Pentagon Making Preparations To Keep Tens Of Thousands Of Troops In Iraq For ‘Decades

[Corporate Avenger]

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee this month, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace uttered a “carefully worded” statement revealing that the Pentagon had no plans to fully withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if legislation passes Congress mandating troop redeployment:

PACE: Sir, we have published no orders directing the planning for the overall withdrawal of forces. We do have ongoing replacements of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system is available to either plus-up or draw down, but we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown.

NPR investigated Pace’s statements and found one scenario being considered within the Pentagon would maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq for several decades into the future.

This so-called “lily pad” strategy entails keeping a “series of military installations around Iraq,” with tens of thousands of U.S. troops remaining in the country for as long as a few decades:

[W]hat it essentially envisions is a series of military installations around Iraq, maybe five or six of them, a total of maybe 30-40 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq for a long period of time, lasting, maybe a few decades. And the idea is that these bases will be somewhat hermetically sealed, that U.S. military forces won’t be leaving them, they won’t be conducting presence patrols and the patrols they conduct now. Ground convoys won’t be driving into them.

Airplanes will be essentially landing in to deliver supplies and these sort of lily pads will be in various strategic areas in Iraq … And that will enable the U.S. military to maintain a presence in the country, perhaps…for a few decades.

The Pentagon’s goal with the lily pads is to preserve U.S. interests in Iraq for years to come “in the event that Congress or the administration pushes this [withdrawal plan] forward.” As NPR details, those interests are at least three-fold: 1) Training Iraq forces, 2) Preserving economic interests, as “Iraq obviously [sits] on the second largest reserve of oil in the world,” and 3) Providing a U.S. military “presence” to deter Iran and Turkey from “getting involved” after withdrawal.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/iraq-decades/


Operation Iraqi Liberation is a success depending on who you are..

[Malcolm Wright]

The motivations behind all off this Iraqi episode are plain for those with eyes to see, and it is furthermore plain that 'democracy' was never going to be allowed to interfere with this operation.

M.

[Kaliayev]

I thought this was well known now? The billion dollar embassies and military bases, capable of holding substantial amounts of US troops were not just to move money into the hands of contractors (though no doubt that, like everything else about Iraq, was one of the motivations).

I think its worth remembering what ex-Ambassador from the UK to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray has to say, as well, namely its part of a wider doctrine for keeping military control over a sector of the Middle East, then trying to expand it into Central Asia. If you read the Pentagon's Global Posture Review, they want to move troops out from NATO areas and places where there is, in all likelihood, low probability of conflict and instead establish "forward bases" in places such as Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and (until their expulsion) Uzbekistan.

When you realize Central Asia is essentially the arena for a new version of the Great Game, between China, the US and Russia, it makes much more sense. Obviously, the US is at a distinct geographic disadvantage compared to the other two, and so relies on a mixture of force and diplomacy to gain a foothold there. Iran and Iraq are included in this because they make up a crescent of largely untapped material resources from above the Caspian Sea all the way down to the Gulf. And if China or Russia manages to gain control of the region, well...someone's economy is going to have to get messed up by lack of oil, soon, and whoever doesn't have control over Central Asia is likely to suffer first.

[hadit]

We've never completely left a country after liberating and stabilizing it, unless we lose our nerve and flee, leaving the people to die enmass. Why would we? They are now an ally, we can maintain a presence in the area, and we can better assure no one attempts to start trouble again. Last I checked, we're still in Germany, Japan, and Korea. I would expect the same with Iraq.

[jojo]

Planning is always a good thing.

[Malcolm Wright]

Originally Posted by hadit

We've never completely left a country after liberating and stabilizing it, unless we lose our nerve and flee, leaving the people to die enmass. Why would we? They are now an ally, we can maintain a presence in the area, and we can better assure no one attempts to start trouble again.

And before you know it: "Wow, not sure how this happened, but we've got military bases in strategically significant country in the world. Why, it looks like we've conquered this dirt ball - we swear we weren't trying!"



M.

[hadit]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Wright

And before you know it: "Wow, not sure how this happened, but we've got military bases in strategically significant country in the world. Why, it looks like we've conquered this dirt ball - we swear we weren't trying!"



M.

Every super power the world has ever known has done something similar, as the rest of the world is always trying to knock off the top dog. Every nation that is bigger, more powerful, or more wealthy that the others faces these threats and does what it can to minimize them.

[Malcolm Wright]

Originally Posted by hadit

Every super power the world has ever known has done something similar, as the rest of the world is always trying to knock off the top dog. Every nation that is bigger, more powerful, or more wealthy that the others faces these threats and does what it can to minimize them.

True.
There are always choices, however. There are alternatives to fighting like reservoir dogs over the Middle Eastern oil reserves. And the nation that adapts first to greener, sustainable alternatives will have an economic advantage we would be stupid to overlook.

Electric cars are now a viable reality.
I wonder how much sooner they would have been if we had devoted half our obscenely inflated military budget towards their development, and towards the perfecting of better-performing photovoltaic cells... The increase in yield of these cells has been substantial over the years. It stands to reason that this increase could be accelerated if we devoted more of our resources to this research...

Of course these peaceful and honorable alternatives don't satisfy a number of criteria: they don't maintain our obese military, and they don't serve the financial interests of Bush, his cronies, and the firms contracted for the reconstruction and policing of Iraq. They don't allow us to justify our insane military spending by using our weaponry (albeit against forces orders of magnitude weaker than us, and armed with comparitively antiquated weaponry).
Lastly and perhaps most importantly: they don't provide our nation with a new enemy to replace the Soviet Union. Accelerating the advent of workable alternatives to carbon fuels doesn't fan the flames of terrorism. It doesn't provide us with that enemy we need in order to justify our conquests.
Communism was the excuse for manipulating the internal politics of countries across the planet - for almost 50 years. Old habits die hard. Terrorism gives these nasty habits a new lease on life.

I'm not interested in emulating the mediocrity of past super powers. I'm interested in moving beyond that paradigm to one in which 'expand or die' seems as antiquated and barbaric as the Spanish Inquisition seems to us today.

M.

[Kaliayev]

Indeed. I would say the US has the technological capacity now to look into alternatives beyond oil. I believe the US not only leads the fields in most areas of technology, it can also afford to lure away the best and the brightest it has not trained. But, as you pointed out, that does not cater to certain special interest fields...

[86Dude]

This hasn't got much to do with oil.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by hadit

We've never completely left a country after liberating and stabilizing it, unless we lose our nerve and flee, leaving the people to die enmass. Why would we? They are now an ally, we can maintain a presence in the area, and we can better assure no one attempts to start trouble again. Last I checked, we're still in Germany, Japan, and Korea. I would expect the same with Iraq.

Huh?

Which are allies? The Sunnis that kill our troops, or the Shia that kill our troops?

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by hadit

Every super power the world has ever known has done something similar, as the rest of the world is always trying to knock off the top dog. Every nation that is bigger, more powerful, or more wealthy that the others faces these threats and does what it can to minimize them.

...but..but..but I thought this was about WMDs and freeing an oppressed people and removing a dangerous dictator and ...

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by 86Dude

This hasn't got much to do with oil.

Naw. It's got more to do with no-bid contracts.

We stay until the money is ALL gone. Nothing stops the gravy train.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by hadit

Every super power the world has ever known has done something similar, as the rest of the world is always trying to knock off the top dog. Every nation that is bigger, more powerful, or more wealthy that the others faces these threats and does what it can to minimize them.

What threats?

[86Dude]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Naw. It's got more to do with no-bid contracts.

We stay until the money is ALL gone. Nothing stops the gravy train.

Nope.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by 86Dude

Nope.

Sure. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

[86Dude]

The answer is in the PNAC grasshopper.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by 86Dude

The answer is in the PNAC grasshopper.

Har har...and PNAC is powerful why?

Because they've got Halliburton, Exxon, Bletchel, etc, on board. And why is that? Because they're busy transferring the US treasury to the above named companies as fast as they can.

[86Dude]

Oil is secondary to the stategic ambitions the U.S. is trying to project in the area.

[grimrebuke]

Originally Posted by hadit

Every super power the world has ever known has done something similar...

Point in fact, most of them have done something similar in this very region. And all of them had very similar results to our current results. And all of them eventually developed the common-sense and testicular fortitude to leave.