Volkov said:
I think it's becoming more and more evident that there was never actually a strategy to leave Iraq. I, like many of the guys I served with over there, were of the feeling that the US was establishing a permanat presence in the country. I got the feeling that Bush was hoping for a "benevolent" occupation, along the lines of West Germany or Japan following WWII.
I'm curious - I haven't really heard a lot about the sort of infrastructure that the US military is putting into place in Iraq (aside from human interest stories about waterways and such.) I don't know if you've ever been to Ramstein or Okinawa (I haven't, but you can see pictures online) or any of the other large military installations built in Germany or Japan, but have you seen the sort of large-scale construction that would lead to eventually lead to facilities like those in Iraq? Establishing Iraq as a friendly staging ground for future conflicts in the region was never really mentioned by proponents of or opponents to the war, but I guess I wouldn't rule it out as something the government or the military might be interested in.
the largest scale construction that I saw, and I was in all over Al-Anbar province when I was there, was being done on existing Iraqi bases, airbases in particular since those are essential to our ability to exist that far away from any kind of friendly staging ground for troops and supplies.
The bases that I spent time on were very well developed and on their way to taking on the kind of permanance that I would associate with other overseas bases. obviously they weren't quite as well established as bases we've had for over half a century, but it seemed like there was a lot of effot pouring in to these places for us to eventually just up and leave.
like I said, I and other I worked with came to the conclusion that the endstate would be to have some of these developed bases out in the desert, not necesserily right next to Baghdad, but out in the West or South somewhere. and that made sense to us.
Trahern said:
So, American forces are going to sit in Iraq and do... what, exactly? They seem unable to remove the bad guys themselves, so it's already a given that they can't train the locals to do it. Perhaps it's time Bush admitted he invaded and conqoured Iraq, and doesn't intend to remove the occupation force, because there's no other way to ensure the oil will continue to flow west.
Except he won't, of course.
As an avid non-motorist who wouldn't mind seeing less cars across the world, I remain a firm propponent for the "seal them all in and let them kill each other" plan.
I don't know why people insist on arguing that this whole thing was about the oil. It is an oblique way, but it's not about Iraqi oil. we get plenty from other sources, and with the amount of money that we've poured into Iraq, they could give us the shit for free for a decade and it still wouldn't have been particularly cheap*
it's always been about having a military presence in an area that is deemed vital to our economic and physical security. just like we had bases strung out through Germany, Italy, and even Turkey during the Cold War.
for whatever reason, Bush and Co. decied to upend the Cold War era strategy and rather than surround the "enemy" they decided to plunk right down in their center.
training up the Iraqis to supply their own military is going to take years and years. most anyone who was prior professional military is not likely to be on our side. so we're starting from scratch, trying to take people who, at best have been untrained military conscripts at some point, and training them up to fight the most difficult type of battle there is. throw in the sectarian problem, and the ongoing murders and intimidation of police and army recruits and their families....it's a fucking mess.
*okay...free for a decade may be a bit of an overstatement. but not by much. you get the point.
Hudson: You maybe haven't been keeping up on current events but we just got our asses kicked, pal!
Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, OK? What are we talking about this for?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin' A...
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can *bill* me. .............
Saddam and company were responsible for enough shit that they deserved their fate (though perhaps not the manner in which they received it); but the West's primary concern is always the oil. Not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the united arab emirates, Kuwait, Iran; as I understand it, they're all at the top of the oil-producing list, and we're buying from all of them. You can bet they're all watching Iraq.
So it's also about politics, but that's also due to the oil.
As for our forces remaining in Iraq, I get the impression that the violence between factions would be the status quo. All our continued presence seems to have accomplished is giving them all a common target. Better to let them get back to killing each other. We shouldn't come back until they're ready to change habits that have lasted centuries, if not millennia.
- Partitioning won't work, and the majority of Iraq's people won't stand for that, as it would be unfairly condemning most of the country to a slow death (as oil is Iraq's economy).
- Withdrawing the military won't work. Besides a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, it will further erode the credibility of the U.S. (and a melange of other diplomatic catastrophes).
- Staying with the current military plan won't work. This is obvious, as this current strategy clearly isn't working!
We're screwed unless and until we have a change of guard that is credible, and the world and key nations in the region don't hate (and therefore may be more amenable to helping us). They have a lot a stake as well; I mean, the refugee crisis can only get worse.
Perhaps, with a new administration, there's a brilliant political solution waiting to happen.
wildswan said:
- Staying with the current military plan won't work. This is obvious, as this current strategy clearly isn't working!
That depends on how you define Mission Accomplished. The current plan is working just fine for Big Oil.
Trahern said:
We shouldn't come back until they're ready to change habits that have lasted centuries, if not millennia.
Nice veiled racism there, buddy, but the truth is that "we" can't stay away because "we" can't change our imperial habits. I refer you again to the Naomi Klein article from when the war was a month old. This war was as much about extracting resources as it was about privatizing Iraq's public sector and opening up "free markets" in the hopes of a domino effect across the middle east.
Volkov said:
I don't know why people insist on arguing that this whole thing was about the oil. It is an oblique way, but it's not about Iraqi oil. we get plenty from other sources, and with the amount of money that we've poured into Iraq, they could give us the shit for free for a decade and it still wouldn't have been particularly cheap
You are right, we could have bought the oil cheaper from other sources, but you forget to factor in that "we" want to control the oil going to India and China, to call the shots and set the prices.
To me, I think it is all about power, and who controls what.
In order to take control of the oil, they storm into Iraq looking for these "weapons of mass destruction" and make it look like this huge "fight for freedom."
While the media plays on that, the US government can secure the control of the oil in Iraq so they can control who gets what at what prices.
I don't know about everyone else, but since when does fighting for freedom involve taking it away from another country? The biggest terrorist is the US government.
Not very, but relevant enough that we have to listen to him. I was just using him as an example of a possibly larger concensus
ASSH0LE said:
assuming there isn't a vote-of-confidence mechanism to force an early election like you'd typically see in a European constitutional democracy.
If by "vote of confidence" you mean giant explosion/assassination then yes I agree that's very likely.
Volkov
San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL
APR 23, 2007 04:32 AM