The mission?
Apparently the White House has negotiated an agreement with the government of Iraq concerning long term US troop occupation and the discussions include location of military bases, troop strengths and missions to be accomplished by the occupying force. The mission? Well, that is easy: the President has decided to pledge to the Iraqi’s that the USA will protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup attempts and foreign enemies. In return the Iraqi’s have promised to “encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq--especially American investments--to contribute to the reconstruction and re-building of Iraq.” The promise will be a bonanza for American oil companies.
What is not clear is this: How long do we stay in Iraq? Do we continue the surge and in what form and in what intensity? I would suggest that a long term deployment of U.S. troops does not go hand-in-hand with a long term surge. Why? Because a long term surge is not sustainable.
…we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted…
Why is the Administration negotiating base locations? Given the construction that is underway or complete, it would seem that we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted without any assistance or approval from the Iraqis who happen to be the citizens of the country in question. We are the occupiers and we are building installations where we want them. Maybe the negotiation part of the plan is only propaganda for the American and Iraqi public. Also with the type of bases and installations we are building, I would say our troops might be in Iraq for forty years not four as Secretary Rumsfeld had suggested while still in office. Huge corporations such as Halliburton and KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers have installed massive installations in Iraq with modern conveniences suggesting we are in for the long haul.
Why is forty years or more a possibility? Because we have a penchant for over staying our welcome. For example, we have been in Europe since WWII ended in numbers in excess of 200,000 personnel. We are still in Japan today, and have manned the DMZ in Korea for over fifty years and we are to be found in numerous nations across the globe. Speaking of the DMZ, isn’t it ironic that probably less then 250 people have crossed the DMZ into South Korea in the last 50 years while 12 million plus have crossed our border in less then 50 years? Where are the priorities---South Korea is fully capable of taking care of its own border and we are a total failure along our southern frontier. It is time to leave Korea.
Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?
How do the planners view these deployments in Iraq? Do they see them as strategic enclaves in the event we have to project military forces into a neighboring area? Do they believe these expensive deployments to be part of our anti-terror program—fight ‘em anywhere but in our country? Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?
Also what does the citizenry of the occupied country feel about our presence? I would not want to wake up every morning to see a bunch of armed Iraqi GIs standing around on the street where I live. I would rebel against such an occupation. I predict that we will be very unwelcome in Iraq as time goes by and the festering unhappiness that will build is going to find American soldiers embroiled in trouble.
So, I suggest that we stop spending money to continue building enclaves, find a reasonable draw down schedule and begin to move the troops out leaving only a token force for training and liaison.
Let me tell you what is really happening
But wait! All that I have said so far is not important to the administration. Let me tell you what is really happening. This entire occupation has to do with OIL. The U.S. government would not be doing what it is doing in Iraq if Iraq were a country without OIL. The people of America have no say in this action; it is a White House edict. It is a payoff to big oil.
I can hear my opponents wailing in the background, “But Richard, we need oil to operate our automobiles. My answer: Go to new technology where fossil fuels have no role to play in auto engines. But big oil will not allow that to occur. They have us over a barrel and a barrel costs damn near $100.00. Wake up, America. You’re being taken to the cleaners and wait till you see the bill for occupying Iraq!
As an aside, the recent revelation offered by the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran’s nuclear program is good news and supports the need for a less pressurized environment in Iraq. However, we must be ever cognizant of the Iranian ability to buy nuclear devices from world-traveling and elusive gun runners; this activity is where the real danger lies. But, in the meantime, does reducing the numbers of U.S. military in Iraq seem like such a bad idea? It might even calm Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Couple a reduction of troops with a massive diplomacy effort to try and bring some measure of stability to the Middle East. It might be a softer, gentler way to bring calm in the region
Finally...
Apparently the White House has negotiated an agreement with the government of Iraq concerning long term US troop occupation and the discussions include location of military bases, troop strengths and missions to be accomplished by the occupying force. The mission? Well, that is easy: the President has decided to pledge to the Iraqi’s that the USA will protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup attempts and foreign enemies. In return the Iraqi’s have promised to “encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq--especially American investments--to contribute to the reconstruction and re-building of Iraq.” The promise will be a bonanza for American oil companies.
What is not clear is this: How long do we stay in Iraq? Do we continue the surge and in what form and in what intensity? I would suggest that a long term deployment of U.S. troops does not go hand-in-hand with a long term surge. Why? Because a long term surge is not sustainable.
…we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted…
Why is the Administration negotiating base locations? Given the construction that is underway or complete, it would seem that we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted without any assistance or approval from the Iraqis who happen to be the citizens of the country in question. We are the occupiers and we are building installations where we want them. Maybe the negotiation part of the plan is only propaganda for the American and Iraqi public. Also with the type of bases and installations we are building, I would say our troops might be in Iraq for forty years not four as Secretary Rumsfeld had suggested while still in office. Huge corporations such as Halliburton and KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers have installed massive installations in Iraq with modern conveniences suggesting we are in for the long haul.
Why is forty years or more a possibility? Because we have a penchant for over staying our welcome. For example, we have been in Europe since WWII ended in numbers in excess of 200,000 personnel. We are still in Japan today, and have manned the DMZ in Korea for over fifty years and we are to be found in numerous nations across the globe. Speaking of the DMZ, isn’t it ironic that probably less then 250 people have crossed the DMZ into South Korea in the last 50 years while 12 million plus have crossed our border in less then 50 years? Where are the priorities---South Korea is fully capable of taking care of its own border and we are a total failure along our southern frontier. It is time to leave Korea.
Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?
How do the planners view these deployments in Iraq? Do they see them as strategic enclaves in the event we have to project military forces into a neighboring area? Do they believe these expensive deployments to be part of our anti-terror program—fight ‘em anywhere but in our country? Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?
Also what does the citizenry of the occupied country feel about our presence? I would not want to wake up every morning to see a bunch of armed Iraqi GIs standing around on the street where I live. I would rebel against such an occupation. I predict that we will be very unwelcome in Iraq as time goes by and the festering unhappiness that will build is going to find American soldiers embroiled in trouble.
So, I suggest that we stop spending money to continue building enclaves, find a reasonable draw down schedule and begin to move the troops out leaving only a token force for training and liaison.
Let me tell you what is really happening
But wait! All that I have said so far is not important to the administration. Let me tell you what is really happening. This entire occupation has to do with OIL. The U.S. government would not be doing what it is doing in Iraq if Iraq were a country without OIL. The people of America have no say in this action; it is a White House edict. It is a payoff to big oil.
I can hear my opponents wailing in the background, “But Richard, we need oil to operate our automobiles. My answer: Go to new technology where fossil fuels have no role to play in auto engines. But big oil will not allow that to occur. They have us over a barrel and a barrel costs damn near $100.00. Wake up, America. You’re being taken to the cleaners and wait till you see the bill for occupying Iraq!
As an aside, the recent revelation offered by the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran’s nuclear program is good news and supports the need for a less pressurized environment in Iraq. However, we must be ever cognizant of the Iranian ability to buy nuclear devices from world-traveling and elusive gun runners; this activity is where the real danger lies. But, in the meantime, does reducing the numbers of U.S. military in Iraq seem like such a bad idea? It might even calm Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Couple a reduction of troops with a massive diplomacy effort to try and bring some measure of stability to the Middle East. It might be a softer, gentler way to bring calm in the region
Finally...
..
Finally, I see where Mr. Wolfowitz is returning to a high level position in the State Department. He had his turn and he didn’t do too well—he even screwed up the World Bank job. Can we please find someone with some new fresh ideas and solutions to our problems and let Mr. Wolfowitz go back to academia?
