Iraq: Permanent U.S. Bases Unacceptable

[Ken White]

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

is not in the ME; Afghans don't do international ops and they don't do suicide bombings nor do many if any of them harbor delusions of grandeur. No roots and not close enough to them.

Iraq OTOH is centrally located in the ME and is important in the minds (remember that) of those who do international ops, encourage suicide bombing and find locals willing to partake. It is also directly adjacent to several folks who have delusions of grandeur. Thus its closer to the fertilizer of those roots -- it also offered the advantage of not being in Afghanistan where some hoped and planned for us to go

Afghanistan for many reasons is a virtual backwater and will remain so; Iraq for more reasons has the prospect of being a dominant local power -- certainly of being an effective counter to some who would aspire to that role.

Plus Afghanistan was and is in no position to effectively allow the insurance of continued world oil supply from the entire ME, an item of some strategic importance to us; we really want China and India to have all the oil they need and yes, the weather is a little better.

[JeffC]

is not in the ME; Afghans don't do international ops and they don't do suicide bombings nor do many if any of them harbor delusions of grandeur. No roots and not close enough to them.

Iraq OTOH is centrally located in the ME and is important in the minds (remember that) of those who do international ops, encourage suicide bombing and find locals willing to partake. It is also directly adjacent to several folks who have delusions of grandeur. Thus its closer to the fertilizer of those roots -- it also offered the advantage of not being in Afghanistan where some hoped and planned for us to go

Afghanistan for many reasons is a virtual backwater and will remain so; Iraq for more reasons has the prospect of being a dominant local power -- certainly of being an effective counter to some who would aspire to that role.

Plus Afghanistan was and is in no position to effectively allow the insurance of continued world oil supply from the entire ME, an item of some strategic importance to us; we really want China and India to have all the oil they need and yes, the weather is a little better.

Afghanistan is where al Qaeda and bin Laden operate from, along with the Taliban who support them; the planners of 9/11, and the original focus of our war on terror.

Yet we've abandoned that part of the world, the Taliban are on the brink of re-taking Kandahar, and bin Laden and al Qaeda continue to operate out of there in spite of our un-matched military and several hundred Billion dollars spent.

Imagine what kind of "street credibility" that gives the Taliban and al Qaeda?

[Ken White]

Afghanistan is where al Qaeda and bin Laden operate from, along with the Taliban who support them; the planners of 9/11, and the original focus of our war on terror.

Was it the original focus -- or merely the first step in the global strategy implementation.

Is AQ or the Taliban the be all and end all for international Islamic terrorism or are they one of many players -- and relative latecomers and inept ones at that?

Yet we've abandoned that part of the world, the Taliban are on the brink of re-taking Kandahar, and bin Laden and al Qaeda continue to operate out of there in spite of our un-matched military and several hundred Billion dollars spent.

We have abandoned it? Do the US Embassy or the 30K troops we have there know this? Does NATO know it? More importantly, do the Tailbs and AQ know it?

Do the Canadians know the Taliban are on the brink of retaking Kandahar. My suspicion is 3 R22eR is not aware of this...

Imagine what kind of "street credibility" that gives the Taliban and al Qaeda?

After six years of failure, not much.

[selil]

I read a pundit quip a couple months back that the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to have a staging point to attack Pakistan. In the same article (wish I remembe where I read it but was likely on here), the pundit said the reason we attacked Iraq was to attack Iran... Ok I laughed the first time, but now y'all are scaring me... Next thing y'all will be telling me there is not Santa.

[Norfolk]

We have abandoned it? Do the US Embassy or the 30K troops we have there know this? Does NATO know it? More importantly, do the Tailbs and AQ know it?

Do the Canadians know the Taliban are on the brink of retaking Kandahar. My suspicion is 3 R22eR is not aware of this...

Probably not. Yesterday the VanDoos were too busy counting 45 dead Taleban and AQ bodies (unusual for AQ these days to be in the field alongside the Taleban) well to the south-west of said town, to take much notice.

[Ken White]

Thanks for the update.

[Ken White]

I read a pundit quip a couple months back that the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to have a staging point to attack Pakistan. In the same article (wish I remembe where I read it but was likely on here), the pundit said the reason we attacked Iraq was to attack Iran... Ok I laughed the first time, but now y'all are scaring me... Next thing y'all will be telling me there is not Santa.

Get the important point out of the way real quick.

Pakistan and Iran have never really been in the picture barring a major malfunction. METT-T and all that. Too hard box and guauranteed to disrupt world oil supply which we do not want to do.

Afghanistan was the Arm for an Arm of the WTC Fly-in. Iraq was for bases and also an Eye for Eye for attacks on US interests around the globe. Think about the corollary. Remember the ME is strong on retribution and he who does not respond in kind is looked on as a coward and a target. They're specific in their retribution. From OBL / Afghanistan to NYC and DC -- and right back atcha from DC to Afghanistan. They understood that.

They also understood they've been attacking us around the world for 20 years and we did little or nothing about it. Then came Iraq. Most westerners couldn't understand that, too many still don't because of the loopy way the admin pitched it. However, the ME understood it -- they said they didn't and tried to forestall it because of the consequences -- but they understood...

[JeffC]

Was it the original focus -- or merely the first step in the global strategy implementation.

Is AQ or the Taliban the be all and end all for international Islamic terrorism or are they one of many players -- and relative latecomers and inept ones at that?

As long as 9/11 is the rallying cry for the GWOT, then the criminals behind 9/11 should be our first priority.

We have abandoned it? Do the US Embassy or the 30K troops we have there know this? Does NATO know it? More importantly, do the Tailbs and AQ know it?

You should visit IntelFusion. I've listed two reports (one from last November and one for last month) that are pretty shocking in terms of what the Taliban are accomplishing.

And in spite of that, the Chairman of the JCS has advised Gates to deny the movement of 15,000 Marines into Afghanistan to help out. I'd like to hear the military justification for that, if there is one. More likely, there's a political justification instead.

[JeffC]

Probably not. Yesterday the VanDoos were too busy counting 45 dead Taleban and AQ bodies (unusual for AQ these days to be in the field alongside the Taleban) well to the south-west of said town, to take much notice.

It's a bit more complicated than that:

U.S. Notes Limited Progress in Afghan War
Strategic Goals Unmet, White House Concludes

NEW Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless NATO and its close allies change tactics, overhauling military and civil programs designed to bring stability to the country.

[Ken White]

It's a bit more complicated than that:

U.S. Notes Limited Progress in Afghan War
Strategic Goals Unmet, White House Concludes

NEW Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless NATO and its close allies change tactics, overhauling military and civil programs designed to bring stability to the country.

on political maneuvering in national capitals in the west. Last first; Fitzgibbon is the new governments defense minister -- they would like to get out of the ME totally but do not want to overtly hack us off in the process. That just begins the disengagement effort. Thus, no surprise there.

On the first item, you might wish to note two things; the author is Karen De Young, Tom Ricks understudy as the WaPO defense guru. I'd recommend careful scrutiny of her writing and mild skepticism. Secondly, note the 'issue is that there's a disconnect between the miltary and the intel community on what's what. No surprise there, usually is. We may differ on who's been correct most often...

See also the post I just placed on the Security and Stability in Afghanistan Thread.

[Sean Osborne]

We're looking for roots, not terrorists.

Roger. As a civilian I am capable of saying... the roots ARE the ideological source of the jihadist terror. That source is the reason for the political correctness within our prosecuting (read: warfighting) instutions (and leadership) which have abjectly failed to correctly identify the enemy vice the tactic and its executors.

Being in civilian attire has its advantages.

Iraq just happens to be easy and a centrally located place from which to look.

One of several in the CENTCOM AOR.

[PhilR]

Iraq sees need for foreign troops for 10 years (Reuters, Dec 17)
BAGHDAD - Iraq will need foreign troops to help defend it for another 10 years, but will not accept U.S. bases indefinitely, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

"Of course we need international support. We have security problems. For 10 years our army will not be able to defend Iraq," Dabbagh told the state-run al-Iraqiya television in an interview broadcast late on Sunday.

"I do not think that there is a threat of an invasion of Iraq, or getting involved in a war. (But) to protect Iraqi sovereignty there must be an army to defend Iraq for the next 10 years," he said.

"But on the other hand, does Iraq accept the permanent existence of U.S. bases, for instance? Absolutely no. There is no Iraqi who would accept the existence of a foreign army in this country," he said. "America is America and Iraq is Iraq."

The United States now has about 155,000 troops in Iraq, formally operating under a U.N. Security Council mandate enacted after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Iraq has asked the Security Council to extend the mandate for what it says will be a final year to the end of 2008, and conditions for U.S. troops to stay on beyond that date are to be negotiated in the next few months.

Violence has subsided after the United States dispatched 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year, and Washington now says it will bring about 20,000 home by mid-2008. Troop levels for the second half of the year are to be decided in March.

[ali_ababa]

JeffC,

Your comments made me laugh! - and their true

I am not an Iraqi citizen since my iraqi passport expired and i just couldn't be bothered to renew it. I'm not in a hurry to become an iraqi any time soon

I am just pro-western by nature.

Regards

P.S: If you can find me any cultural websites on Abdul Karim Qassim i would be grateful if you can post them.

Happy new year.