Iraq: Permanent U.S. Bases Unacceptable
Quote:
Iraq will never allow the U.S. to keep permanent military bases on its soil, the government’s national security adviser has said.
"We need the United States in our war against terrorism, we need them to guard our border sometimes, we need them for economic support and we need them for diplomatic and political support," Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said.
"But I say one thing, permanent forces or bases in Iraq for any foreign forces is a red line that cannot be accepted by any nationalist Iraqi," he said, speaking to Dubai-based al Arabiya television in an interview broadcast late Dec. 10.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...2165&C=mideast
To be honest with you - i think this is all crap. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie just said this in order to be on more 'friendly' terms with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. In fact, it has worked since the UAE and Saudi Arabia will reopen diplomatic missions etc. in Baghdad which will lead to embassies.
As an Iraqi, I would love Iraq to host American military bases in Iraq so that it deters Iraq's neighbours from invading (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.).
Also, it means Iraq will remain democratic and no more dictatorships.
A friendship that America has with Germany, South Korea and Japan i hope will happen to Iraq as well.
You may or may not be correct but
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeffC
Speaking of "crap", why would an authentic Iraqi citizen, as you claim to be, choose to use Wikipedia as a reference for his signature quote commemorating "Iraq's True Leader Abdul Karim Qassim" when there must be hundreds of authentic cultural references to choose from?
The short answer is, he wouldn't. Only a person creating a sock identity to post to an Internet forum would make that kind of mistake, "Ali Ababa".
that's an attack on the poster, not his comment. We try to refrain from that. Thanks.
Ah but you don't provide a false background
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
People aren't using their real names or they use pseudonyms? Where? Oh wait that would be me...
ergo your pen name is one of those sudo-whatchamacallits in name only...
Hmmm. Something wrong with that sentence... :confused:
My MOS used to be 00XY; Small Unit Coward, Non-tactical -- so obviously I share your dislike of violence and conflict. :eek:
Interesting take and one shared by many, however
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeffC
I don't think we can leave Iraq until we've fixed what we broke. I can't imagine a single history of this event being written that doesn't reflect badly on the actions of the U.S. government going in. As far as I can tell, the only saving grace left to us is how we exit. And as far as keeping a permanent base is concerned, that's a certain way to keep us at the top of the al Qaeda recruiting posters.
there are many more who think that some of the actions of the US government on going in (bad effort at explaining why; poor performance by an unprepared Army) will be justifiably placed in a bad light but that many others will be more fairly judged and there'll even be a few accolades. We'll have to wait about 15-20 years and see.
I'd also suggest that the exit will be a long time coming, perhaps not even occurring by that 15-20 year mark and that the effect of staying atop AQ recruiting posters is of little to no concern.
Nah, it won't last forever; nothing does. It's merely an
attempt to compress five to six generations worth of change at a 'normal' pace or using the flawed idea of containment and / or diplomatic processes into two or three generations by forcing accelerated change.
Those are ME generations of around fifteen years. So you're looking at 30 to 40 years, six of which have already passed. I'd expect another three to five years of low to moderate conflict -- the ME doesn't so major conflict well and will try to avoid it and then a gradual tapering to an acceptable level.
Some success should be obvious within the next three to five years and much of that will be achieved in the efforts that are going on behind the scenes that most people are unaware of. Cutting funding networks, pressure on the Islamic nations to disavow terrorism; the low key law enforcement and intelligence stuff that must by nature (and is) hidden from view and that has been successful to a fair degree thus far and that goes on every day. Friend of mine's been working those issues an he's been in nine countries in the last six years. A lot of that is missed because many are focused on Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.
Thus the long war strategy is there -- and Iraq was and is just a small part of that strategy; it's just the most visible. By design, I'm pretty sure. The strategy is working, its practical application just isn't visible.
The COIN strategy was visible to many in the Armed forces at the outset -- and even before. Obviously you've never tried to turn the behemoth bureaucracy around and may be missing the political correctness that pervades DoD. Sanchez was put in place, custom and the PC effect meant he had to remain in place for the first year or so, regardless of screwups. He was a senior General raised through the PC Army who had absorbed the "Big War" mantra. He was replaced by another, similarly minded General. Took 18 month to recognize the screwups (far better than the seven years it took in Viet Nam) and another 18 months to turn the elephant in a new direction (far more than it took in Viet Nam because the institution had absorbed another 30 year of Bureaucracy building). Then it took about 18 months to get those changes embedded (about the same time as it took in Viet Nam). The Army deserves praise for figuring it out, changing the training regimen and getting down to business.
That PC effect also is the element that seems to obscure the identification of the real motivator. It known, just unstated for a variety of really excellent reasons. If it weren't known, we wouldn't be where we are doing what we're doing. If you cannot seal the borders and guarantee no strikes in this huge, diverse nation with very leaky borders, then you must go to the source of the problem and work on the root issue. To work on root issues, you have to be where the roots are located.