Downing Street Memos (among other sources), Bush and Company intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11.
Don't you wonder just a teensy weensy bit if there's a hidden agenda here? A hidden agenda that required cherry picking intel, etc.?
Anyhoo, that's all water under the bridge, eh? But it's not like permanent bases are some big secret. Why doesnt' the admin just cop to it? Because they're afraid of the political implications. Americans don't want their military in Iraq forever...
By , at
Fri Mar 24, 06:27:00 PM:
I doubt that Ron Paul speaks for many in Congress as he is always on the short side of votes. For instance, he was one of a few Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He's not a bad person but he is very short sighted about the world.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Mar 24, 06:53:00 PM:
"Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces."
Oh gods forbid that the barracks there have air conditioning installed, or indoor plumbing, or paved sidewalks.
It is also feasible that such bases will be used as permanent homes for the Iraqi Army and Air Force. (when they fix their planes that is)
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Fri Mar 24, 10:54:00 PM:
SH -- cute with the teensy-weensy. Sorry we're not up to your intellectual level, stuck in the foolish assumption that readiness to invade Iraq is not a decision to invade.
OBL also objected to the tragedy of Andalusia and the Crusades. I'm not sure we can fix that for him.
I assumed semi-permanent bases from the start of any discussion about Iraq. I think I recall we still have a few soldiers in Germany.
As to the Muslim/Arab opinion, I think there is a difference between respecting the wishes of allies and the wishes of enemies.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 25, 09:35:00 AM:
"readiness to invade Iraq is not a decision to invade"
In Bush's case, it certainly was. Let's not pretend. You can be for the war and still admit that Bush planned the invasion before he was even elected.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 25, 10:19:00 AM:
On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.”
Do you suppose Bush meant that we ought to bow down and let A.Q. dictate our foreign policy?
If I look at you today and say, "Tomorrow I demand you brush your teeth, use the bathroom, and go to work, or I will kill, kill, kill!", would your doing these things constitute meeting my conditions? Or would your doing these things simply be a part of your own agenda?
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Mar 25, 10:35:00 AM:
Screwy, there is no doubt that there were many in thet Bush administration who saw Iraq has the big strategic threat in the region, and thought that an extended war with Saddam was inevitable. Hey, I still think that an escalated war with Saddam was inevitable. But that does not mean that the war was "planned". Indeed, everybody with a memory remembers that China was the real foreign policy bugaboo during the first six months of the Bush administration. That's because the real unreconstructed right-wing crazies have been obsessed with China since 1949.
"Permanent bases" does not equal "indefinite occupation." It did not in Japan, Germany, Italy, the Philippines, or any number of other places. Basing privileges are not the same thing as occupation. This false equation is only the latest brand new idea of the left cooked up to score partisan political points.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 25, 11:04:00 AM:
So, Hawk, you're saying we are occupying Iraq right now, correct?
It's an occupation, yes?
And military bases are a separate issue, a la European bases we have today?
Then why, as you suggest, doesn't the administration just come out and say so?
Further, China was a "bugaboo" because they shot down a spy plane (another blundering effort by the Bush admin, btw) of ours and wouldn't give it back until after they stole/inspected the components.
Iraq's been in the planning stages since long before Bush was elected in 2000. And, due to the permanent bases issue, it looks like we'll be there a long, long time.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Mar 25, 12:02:00 PM:
Iraq was certainly an occupation until we handed over sovereignty in 2004, and it was practically so until last year's elections. Now, though, it is safe to say that we are there because the people in charge want us there to deal with there internal enemies. And, increasingly, the Sunni leadership wants us there to guard against Shiite retaliation.
That having been said, why would we not want to have permanent bases in Iraq? I would think that the reaction of virtually anybody would be "well, at least we got some permanent bases in Iraq." Except, of course, people who believe that their presence will "incite" Osama bin Laden.
As for the "planning" to invade Iraq -- of course we were in some sense that we knew it would be inevitable. This is what is so frustrating about talking to people who oppose the invasion of Iraq: once Saddam did not fall on his own in the months or years following the Gulf War (which was fully the expectations of the "Bush 41/Scowcroft/Cheney 1.0" crowd), we had no plan for managing him. Containment was running its course ten years later, on the verge of collapse by 2002, and deterrance was not a reliable strategy because Saddam made national security decisions irrationally (and, obviously, deterrance requires a rational enemy). Short of taking Saddam out, what would we have done? Returned to the "offshore balancing" that so miserably and repeatedly failed in the Gulf? I still don't get what the endgame was going to be if we didn't invade.
By , at
Sat Mar 25, 12:44:00 PM:
*yawn* Yankee go home, already. You're spending yourselves into oblivion on this war you're losing and you're boring the rest of us with this never-ending armchair quarterbacking and chicken-hawk sophistry.
Go. Home. Try isolationism for a decade or so. I can't see how it could be any worse.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Mar 25, 04:32:00 PM:
"Further, China was a "bugaboo" because they shot down a spy plane of ours and wouldn't give it back until after they stole/inspected the components."
Nothing was shot down. A Chinese fighter jock got stupid and clipped our plane while attempting an intimidating flyby. He crashed, we made an emergency landing.
"(another blundering effort by the Bush admin, btw)"
You really do suffer from BDS don't you?
It is highly unlikely that President Bush had anything to do with that flight at all. Such missions are pretty routine, as are ones using submarines and ships, because according to the law of the sea they can hang around in international waters and listen for things electronically and it's perfectly acceptable. They happened all the time throughout the Cold War, all over Europe and the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Pacific. It's ridiculous that because a Chinese pilot rammed our plane this one time, it's suddenly a failure of government. Stupid even. The USS Caron collided with a Soviet ship in 1988; was that a failure of the Reagan administration?
And don't try the "well he's in charge so it's his responsibility" line I hear all the time. That's garbage. This isn't Germany, not everything is cleared by the President before it happens. The military is too large, complex, and busy for one person to ever dream of managing competently. That's what officers are for.
"Go. Home. Try isolationism for a decade or so. I can't see how it could be any worse."
Until Europe comes begging for us to intercede for them because they are too weak and indecisive to take care of something themselves. The Balkans, for instance. We still have troops there, something like 8 years after Europe promised to take the whole thing over.
Of course, I was kind of expecting a new era of isolationism after Bush got elected in 2000. There was a lot of talk of reduced overseas commitments and derisive remarks about using the military on humanitarian missions without any real national interests at risk and the like. Then came 9/11, and we sorta decided that isolationism might not be in our best interests after all.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Mar 26, 10:30:00 AM:
Dawnfire,
I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that the Bush administration's response to the spy plane down in China was a blundering effort.
Blustering, playground politics.
By , at
Sun Mar 26, 10:51:00 AM:
Permanent bases in Iraq are a huge mistake
A) Bases in Iraq are redundant with other US military bases in the area
B) Look at the history of Iraq- during the British occupation of Iraq the RAF base outside Baghdad helps to unite the Iraqi insurgency against the British.
People need to do cost-benefit analysis vs. just looking up the upside
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Mar 27, 09:14:00 PM:
prozacula, and to a lesser extent screwy hoolie.
I guess when you oversimplify someones argument to the point of false dichotomy, it becomes pretty easy to refute.
See if you can make your arguments mildly and neatly. You will thus either see their lack of force and improve them or abandon them.
By arjuna, at
Tue Mar 28, 02:09:00 AM:
By TigerHawk at 3/24/2006 10:05:00 AM
This kind of thinking is very silly:
Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.
Agreed, it is incredibly silly to continue to ask for hundreds of millions of dollars and insist on (semi?) permanent bases while pulling out troops.
When have we ever fought a war and invested our strategic hopes in a new government and not kept permanent bases? I can think of but one example.
Forgive my historical ignorance… which one was that? Couldn’t be Cuba (heard of Gitmo?), couldn’t be Vietnam (We never “invested our strategic hopes in a new government” there)… was it… Canada?!?
The argument, of course, is that a "permanent" presence will incite al Qaeda:
"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such as Iraq.
Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would make it official policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. He noted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia as grounds for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Why do people, especially Republicans from Texas (like Bush), insist on legitimizing bin Laden's view of the world? Who cares if bin Laden "cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia" as grounds for the September 11 attacks? He also cited the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 and American support for Israel. He thinks that Spain should be a Muslim country called al Andalus, that women should walk around with bags over their heads, and that the only legitimate source of governmental power is Allah. Do we think that al Qaeda will pack it in -- "all right, then, you're out of Iraq, no hard feelings" -- if America withdraws? Indeed, I can't think of a better reason in support of permanent bases in Iraq than bin Laden's opposition to them. That, and the containment of Iran.
So, for that last point, I just have to say “shame.” Wasn’t one of the main justifications for invading Iraq the inefficacy of “containment?" Was not that inefficacy disproven? And now you bring it up as justification for bases in Iraq versus Iran? Did we not already play out this Iraq-Iran strategy when we installed Hussein?
Let us agree on several propositions, which I believe to be self-evident but apparently require endless reinforcement.
First, we will keep no troops in Iraq over the objections of its legitimate government.
Please define “legitimate.” Is that legit like the (democratically elected) Palestinian Hamas government that we won’t recognize? Or is that more like the Kurdish majority in Kurdistan that demands independence from their oppressors in the north of Iraq? Or perhaps more like the vast majority of Uzbeks that have been fighting against their own government for so long to stop the torture that we not only support, but use in our own “extraordinary rendition” operations?
Or maybe “legitimate” just means a government that tends to produce policies that mesh well with our own interests… If that’s the case, just say so. I can much more respect an adversary that is honest than one that hides behind empty rhetoric.
Second, having been the midwife of that government, we will not abandon it as long as it is legitimate in the eyes of most Iraqis.
Please, see above.
Third, if the legitimate government of any country offers basing privileges to the United States and if it is otherwise in our strategic interests to accept those privileges, we should not allow the objections of Osama bin Laden to dictate a contrary decision.
Duh. Of course we shouldn’t let some terrorist prick dictate foreign policy. But we also shouldn’t just be reactionaries that do the opposite of what he demands. Give it some thought, that’s all.
Fourth, al Qaeda has publicly vowed to expel the United States from Iraq. We are far more likely to strengthen al Qaeda's credibility and therefore its ability to attract men and money if we grant it that victory than if we deny it.
Flat out bullshit. All we’ve done by staying in Iraq is encourage pissed-off young Iraqis to join up and blow stuff up. How would you react if there was some foreign power flexing their military muscle in your neighborhood? You’d pick up rocks or guns or explosives, too. Do you really think that staying there (as a military force rather than a peaceful one) will make them like you?
Anybody who thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq will weaken al Qaeda because there will no longer be the "incitement" of the "crusader occupation" is a fool.
As I’ve asked, that is up for debate.
Victory begets victory, and defeat begets defeat.
Huh? What does that mean? I mean, I understand the old adage that you’re pulling from: “Violence begets violence,” but I don’t see how it works here. And I definitely don’t see how Jesus would agree with you taking his syntax for this.
Whether or not the Iraq invasion has worked out precisely as its supporters had hoped -- it obviously has not -- it is surely in the interests of all Americans, and indeed all Westerners, that it be perceived as a defeat for al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until after we got there. Saddam had a tight reign on things before that, and was a complete secularist -- it’s part of why we installed him to fight Iran… and on top of that, our embargoes and no-fly-zones and frozen assets made it pretty much impossible for anyone to do anything remotely mischievous when it came to funding stuff there.
Any American who argues otherwise does so from a narrower agenda, such as the political advancement of Democrats.
I am not a Democrat. I long ago recognized the futility of that party. I am a devout Libertarian – in the most literal sense.
Any other Westerner who argues otherwise does so from misplaced anti-Americanism. There is no other plausible explanation.
Any Westerner (or any human, for that matter) is perfectly within his or her right to be anti-American. It is the right of free speech. Was it a mistake that out forbearers placed it as the first amendment? Do you think maybe the order was important to them?
-from Arjuna, via thepoorman.net
By , at
Wed Mar 29, 10:00:00 PM:
How could anyone take this drivel seriously? It bears a strong resemblance to the idiocies pronounced throughout the sixties about Vietnam and what it meant there to not give up to the communists. Victory begets victory, defeat begets defeat???? What the heck does that mean?
By , at
Thu Mar 30, 01:41:00 AM:
Arjuna: Wasn’t one of the main justifications for invading Iraq the inefficacy of “containment?" Was not that inefficacy disproven? And now you bring it up as justification for bases in Iraq versus Iran? Did we not already play out this Iraq-Iran strategy when we installed Hussein?
Well, if the inefficacy of containment was disproven (i.e., the efficacy of containment was proven), then we should be considering containment for Iran. On the other hand, if you really meant to say that the efficacy of containment was disproven, maybe you have a point. But you'll have to argue it with TigerHawk; I'm not so big on containing Iran as being within good striking distance should the need arise.
Arjuna: Please define “legitimate.”
That's easy. The freely elected government of the Iraqi people.
And I thought the election of Hamas was a good thing. It's much better now that we know how the Palestinians really feel.
TH: We are far more likely to strengthen al Qaeda's credibility and therefore its ability to attract men and money if we grant it that victory than if we deny it.
Arjuna: Flat out bullshit. All we’ve done by staying in Iraq is encourage pissed-off young Iraqis to join up and blow stuff up.
Flat out bullshit. What we've done in Iraq is build democratic institutions, civil services, police and military services, etc., that young Iraqis are flocking to.
How would you react if there was some foreign power flexing their military muscle in your neighborhood?
I would be overjoyed if I had lived under Saddam Hussein's terror for 30 years and that military muscle flexing freed me from it. And if some uber-religious zealots calling themselves jihadis, particularly allied with foreign agencies, were going around car-bombing police stations and trying to impose all their uber-religious nonsense on me, I would be fighting them tooth and nail. Much as the hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi men who've signed up for the army and police forces are doing.
Arjuna: Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until after we got there. Saddam had a tight reign on things before that, and was a complete secularist -- it’s part of why we installed him to fight Iran…
I'm tellin' ya, if YOU installed Hussein, get some help. The US did NOT install him. Also, do you truly believe that two armed groups have to fully agree ideologically before they can cooperate against a hated common enemy? Ganging up on a common enemy and then sorting your own differences out later is a pretty common strategy, even for deadly enemies. Like Hitler and Stalin.
Arjuna: and on top of that, our embargoes and no-fly-zones and frozen assets made it pretty much impossible for anyone to do anything remotely mischievous when it came to funding stuff there.
Oil-for-Food Scandal Reports at the BBC. Hussein was getting away with HUGE funding funny bizness, and the UN officials in charge were on the take. Bigger than that, Hussein also netted some $10 billion in smuggled oil revenues.
By , at
Fri Mar 31, 04:52:00 PM:
Yeah, let's build bases in a "sovereign" country, regardless of whether or not the people want them there.
Then let's expect them to thank for giving them "democracy" (TM).
Dude, either we call it what it is - colonization - or stop all the bullshit talk about democracy and self-determination. But this double-speak is transparently absurd to just about everyone except you by now.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Mar 31, 09:15:00 PM:
You have no idea what you're talking about, though I was pleasantly surprised to see that your grammar was correct.
