Why there is no exit strategy...

[ska invita]

Today I heard some American Democrat complaining about "How come we went in without an exit strategy?", and I got to thinking, and I think I may have the awnser: They dont plan to ever exit!

Here's my case: tell me what you think.

First off, America has pulled out ALL its troops from Saudia Arabia.
Now its not like the Americans to just pull out all those troops that found a little foothold in the middle east and then send them home. Those troops are going to need a new home, one where they'll be kept a bit busy too.

We already see signs that the US is planning to set up BASE CAMP in Iraq, by the fact that they're building the world biggest embassy there.

Not convinced that they're not going to leave? There is precedent for them building bases and leaving behind troops, whether they are wanted there or not. Guantanemo Bay

After invading Cuba the US set up camp at Guantanemo and, despite being asked nicely to fuck off by Castro, they refuse to leave. (This is why they use the base for torture, as it outside the legal jurisdiction of any countries, even US law does not apply there.)

The US has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into this war...for what gain? Development contracts? Oil contracts? To turn the wheels of the military motor? While all these are true, I think we have to add to the list the ability to have American bases slap bang in the middle of the middle east, (and also crucially on Iran's western border, making Iran surrounded by American bases, thanks to recently acquired Afghanistan on the Eastern border).

Of course, I'm sure they thought it would go a little smoother than this, and that they would be thanked so much that the least the Iraqi's could do is name a street after george bush and let them build a couple of bases. Still, where theres a will...

In short, they don't need an exit strategy, 'cos they're not planning to exit.

 

[oi2002]

Robet Novak says Dubya will tuck tail n run even faster than Lurch, leaving Iraq to burn. It would be as big a mistake as invading but entirely consistent with the administration's happy go lucky approach to carnage.

The alternative is facing up to John McCain's sobering 'only staying for 20 years' option, and that causes a lot of grey faces at the GOP, a few thousand more dead trailer trash Jarheads is dandy, but a $0.5 Trillion price tag might endanger further tax cuts for CEOs.

These flabby arsed boys love a nice war to liven up Fox but slamming Grenada up against a wall was more their kind of thing. They are probably already working on a way of blaming the liberal press just as Nixon did when he left the RVN swinging in the wind.

 

[Stavrogin]

Of course they're not leaving...

I've always said people need to monitor where and what permanent bases are being constructed


Of course, they'll be asked to stay by the democratically elected government

 

[sihhi]

Iraq would probably be a good choice
because the other Central Asian bases seem to irritate the Russian elite
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,630204,00.html

 

[ska invita]

I've just been looking up US military bases, and came across this article that reports on the construction of "14 "enduring bases," in key sites in Iraq.

But dont worry folks, Rumsfled swears that there will be no permanent US military bases in Central Asia

He seems like a nice trustworthy young man (incidentaly, did you know he is 72? He's been skulking around Washington through decades of murder: counsellor to Nixon,secretary of defence under President Gerald Ford,senior adviser to President Reagan's Panel on Strategic Systems in the early 1980s...)

PS. If you fancy a laugh, check out the manic bidding on ebay for Donny Rumsfeld memorabelia here!

 

[oi2002]

Rummie served under Nixon. He was an opponent of continuing the war in Vietnam. Now he's saying that partial Iraqi elections are fine, and the US can start withdrawing troops even if the countries not stable.

Of course some troops will remain out in the desert, the M1As need to be ready for the fall of Mecca, but they may welll let Iraq burn arround them.

 

[TomUS]

The invasion & occupation & even the insurgency have been very useful to the Bush admin. It's going badly but constant war is real useful.

The authority of the state over it's people resides
in it's war powers. --Mr. X in JFK

It'll be interesting to see how they can get long term bases in Iraq with the permission of an even partially democratic gov. Don't think the people would stand for it if they have a voice.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

The US wont leave the the region until the oil runs out or the rapture happens, thereby miraculously transporting naked Bush and the neocons to the righthand side of god, leaving massive catastrophe for those left behind so what do they care - the rapture index is at 175 ish - but the oil is most certainly due to startrunning dry c.2050.

 

[ska invita]

It'll be interesting to see how they can get long term bases in Iraq with the permission of an even partially democratic gov. Don't think the people would stand for it if they have a voice.

I dont think the US can be made to leave.

Firstly: Even now with the insurrgency firing on all cylinders they dont dare go near the US bases. Although attacking police stations and UN headquarters and such is "usefull" to bring disruption, they would no doubt love to take out some infidels in their bases. I think its just not possible to do.

If we look at Al-Qaida attacks on US military targets before Sept 11th, you can see the great lengths they went to, and the relatively limited success and impact.

I think once your dug in, with a double fence and security courdron etc., its hard to get them to budge.

Secondly: The only way I can imagine it coming to a head is if a Hardline Muslim Government gets elected in, and really gets ballsy with the US to leave all Iraqi soil. But, I'm almost certain this won't happen: the vast majority of Iraqi's are generally secular leaning when it comes to government and wont vote in the clerics, but also, if there is one thing the Bush Admin planned for post-Sadddam, it how to make sure a pro US government will be voted in.

So in a way I reckon there will be nothing to see... its kind of already done.

I only hope to be proven wrong...

 

[neilh]

Of course some troops will remain out in the desert, the M1As need to be ready for the fall of Mecca,

whaddaya mean about the fall of Mecca?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Good article about exactly how "democratic" the Iraq elections look like being:

http://www.empirenotes.org/shamelections.html

 

[oi2002]

As someone mentioned above the US withdrew it's troops from Saudi.

The way the region going an Islamist or even Shia revolt in Saudi is not unlikely.

The recent CSIS, and RIIA studies make gloomy reading. The RIIA study Iranian dominance of the region is a serious risk and this not something the US can tolerate. You've also got relatively trivial problems like the prospect of Turkey invading.

We are no longer in the territory were the Straussian fantasy world of the Neo-Cons can be sustained, Rummies little war of choice is fast becoming a serious geo-political disaster for the US.

With the whole region on the edge of an abyss the US now has compelling Raison D'Etat for keeping M1As in Iraq and they don't have much to do with the well being of Iraqis or even oil.

You have to balance this up with a pollyanna American public that has practically no tolerance for flag draped coffins, too obvious empire building, or wars that last longer than 3 years.

Dubya 'staying the course' in Iraq is very unlikely, he's not even willing to commit his reserves despite the current carnage. American withdrawal from Iraqi streets leaving 50,000 men in remote secure bases by the Saudi and Iranian border would be a fairly rational response.

On the otherhand Dubya funking it, and running for the helicopters, while blaming the French and the bias of the liberal media for the whole mess would fit into his pattern of ill considered 'Bold Strokes'.

Either is likely to leave a highly unstable Iraq that may be just the breeding ground that the Jihad needs to morph into a far more dangerous beast. Expect more attacks like Madrid as a result.

 

[ska invita]

It seems certain that if the US pulled out civil war would develop, not only within Iraq, but as you mention oi2002, with the Turks having a go at the Kurds, and Iran testing its Western border.

No doubt the forced Labour debate as to whether to pull UK troops out will come to the conclusion that they should stay on.

Although may feel that the US military presence just make the situation worse and that they should exit today, I reckon that the risk of civil war is just too high right now to put that theory to the test.

Dubya 'staying the course' in Iraq is very unlikely, he's not even willing to commit his reserves despite the current carnage.

I think they will stay the course in that "the course" will be a continued presence in Iraq for as long as possible. Even if we take Afghanistan as a model, the US went in and stayed in, if not at full military strength. Does this count as staying the course? They may not be going all out to keep the peace, but they are still there. Without stability in Iraq there can be no reconstruction and there can be no high flow of oil: it is in the US interest to have stability in Iraq.
_________________________________________________________
Excellent article about US military bases

Downloadable pdf map of US bases <<<<right click on this link and then "save target as"!

""The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories... Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base.

 

[TomUS]

[

 

[oi2002]

If you look at Afghanistan in the longer term you'll see that pattern of US engagement. It lasts about one presidential term, and does not give a stuff about the natives.

The US became very interested in Afghanistan when the communists came to power. When the Soviets invaded it became a key battleground CIA of the cold war, and the US and Saudi sponsered the rise of the Islamo-Fascist Jihad.

When the Soviets left Langley lost all interest. Afghanistan sank into a civil war, mostly between the Afghans and the Pakistani/Saudi sponsered Jihad. The Pakistani backed Taliban invaded. Finally the US began to realise the threat that had developed out of the anti-Soviet Jihad. Clinton was too crippled by Newt to do much about it. 9/11. The US finally invades. It is now not much interested again.

Steve Cole's Ghost Wars is rather good by the way. Packs more of a punch because he manages full sympathy with each CIA generations viewpoint.

 

[ska invita]

Dont you think though that Afghanistan is a less important prize to the US military planners, with little benefit to the US other than as a strategic outpost and as a patch of dangerous terrain through which do build a pipeline? (by the way in Michael Moores Farenheit movie, one fact that I never new was that the current head of the Afghan government, Zalmay Khalilzad, is also the ex-head of the oil company in charge of building the new pipeline, the California-based Unocal.)

Iraq is a different to Afghanistan. I think Iraq will prove to be "base camp" for the US; the billions invested in the war will need to be recouped.

The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is clearly pointed out in this article:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/karz-m08.shtml
It shows the way that the visit of Karzai to the US was hushed up and aid to afghanistan was accidentaly "forgotten", due to an alledged secretarial error!!
Interesting to Compare this to the recent flag waving - pomp and pageantry filled - visit of Iraq's interim puppet president Ghazi al-Yawar.

 

[oi2002]

The Unicol pipeline is a red herring. It's true the CIA were actively trying to help get it built, but it was always peripheral to strategy, something to keep Langleys hands busy.

Kipling would have recognized that the US is playing the Great Game. Energy resources matter but are just one factor. Afghanistan sits on the old trade routes between India, Iran, China and Russia.

The US had a sound case for invading, it really does seem basing was vital to AQ, and the Taliban were not a popular bunch in the Umma. Pakistan may notionally be ally of the US, but they have nukes and the ISI is rather too cosy with the Jihadis, having some basing above them is prudent. Afghanistan also borders Iran.

Karzai in Kabul is very friendly with Tehran. Their arch enemies the Taliban have been scattered to the wind. Al Sistani in a now liberated Najaf may be senior to the Iranian mullahs but he still courts them, Revolutionary Guards provide his security. Hezabollah growls at the zionist entity from Lebanon. The US has two thirds of it's combat strength mired in Iraq. Tehran is doing rather better in round one of the 21st century Great Game than bumbling DC.

 

[sihhi]

Pakistan elite is trying to build links with Afghanistan aswell.

http://www.afghanistan.org/news_detail.asp?17142

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

First off, America has pulled out ALL its troops from Saudia Arabia.
Now its not like the Americans to just pull out all those troops that found a little foothold in the middle east and then send them home. Those troops are going to need a new home, one where they'll be kept a bit busy too..

The US had only been in Saudi for a little while, since Gulf War 1. Even so, there were only about five thousand of them at Prince Sultan AFB. The US didn't want to be in Saudi Arabia, and were glad to leave.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

After invading Cuba the US set up camp at Guantanemo and, despite being asked nicely to fuck off by Castro, they refuse to leave. (This is why they use the base for torture, as it outside the legal jurisdiction of any countries, even US law does not apply there.)

The US got Guantanamo Bay as part of the Spanish American War.

In 1898.

 

[ska invita]

I know that it dates back to 1898 - thats what it says in the link I put. But the fact is that the US military has continued to intervene on that land ever since, and by 1959 when the Revolution triumphed, America was legaly obliged to leave.

it didn't.

And it continues to exist in a legal vacuum, as it falls under no one nations legal system.

As for your point about being "glad" to leave Saudi - they may well be glad to leave, but by your definition ofd "glad", are they glad to be setting up camp In Iraq? Are you suggesting that all US military bases in the Middle East are there out of some "righteous burden"?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I know that it dates back to 1898 - thats what it says in the link I put. But the fact is that the US military has continued to intervene on that land ever since, and by 1959 when the Revolution triumphed, America was legaly obliged to leave.

it didn't.

And it continues to exist in a legal vacuum, as it falls under no one nations legal system.

Is revolution a legal transfer of power?

I'd say that the US has as much right to Guantanamo, as Castro does to the rest of the island.

 

[vimto]

Is revolution a legal transfer of power?

I'd say that the US has as much right to Guantanamo, as Castro does to the rest of the island.

What the fuck you talking about Bushbot

 

[vimto]

Is revolution a legal transfer of power?

You're weird...

 

[laptop]

Obviously, fortified garrisons on the borders, supplied entirely by C-130, will be hard to get at.

Equally obviously, one could come up with ways if one thought about it. But, nice Mr Blunkett please Sire, I've forbidden myself to think about it.

But they can't control the oil from those. Neither against a puppet government that's decided to tug the strings to see what happens, nor against a general refusal by Iraqis to co-operate, nor against mujahideen.

Hmm. Is it really possible they thought that "régime change" was really as uncomplicated as the ritualised passing of the baton on 10 January every fourth year? And that "they" would have to include the generals, who probably have more staff interested in analytical thought than the politicos do...

 

[pbman]

Today I heard some American Democrat complaining about "How come we went in without an exit strategy?", and I got to thinking, and I think I may have the awnser: They dont plan to ever exit!

Here's my case: tell me what you think.

First off, America has pulled out ALL its troops from Saudia Arabia.
Now its not like the Americans to just pull out all those troops that found a little foothold in the middle east and then send them home. Those troops are going to need a new home, one where they'll be kept a bit busy too.

We already see signs that the US is planning to set up BASE CAMP in Iraq, by the fact that they're building the world biggest embassy there.

Not convinced that they're not going to leave? There is precedent for them building bases and leaving behind troops, whether they are wanted there or not. Guantanemo Bay

After invading Cuba the US set up camp at Guantanemo and, despite being asked nicely to fuck off by Castro, they refuse to leave. (This is why they use the base for torture, as it outside the legal jurisdiction of any countries, even US law does not apply there.)

The US has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into this war...for what gain? Development contracts? Oil contracts? To turn the wheels of the military motor? While all these are true, I think we have to add to the list the ability to have American bases slap bang in the middle of the middle east, (and also crucially on Iran's western border, making Iran surrounded by American bases, thanks to recently acquired Afghanistan on the Eastern border).

Of course, I'm sure they thought it would go a little smoother than this, and that they would be thanked so much that the least the Iraqi's could do is name a street after george bush and let them build a couple of bases. Still, where theres a will...

In short, they don't need an exit strategy, 'cos they're not planning to exit.

How about we had more important thngs to think about.

Like wining the war first.

 

[Kaka Tim]

How about we had more important thngs to think about.

Like wining the war first.

The (ultimately unwinable) war against the people of Iraq?

'Kick their Ass and take their Gas'
US election Bumper sticker - got one on your 4x4 peebs?

 

[Barking_Mad]

How about we had more important thngs to think about.

Like wining the war first.

So walking and chewing gum is a no-no for you smart Americans then?

 

[pbman]

So walking and chewing gum is a no-no for you smart Americans then?

WE still don't have one for kosovo either.

Clinton got us in their,cause you guys couldn't handdle petty problems in your own backyard and promised to bring our troops hom immidietly.


Their still their with, no exiit stratagy at all.

But no one gives a shit about that.

Hypocrits.

 

[nino_savatte]

WE still don't have one for kosovo either.

Clinton got us in their,cause you guys couldn't handdle petty problems in your own backyard and promised to bring our troops hom immidietly.


Their still their with, no exiit stratagy at all.

But no one gives a shit about that.

Hypocrits.

Nice bit of spin but it has little substance.

I shall now roll my eyes in your general direction.