Iraq: Permanent U.S. Bases Unacceptable

[ali_ababa]

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.

[tulanealum]

You might want that, but most Iraqis don't. I'm not saying it would be beneficial for Iraq, but for now, it just isn't a good idea...as a matter of fact, we SHOULD be echoing Rubaie's thoughts...we've never reached out to the Iraqis and said why we're in Iraq other than democracy, etc. Stating that we don't want to stay in Iraq forever and reinforcing this attitude could help...it certainly can't hurt.

The goal is not to set a timetable in the short-term, but to explain that we are not planning on being there 20 years from now if things have improved and there is no longer any war...we will leave quicker through peace than through fighting.

[JeffC]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...2165&C=mideast

To be honest with you - i think this is all crap.

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.

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".

[Ken White]

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.

[JeffC]

that's an attack on the poster, not his comment. We try to refrain from that. Thanks.

If the poster isn't genuine, meaning he is pretending to be something that he's not, it isn't an attack, Ken. I simply don't believe that this poster is real, and I'm saying it as simply and directly as I know how. If calling the poster on it is not allowed, then what is the preferred method, because I really don't think that it's in anyone's interest to tolerate fictional characters as members, do you?

If Ali Ababa can demonstrate to a moderator, via a qualified email address or in some other way, that's he's an Iraqi citizen, then I'll be happy to apologize for my mistake and I'll make a donation of US$50 to the International Red Crescent in his name.

http://donate.ifrc.org/

[Ron Humphrey]

If the poster isn't genuine, meaning he is pretending to be something that he's not, it isn't an attack, Ken. I simply don't believe that this poster is real, and I'm saying it as simply and directly as I know how. If calling the poster on it is not allowed, then what is the preferred method, because I really don't think that it's in anyone's interest to tolerate fictional characters as members, do you?

If Ali Ababa can demonstrate to a moderator, via a qualified email address or in some other way, that's he's an Iraqi citizen, then I'll be happy to apologize for my mistake and I'll make a donation of US$50 to the International Red Crescent in his name.

http://donate.ifrc.org/

thats the reason I chose to try questioning the overall intention of his first post ref the IP was for this type of thing. If someone is trying to muddy the water then one of the best ways to counter might be to add more water thus lessening the dilution or by point / counter point. I think this will always show whats what in the end.

Just my take though, so take it for what it's worth.

[Ken White]

If the poster isn't genuine, meaning he is pretending to be something that he's not, it isn't an attack, Ken. I simply don't believe that this poster is real, and I'm saying it as simply and directly as I know how. If calling the poster on it is not allowed, then what is the preferred method, because I really don't think that it's in anyone's interest to tolerate fictional characters as members, do you?

If Ali Ababa can demonstrate to a moderator, via a qualified email address or in some other way, that's he's an Iraqi citizen, then I'll be happy to apologize for my mistake and I'll make a donation of US$50 to the International Red Crescent in his name.

http://donate.ifrc.org/

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I'd point out that you have no proof of your accusation and his ability to disprove it may be limited by circumstances of which we are not aware -- or even no desire to respond which is his right. The owners and operators of this Board are entitled to establish rules as they wish and it behooves us who post here with their permission to heed those rules.

We'll have to differ on your first sentence, above. You correctly provided that all important caveat of "If." That's the point, it's not known and yet you accused.

You offer is generous but moot and no apology is required. While there are admittedly folks all over the internet using pseudonyms and providing false backgrounds, the position here is take posters at face value. If it's an overriding issue for you, you could send him a polite Private Message as an inquiry. Please address your comments on the open board to the comment made, not the individual who made it.

Thanks again and we should just move on.

[SWCAdmin]

Thanks again and we should just move on.

Sage advice in two posts from Ken White, only the tail end of which is quoted here. FYI, the red and yellow cards next to the offensive posts are infractions and indicate moderator interventions.

We do not vouch for ali-ababa's credentials or position, and do not object to JeffC's basic questioning of them, but the absence of tact and elegance in so doing is not welcome here. This is not a UFC Smackdown.

[Ron Humphrey]

I can't imagine this ever not having been an expectation both from the HN or US sides after going in.

To me it seems to make sense that from the perspective of the Coalition you don't invest the time, money, and resources most importantly human and otherwise and not expect to make sure it wasn't all in vain or at least in long term benefit to yourselves. And from the HN side why would you not want those who helped you get where you are to stick around long enough to keep everybody else from taking advantage of your weakened state.

As far as the populace go I would guess as long as things continue changing in one form or another they will act based on how it affects them at their local levels more than based on any large scale changes.

As time goes by I could see them caring more about the upper echelon leaders.

[selil]

While there are admittedly folks all over the internet using pseudonyms and providing false backgrounds, the position here is take posters at face value.

People aren't using their real names or they use pseudonyms? Where? Oh wait that would be me....

Obscured identities do serve the purpose of allowing people to be more truthful even if the anonymity is not as deep as they expect. You have awesome advice Mr. White that promotes understanding. I prefer to have my assumptions challenged through the mediation of the Internet rather than find them flawed on the battle field (metaphorically of course since I'm scared of conflict). Courtesy in debate regardless of the topic engenders reason even in the face of abject ignorance. One of the things I've respected and honored about SWC is the clarity of reason and purpose that professionals in the art of arms bring to the scholarship of conflict.

[Ken White]

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...

My MOS used to be 00XY; Small Unit Coward, Non-tactical -- so obviously I share your dislike of violence and conflict.

[JeffC]

I can't imagine this ever not having been an expectation both from the HN or US sides after going in.

To me it seems to make sense that from the perspective of the Coalition you don't invest the time, money, and resources most importantly human and otherwise and not expect to make sure it wasn't all in vain or at least in long term benefit to yourselves. And from the HN side why would you not want those who helped you get where you are to stick around long enough to keep everybody else from taking advantage of your weakened state.

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.

[Sean Osborne]

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.

I agree with you in large measure Ali Ababa.

But in consideration of the point of origin of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie's statement, I don't think it is all crap, rather that it reflects a significant amount nationalist fervor. I tend to think in this statement that he was reacting to the agreement between Bush and al-Maliki would would establish a bilateral pact after the UN mandate expires - a long term defense pact between the United States and Iraq not unlike that preiously concluded with Germany, Japan, South Korea.

With history as a guide and knowing the threat posed by other bordering states, I think such a long-term pact might be essential in the interests of Iraq and the U.S. It could be similar to what as the U.S. has agreed to with Kuwait. The U.S. military support and infrastructure facility at Arifjan, Kuwait is as about as "permanent" as they come.

[Ken White]

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.

[JeffC]

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.

Which is one of many reasons why the so-called War on Terror is doomed to last forever. We don't address the underlying causes for terrorism to flourish.

It's also a good example of why it took so long to figure out a COIN strategy that worked; a strategy that should have seemed obvious at the outset. We're making the same mistake in the GWOT. Where's our COIN strategy for that "war"?

[Sean Osborne]

Which is one of many reasons why the so-called War on Terror is doomed to last forever. We don't address the underlying causes for terrorism to flourish.

Nah, it's not the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism that's the issue.

It's the ideological source of the jihadist's terror and the abject failure to correctly identify the enemy instead of his tactic.

[Ken White]

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.

[JeffC]

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.

OK, I exaggerated a bit with "forever". You got me.

Obviously you've never tried to turn the behemoth bureaucracy around and may be missing the political correctness that pervades DoD.

Not DOD, but in the private sector, yes. It's not only a depressing exercise, but in the near future it's a serious problem in getting up to speed in cyber warfare.

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.

Oh, Ken. Please don't tell me that you believe that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorists.

[Ken White]

. . .
Oh, Ken. Please don't tell me that you believe that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorists.

We're looking for roots, not terrorists. Iraq just happens to be easy and a centrally located place from which to look...

[JeffC]

We're looking for roots, not terrorists. Iraq just happens to be easy and a centrally located place from which to look...

Well, I guess the weather is better there than Afghanistan.