12 Comments

Roger,

Fascinating fact and interesting piece.

The writer’s analysis of whether and why our bases in Iraq may or may not become permanent, and on what criteria the decision should be based (as it were!), is the most reasonable I have encountered.

Jamie Irons

Of course there will be US bases there. Without US bases we will never see the the following headline:

Joint Iraqi-American Forces Smash Through Last Perimeter Defenses of * Liberating **

*

1) Teheran

2) Damascus

3) Riyadh

4) ?

**

1) Iran

2) Syria

3) Saudi Arabia

4) ?

All in a decade’s work.

Jamie:

The military base issue has been added to the war for oil acolytes dogma. Kerry has already spoken on the floor of the senate warning that they must not be built. Of course Kerry being against it is usually the simplest and most effective debate point for bases, the reasons stated in the article were very good.When you look at how the bases in Japan, Germany and South Korea helped protect those Democratic regimes from being strangled in their infancy it is hard to argue that the bases are a tool of US hegemony. South Korea’s path to Democracy took longer but when you look at North Korea it becomes a little more understandable.

Kevin Peters

“Respect for property rights…” what a revolutionary concept. Didn’t somebody in this country write something about that once?

The key thing is that the Iraqi people believe that we will leave if asked. The Philipine and Panama examples (though I was against Carter’s Panama treaty) suggest ‘yes’. If the Iraqi people believe ‘no’, then we can’t do it on any long term basis.

Richard:

The latest tactic in defense of the recent SCOTUS raping of the right of private property is not to debate the issues but to accuse those of us who are shocked at the supreme court giving away our property rights of not having respect for the courts and somehow our anger over being raped is somehow a sign that we are going to start attacking judges.This veiled accusation that if you are upset over the direction of the court is evidence that you are planning a coup is the worst kind of rhetoric. Unless you agree you are a threat to the nation. my anger is intellectual and not a sign of taking up arms. And the fact that we are using the democratic process to legally change the direction the courts are headed in is also a sign that we are attacking the foundations of democracy. The dems have decided that their idea of how a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to rule on cases is not a matter to be decided by the voters but is somehow written in the Constitution.I missed that in the bill of rights. “there shall always be at least a 5-4 split on the SCOTUS in favor of liberalism”.

Kevin Peters

TedN,

I agree that we would leave if asked. I don’t consider that at all likely. In broad terms, there are four groups in tension within Iraq. The Kurds, the Sunni, secular Shia and religious Shia. Of the four groups only the religious Shia (as exemplified by Mucky) want the US out and the other three groups know damn well that Mucky wants the US out so that he can move Iraq back towards the 7th century while keeping his stinking foot on the people’s neck.

Until the Iraqi Army has established itself as an independent entity not subject to control by any specific group but only by a democraticaly elected central government, the US presence will be comforting to three out of the four groups. Those groups constitute a strong plurality if not an outright majority of Iraqis. It will take quite some time for the Iraqi Army to establish itself as a force that would not be turned against the three groups mentioned. Until that occurs all three groups will be quite happy to have a division or two of US troops parked out in al-Anbar.

KevinP ó Well, I was talking about the Declaration of Independence, but I agree with you.

What jarred me was in one of the comments…someone asked what name will they give the first car that comes out of the Middle East.

Imagine it. Try to imagine a Middle East that actually creates something new they can sell to the world. I have a hard time doing it.

But I would have had a hard time imagining the same from Korea or Japan decades ago.

Go Iraq! Change the world. It won’t be from invading Syria or Egypt or any other wishful thinking. The changes will come about through example and success. I pray nothing holds them back.

I’ve always believed permanent bases in Iraq was a given.

We are going to have troops in Iraq for a long time–at least whatever minimal amount is required for backup and training. Ergo, we will have bases. The exact nature of those bases may very well be substantially different than what we have in Japan and Germany, though.

For example, we might have some joint Iraqi/American bases specifically set up for heavy training (and heavy language immersion for our guys, with all the resulting benefits). But I’d think we’ll need at least one place where our guys can go with the prospect of at least pretending that they are in American territory. That argues for something fairly large, in an isolated spot, and therefore a substantial perimeter. (Sometimes I think we could do with a floating R&R area the size of an aircraft carrier. Don’t you know the Dems would just love to pay the bill for that?) But then, I’m only guessing. I suspect that people much more informed than me are already working on the base issue.

Sen. Kerry is already practicing his outrage over a semi-permanent base in Iraq. Wonder why? How obvious can an International Wobbly be? Be nice to get inside his head for an instant and see his full picture of a proper world.