September 26, 2005
YOU DON'T OCCUPY AN ALLY:
A Shift on Iraq: The Generals Plan a Slow Exit (David Ignatius, September 26, 2005, Washington Post)
Posted on a bulletin board at Centcom headquarters here is a 1918 admonition from T.E. Lawrence explaining what he learned in training Arab soldiers: "It is better to let them do it themselves imperfectly than to do it yourself perfectly. It is their country, their way, and our time is short."That quote sums up an important shift in U.S. military strategy on Iraq that has been emerging over the past year. The commanders who are running the war don't talk about transforming Iraq into an American-style democracy or of imposing U.S. values. They understand that Iraqis dislike American occupation, and for that reason they want fewer American troops in Iraq, not more. Most of all, they don't want the current struggle against Iraqi insurgents, who are nasty but militarily insignificant, to undermine U.S. efforts against the larger threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists, who would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if they could.
I had a rare opportunity to hear a detailed explanation of U.S. military strategy this weekend when the Centcom chief, Gen. John Abizaid, gathered his top generals here for what he called a "commanders' huddle." They described a military approach that's different, at least in tone, from what the public perceives. For the commanders, Iraq isn't an endless tunnel. They are planning to reduce U.S. troop levels over the next year to a force that will focus on training and advising the Iraqi military. They don't want permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Indeed, they believe such a high-visibility American presence will only make it harder to stabilize the country.
No one but neocons and the Left ever thought there were going to be permanent bases. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 26, 2005 2:03 PM
This discussion misses the main point. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that we shall completely leave Iraq in the forseeable future. Iraq is not now being provided with what it needs to support itself militarily, in terms of air, armor and technology. Nothing in any report suggests the contrary.
For that matter, the serious debate on the subject seems to be drifting toward a recognition of our continued presence. Japan, Germany, Korea, Iraq: what's the rush?
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 26, 2005 2:35 PMLou - the issue is politics and appearances. The MSM and Dems can't scream "Iraq=Vietnam" and Iraq=Quagmire" if the US is steadily removing troops, handing the reins over to the locals, and less US troops are being killed.
Yes serious debate over how many should remain and how long should be held. Unfortunately the MSM and Dems aren't ready for a serious debate. Historical comparisons to Japan, Germany, etc. have been routinely dismissed or ignored by the MSM and Dems.
Posted by: AWW at September 26, 2005 3:21 PMThere will be no large, permanent bases. But there will be many, small temporary camps.
Posted by: Luciferous at September 26, 2005 3:28 PMA lot of people in the military knew that there will be permanent bases in Iraq, Afganistan, and elsewhere in the ME since 9/11. Those who didn't were deceived by the deputies of the dominant culture into actually thinking that Iraq would be a quick and easy war. We didn't unknowingly step into the mess that Iraq is, give our military more credit than that, it's the largest corporation in the world. We will keep bases there until we get kicked out.
Posted by: at September 26, 2005 3:32 PMIraq is a quick war, though not dirty.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2005 3:41 PMI'm for building a base around an airfield in the Northeast of Kurdistan. When we leave we can just turn it over to the Kurds.
Posted by: Genecis at September 26, 2005 6:15 PMJust put some out in the middle nowhere. As long as they can't see it on the drive into work, should be fine.
Posted by: RC at September 26, 2005 6:21 PM