Long-term occupation of Iraq seen as "logical"
This truly floors me.
It does, huh, Gen. Pollman? Let's see, building forts throughout a country roiled by white hot anti-Americanism and making occupation all but permanent in a country brimming over with unleashed nationalism sounds like a plan to me. Is that what we're calling reconstruction in Iraq?
Assuming January elections can even be pulled off, which is doubtful, the new leaders in Iraq will either tell the hated occupiers to get the hell out, or the new leaders will ask us to stay, in which case they won't be seen as legitimate by their own people. To think that we'll be able to have a heavy presence in Iraq without on-going insurgency and attacks on U.S. troops (it's up to 87 per day, per this sunny postcard from a Wall Street Journal reporter), is illogic personified.
I used to think that the uniforms in the Pentagon and the brass on the ground in Iraq at least had their shit together; that it was only the suits in the Pentagon who were deluded. I am beginning to wonder if they are all inmates in the same asylum.
Now, I do believe we will have little choice but to have a huge presence of troops in Iraq for the next two years, if not longer (though, pity the mainstream press is unable to burst Bush's campaign bubble in which he implies the hard work will be done once ballots are cast -- whether he means in the U.S. in November or Iraq in January, I'm not sure). But to build facilities that will appear permanent to a nation of people who remember quite well their history of foreign occupation, is the height of insane folly.
Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.
As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.
"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."
It does, huh, Gen. Pollman? Let's see, building forts throughout a country roiled by white hot anti-Americanism and making occupation all but permanent in a country brimming over with unleashed nationalism sounds like a plan to me. Is that what we're calling reconstruction in Iraq?
Assuming January elections can even be pulled off, which is doubtful, the new leaders in Iraq will either tell the hated occupiers to get the hell out, or the new leaders will ask us to stay, in which case they won't be seen as legitimate by their own people. To think that we'll be able to have a heavy presence in Iraq without on-going insurgency and attacks on U.S. troops (it's up to 87 per day, per this sunny postcard from a Wall Street Journal reporter), is illogic personified.
I used to think that the uniforms in the Pentagon and the brass on the ground in Iraq at least had their shit together; that it was only the suits in the Pentagon who were deluded. I am beginning to wonder if they are all inmates in the same asylum.
Now, I do believe we will have little choice but to have a huge presence of troops in Iraq for the next two years, if not longer (though, pity the mainstream press is unable to burst Bush's campaign bubble in which he implies the hard work will be done once ballots are cast -- whether he means in the U.S. in November or Iraq in January, I'm not sure). But to build facilities that will appear permanent to a nation of people who remember quite well their history of foreign occupation, is the height of insane folly.
posted by John at 6:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home