Tuesday, November 27, 2007

So we are ...

Using the 'Korea Model':

BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

...

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

...


So we will have permanent bases in Iraq and, like Korea, a tour in Iraq will become a regular rotation. I just have one question.

In Korea, U.S. forces (in theory) are arrayed toward an invasion from the country to the north, a sovereign nation and declared enemy. (In reality, U.S. forces in South Korea are nothing more than a speed bump, hopefully slowing down the North Korean onslaught until troops can be deployed from Japan and other places.) There is a border (the DMZ) and the NKPA understands crossing said border will trigger a war, period.


Click to embiggen ... a lot. Pic from here.


So, now that we've looked at 'The Korean Situation for Dummies', let's see what Iraq has in common with that.

Nothing proven, though CENTCOM's latest bogeyman is Iran. Somehow I don't see over a million Iranian infantry massing along the border, nor are they moving a million artillery pieces to their frontier with Iraq.

Syria, well maybe. We pin everything we can't pin on Iran on Syria though they too are not mobilizing their military to the border.

Saudi Arabia, you mean the place where most of the Jihadists come from? Whose ruling family, a monarchy, are regular business partners of the Bush family? Whose land sits on the world's largest oil deposits? The Saudis are our friends, don'tcha know.

So what kind of security will the 50,000 remaining U.S. troops be providing? Remember the line: "Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities." The violence in Iraq is mainly sectarian, a civil war, Blue and Gray, under the purview of 'internal security' as it were. So I ask again, what will U.S. troops be there for?

Spencer Ackerman* puts a point on it:

... Make no mistake: this is Nouri al-Maliki offering the U.S. a permanent presence in return for guaranteeing the security of his government. (Would-be PM Ayad Allawi can't make President Bush a counteroffer as good as that.) In exchange for a platform for the indefinite projection of American power throughout the Middle East, the Bush Administration probably considers protection for Maliki and his coterie to be a small price to pay ...


I'll refine it a bit more.

If al-Maliki remains in power (thanks to the U.S. military) he might be more amicable to allowing foreign ownership of Iraqi oil fields. Bush and Cheney failed in their first attempt, seizing the oil under the auspices of removing a brutal dictator. To salvage the mess, it seems they are prepared to support a puppet government who will legislate the oil fields to us (Halliburton, KBR, et al) in return for security.

All this does is let us buy (the price being a permanent U.S. presence as what would essentially be a 'palace guard') what we couldn't take by force. A rule as you vote next year: Don't vote for anyone who advocates a continued presence in Iraq.

And if we are going to look for some commonality to this mess in the annals of history, we only have to look right next door, to Iran. You see, we've done this before and all it's accomplished is to make everything in the region far more complicated.

We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, not make them over and over again.

Off to the shop ...

*TPM link thanks to Steve Benen.

No comments: