The last year’s progress appears to have seriously unhinged war critics, who have seen their predictions and assertions that the surge would or had already failed consigned to the ash heap of history right next to Saddam Hussein’s regime, and are desperately groping for any way to attack the success of our democracy-building project there.  Last week it was crazy rumors that Ali Al-Sistani was issuing secret fatwas to start a new civil war (quickly debunked as Sadrist propaganda), yesterday we had Robert Baer asserting that 150,000 American troops are hallucinating Al Qaeda in Iraq, and today the most bizarre assertion yet from Patrick Cockburn:
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
That’s right, the same secret plan that’s been widely reported all over the world — including right here, just a few days ago.
Cockburn then claims the plan seeks “permanent” bases, and that Washington is denying that fact as a “tactical subterfuge” which makes no sense as the Iraqi Parliament has to publicly vote on the terms of the pact. Even less sensibly, the article claims this will restrict Obama’s ability to withdraw troops, which of course it does not as the agreement merely defines the parameters under which they would operate in Iraq.
 I think it’s time we declared BDS an official psychiatric illness and began prescribing medication. I can’t stand to see these poor people suffering like this.
{ 16 comments }
I guess you could say these things are "secret" inasmuch as they aren’t making front page news. But everyone who’s paying attention knows what’s going on, including the people in Obama’s campaign. His silence speaks volumes–much of it good, I must admit. He knows perfectly well that we cannot responsibly leave Iraq. He just knows he can’t really say that openly, and has to keep appeasing the reactionary anti-progressive wing of his base.
BTW, last night I was chatting amiably with a Marine in a game on Xbox Live (why yes, children, even unemployed people enjoy playing games and having downtime at night). I encounter guys like him semi-regularly in interactive games. He’d done two tours over there but was now sidelined due to a "minor" injury that removed his left thumb. He was asked by a somewhat naive other player if he thought we should get the heck out of Iraq because it was a lost cause. He was "only" an enlisted man and not an officer, he was careful to stress, but, he actually found the idea of leaving laughable. We needed to be there, we needed to make sure the sacrifice of those who’d served was not thrown away, and, he frankly didn’t even think it was possible for us to leave no matter what some politicians said.
That brave young man was far more astute than an awful lot of so-called "liberals" are in this country.
The information about the negotiations is probably coming from Iraqi sources that are opposed to the agreement. It is therefore reasonable to assume that these Iraqis are exaggerating the US position, if not out right making it up.
None the less, any agreement for long term US military presence is not going to be popular in Iraq. Sadr seems to be concentrating on creating opposition to this agreement. He clearly wants to use this as a wedge issue with the ruling parties in the regional elections scheduled for this fall. This may make it difficult to get this agreement approved until after those regional elections.
"None the less, any agreement for long term US military presence is not going to be popular in Iraq."
I’m not sure of that. Clearly it is least popular among the Shi’ites, but even with them it seems to be (admittedly based on anecdote) that there are quite a few who would be relieved by long term U.S. pressence, especially if concerns about Iraqi sovreignty were taken care of.Â
And it also seems that Sadr oppossing it might well make it more popular, not less, as it seems to me his star is definately setting and more and more Iraqi’s are coming to see him as a tyrant wanna-be working for Iran rather then a glorious religious leader.Â
Dave Justus’s last blog post..RepRap universal constructor achieves self-replication
…and it will then almost certainly be promptly approved, since most everyday Iraqis, and virtually all of their elected officials, don’t like having us there but know perfectly well that we are needed and have to stay if they’re to have any chance at a decent future.
That’s one of those little hidden things in all those polls that supposedly show that Iraqis want us out. "Eventually" is the answer most tack on to that, because all but the most insane Iraqis know that it would be a disaster for us to just pull up stakes and go.
I think even Sadr knows this, which helps explain a lot of his contradictory behavior.
"If a dog was that sick, you’d shoot ‘im!"
Private Henry Hook
Zulu – 1964
Every so often, we’ll get stories about how unpopular our bases are among locals in Germany and Japan. Not so much South Korea, but even there.
If the unpopularity gets strong enough, we start making noises about leaving. Sometimes even do some work toward that end. And then businessed that thrive on trade with our bases combine with political leaders who look to us for defense (sometimes grudgingly) to make it clear that they want us to stay.
Unpopularity can always be found, and trumpeted, if someone wants to use it for political advantage. I’m not saying it should have no weight, but unpopularity shouldn’t be the deciding factor, either.
My first thought when I read that was how we secretly control Germany, Japan, South Korea….
Even the UK, for that matter.
That’s pretty much how I’ve got it figured, too, Dean. It’s also why I’m not as worried about the prospect of an Obama presidency as I might have been at one time. On OTB Radio last night (I’m a guest there pretty much every week) Alex Knapp characterized Obama’s stance as "ruthless pragmatism". I think that’s about right. At least I hope it is.
Come to think of it.. we’ve got a lot of troops permanently stationed in France, too. The current mental state of the US officers stationed in France might explain a lot…
He knows perfectly well that we cannot responsibly leave Iraq.
God, I hope so. I had assumed he would moderate his stance once the primary was over. His surrogates, at least, are not bending much so far though.
Obama I think understands that US military forces in Iraq are both a stabilizing force and at the same time a de-stabilizing force. If we had overwhelming numbers of troops, we could stabilize the country. With the size of the force we can field in Iraq, it is a delicate balancing act, that is slowly bankrupting the US.
That was bin Laden’s goal for the 9/11 attacks. To force the US to invade the Middle East and try to occupy Arab land. Bin Laden them believed that either the US would be forced to withdraw in humiliation or bankrupt itself to maintain the occupation. In either case US influence in world would be reduced. While Bin Laden appears to be on track to achieve that goal, he also badly miscalculated the Arab world reaction to the violent tactics AQ uses.
This is why Iraq was a dumb war. Salvaging what we can from the current mess involves making clear to Iraqis and the world that the US has no interest in a permanent military presence in Iraq. US military forces are going to leave as soon as that is possible. Iraqis need to find a way to govern their own country as quickly as possible and not to expect the US to be there to support them forever.
Bin Laden them believed that either the US would be forced to withdraw in humiliation or bankrupt itself to maintain the occupation. In either case US influence in world would be reduced. While Bin Laden appears to be on track to achieve that goal, he also badly miscalculated the Arab world reaction to the violent tactics AQ uses.
He also grossly underestimated the size of our economy. We’re spending less than 1% of our GDP occupying not one, but two countries.
I don’t believe it’s reasonable to say that the recent economic activity in the US is a result of our military spending. That has some pretty clear roots in government regulatory policy and normal business cycles.
that is slowly bankrupting the US.
Military spending as a % of GDP (and military casualties on an absolute scale) are lower than in the 1980s, and don’t begin to approach Vietnam, Korea, or WW II. We can occupy two or three more countries if we have to.
I don’t believe it’s reasonable to say that the recent economic activity in the US is a result of our military spending.Â
OTOH, it’s been great for Iraq’s economy – their GDP has more doubled since 2003.
If we had overwhelming numbers of troops, we could stabilize the country.
Which is why we trained half a million ISF who are now doing the job pretty well in basra, Mosul, and Sadr City.
That was bin Laden’s goal for the 9/11 attacks. To force the US to invade the Middle East and try to occupy Arab land.Â
What a silly theory; we were already occupying Arab land in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. No, bin Laden’s goal was to get us to retreat, just as the Soviets did from Afghanistan, so he could take over. He cited Somalia and Vietnam repeatedly. He believed Bush would respond as Clinton had: a flurry of missiles but no real military response. He believed we were too weak for anything more, and if bloodied would leave the Mideast entirely.
He underestimated America’s strength and Bush’s resolve. And when he made some headway in Iraq, the locals turned on him there. It was a FAIL from start to finish.
Dave,
I’m not much of a traveller of any great stretch of the blogosphere, so i might be forgiven for ignorance, but the recent round of guest posters on Kevin Drum’s site have sort of opened my eyes. The fixation on the lost war meme, and the total denial of any recent gains in the region is sort of staggering. I don’t agree with everything you say here in your comments (definitely agree with the post, though), but the netroots are definitely losing any perspective they might have had.
Yeah, it’s sort of sad. Hopefully we’ll start to see some "come to Jesus" moments like the one Andrew Sullivan had last week.
Comments on this entry are closed.