Staying in Iraq

I've been saying for years that we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon, despite our supposed withdrawal date, and a report from the Washington Post appears to confirm that assumption.

U.S. officials welcomed on Wednesday Iraq’s decision to negotiate with Washington on keeping some U.S. troops in the country into next year ... Iraq’s top political leaders agreed late Tuesday that the Iraqi military needs to continue training programs with U.S. forces, marking the first step in a process that still could take months to resolve.

On the one hand the U.S. has good reasons for retaining a military presence in Iraq, which are laid out in the article. But the problems lie in the details.

Significant details that remain unresolved include the length and focus of any training program, how many U.S. troops such training might require and how Iraqi leaders would formally request and approve a new partnership. Mullen and his colleagues also want legal immunity for any troops who stay behind.

One huge detail not mentioned is who is going to pay for the continuing U.S. presence. If Iraq wants and needs U.S. troops to remain in its country beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date, it should provide the financial support for that presence. With our fiscal situation as it is, we should not continue to maintain large foreign deployments, plus the aid programs that go with them, at our expense.

Some Remarkably Obtuse Foreign Policy Analysis by Stephen Walt

Although I strongly disagree with Stephen Walt's hostility toward Israel, and his conspiracy theories regarding the so-called "Jewish Lobby," I usually at least respect his foreign policy analyses covering subjects not involving Israel. His latest article is called, "Obama is zero for four and Republicans are sitting pretty." Among other things, he points out four areas where Obama's foreign policy has failed. If Obama is 0 for 4, Walt's analysis is 1 for 4 at best. Let's look at issue number 1, Iraq.

it's now clear that the much-vaunted "surge" was a strategic failure, and Iraq could easily spin back out of control once U.S. forces are gone.

No, that isn't clear at all. It is instead a poorly supported opinion. Obviously things could spin out of control at some point; there's no way to secure the situation for all time. That's an impossible standard for success. But the actual success of the surge is the only reason we are even able to consider withdrawing from Iraq on decent terms. Unless you think a permanent, major-force U.S. presence and war effort in Iraq is a good idea -- which Walt does not-- calling the surge a strategic failure is flat-out idiotic. And there's more nonsense about Iraq.

Even in the best case, Iraq can only be judged a defeat for the United States

Another ridiculous assertion. It is obviously far too early to render a final judgment on the long-term consequences of the Iraq War. Neither Walt or anyone else has any idea what Iraq will be like twenty-years from now, or the future state of its relations with the U.S. Walt's blithe assertions reflect an inability to look past present conditions, or consider any possibilities aside from his preconceived assumptions, which he apparently mistakes for facts.

Walt's second point concerns Iran. Here Walt laughably argues that the Obama administration has been too harsh in its demands of Iran. Seriously.

the U.S. position on Iran remains: "first you give us everything we want -- namely, a complete end to nuclear enrichment -- and then we'll be happy to talk about some of the things that you want."

In Walt's world, the U.S. needs to offer up some preliminary concessions to a rogue regime like Iran. Remember, this guy is actually a leading realist. Unfortunately, being a realist school foreign policy proponent apparently has little to do with facing reality.

Naturally the third point is Israel/Palestine, where Walt thinks Obama caved in to the evil Jewish lobby. There's a big surprise. What Obama actually did was to apparently recognize that his one-sided pressure on Israel merely encouraged Palestinian intransigence. He belatedly backed off after risking major damage to U.S. relations with Israel. Obama screwed up badly in the Middle East, but for pretty much exactly the opposite reasons that Walt believes.

And finally there is Afghanistan, where Walt joins the majority narrative that the war is going badly, it's a no-win situation, and Obama's escalation makes it a political albatross. That's his one piece of reasonable analysis, but it didn't exactly require much insight. Overall this was one of Walt's weakest foreignpolicy.com pieces (aside from those directly focused on Israel).

It's Only 2.6 Billion Dollars

From the front page of the Washington Post comes yet another story about just how well our government manages money. The Defense Department spent $2.6 billion dollars of Iraqi oil money, and has no idea exactly what it was spent on. Even for the Defense Department, 2.6 billion is a fair amount of money, more than half the cost of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Now you might be tempted to think something like, oh well, it was just Iraqi money anyway. But at the bottom of the article, after reviewing assorted fiscal mismanagement and incompetence in Iraq, the Post points out something else.

The United States also has spent more than $50 billion in taxpayer money for reconstruction projects in Iraq.

If the Pentagon can't account for $2.6 billion, what are the odds that this $50 billion was spent wisely?

Yet Another Example of UN Stupidity

The UN is finally thinking about getting around to removing sanctions on Iraq. What sanctions you ask? The sanctions put in place to punish Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait back in 1991. Saddam and his government were of course removed by the U.S. invasion in 2003, and Saddam himself was executed back in 2006. According to Iraq, the sanctions, which have never been lifted, are costing it $24 billion a year.

The U.S. has been pushing to lift the sanctions for obvious reasons. Here we've been pumping billions  into Iraq, while at the same time it's been languishing under penalties designed to punish a regime long out of power. The UN Security Council agreed to "review" the restrictions. But here's a statement from the current president of the council, a Frenchman

such a review would come only after Iraq's safeguards against acquiring weapons of mass destruction are demonstrated to be sufficient.

Hey moron, Saddam is long gone, there's a 100,000+ U.S. troops sitting in Iraq, and the country is no longer a threat to anyone. There's absolutely no reason why normal trade with Iraq shouldn't be resumed.

The UN may be worse than useless for solving international problems, but it's great at exacerbating existing ones. It's nice to see that the U.S. is pushing for the removal of sanctions on Iraq, but they should have been gone years ago. 

BDS Hero Whines About Lack of Profit

Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi who threw shoes at former President George W. Bush, is now whining that he hasn't made enough money off of the incident and is still poor.

In an interview with the Observer, Muntazer al-Zaidi said his only regret after spending nine months in prison – where he says he was repeatedly beaten by his jailers – was that he was still a relatively poor man. ... "I blame the media because they said I would become rich for doing what I did, that I would become a multi-millionaire," al-Zaidi said from Switzerland, where he is receiving treatment for several health problems.

As the Guardian article notes, his brothers "have hinted," that his assault on Bush was "premeditated." It sounds like he was looking to cash in. It's just too bad that his dreams haven't been realized. 

Naturally he regards himself as a hero.

"I become a famous name in all the free world not only for Muslims and Arabs, but in Europe," he said. "Everywhere people have received me like a hero, but the point is not the reception, the point is they believe in what I did. I feel very proud of what I did. I am happy I defended my country's dignity. All free people respect this.

"Free people" who aren't suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome think you are an idiot who was lucky not to have been shot dead by security. And your whine about deserving wealth for your childish behavior, lowers our already low opinion of you to new depths.

Atheism in Iraq

Islam Online has an article up called, "Iraqis Shocked as Atheism Creeps in." Apparently atheism, although still restricted to a small minority, has become more common in Iraq. As one man says of abandoning his belief in God,

“I realised that he isn’t looking after us and instead we are moving ourselves according to the human nature and not an abstract force.”

Some blame the U.S. for "bringing such ideas to Iraqis." And others decry the notion that children are actually thinking for themselves, and are open to new ideas. We can't have that.

With increasing access to information throughout the world, more and more people, even those in regions where conservative religions dominate, will be exposed to critiques of religious views and come into contact with atheists and secularists of all types.  We have a long way to go before people in a country like Iraq can break the suffocating grip of religion. The atheists quoted in the article were not willing to give their real names, for obvious reasons. But the fact that a rise in atheism in Iraq is worthy of note and concern by Islam Online can only be a positive sign.

Iraqi Palestinians to the U.S.

Another terrible idea brought to you by the Obama administration. Hey, why don't we import some of our enemies and settle them in California? Wouldn't that be great? According to the Christian Science Monitor, the U.S. will resettle in California

as many as 1,350 Iraqi Palestinians – once the well-treated guests of Saddam Hussein and now at outs with much of Iraqi society

Palestinians who went to Iraq and were big supporters of Saddam Hussein -- why wouldn't we want them in the U.S.?

This is amazingly stupid even for the clueless Obama administration, which has serious trouble telling enemies from allies. These Palestinians are not our problem. They are refugees inside Iraq because they were Saddam supporters -- ie, U.S. enemies. We should gladly leave them to whatever fate awaits them. About the last thing we should do is bring them to the U.S.. 

Something Nobody Wants to Hear

The Washington Post reports that withdrawing from Iraq will be

a "massive and expensive effort" that is likely to increase rather than lower Iraq-related expenditures during the withdrawal and for several years after its completion

The Government Accountability Office report notes the difficulty and expense of closing numerous bases and installations throughout Iraq, and also contains more bad news. Since 2003 the U.S. has provided 87% of the funding for the oil, electricity, and water services in Iraq. And the current situation is still not good.

"Iraqi managers lack the skill level and authority to create plans and buy the materials necessary to sustain projects in the energy and water sectors." Despite both U.S. and Iraqi expenditures, the report said, electricity supply in 2008 met only 52 percent of demand and "many Iraqis are without water" or do not have access to a safe supply.

Are we still going to be paying most of the bill for Iraq's essential services after we withdraw most of our forces? Those costs will rise if the Iraqis allow services to deteriorate because they are unable to handle complete responsibility for their own affairs. 

Often you will hear people talk about how much money we could be saving if we'd just get out of Iraq. Unfortunately we are nowhere near done paying for the Iraq War, and it currently looks like we'll be paying indefinitely. According to the GAO, the withdrawal itself is going to cost a gigantic amount and almost certainly will take longer than anticipated. If conditions deteriorate after military withdrawal, we could end up seeing most of our cost-savings eaten up by the need to provide massive financial support to the Iraqi government.

It would have been nice if the U.S. government had negotiated our withdrawal agreement on the basis of U.S. interests, and secured permanent bases and basing rights, oil concessions, arms contracts, preferential treatment for U.S. firms and a whole array of advantages that would help offset the costs we will continue to incur from Iraq for the foreseeable future. Yeah, I know, getting something for our money is "imperialism," so we couldn't possibly do that.

Withdrawing From Iraq

President Obama gave a speech today, detailing his plans for withdrawing from Iraq. Our force level will be reduced to 35-50,000 by August 2010, and the rest will be removed by December 2011, as specified in the status-of-forces agreement that the Bush administration signed with Iraq. I have a couple of thoughts on the whole situation.

The time does appear right to start pulling troops from Iraq. Things are probably about as stable as they are going to get any time in the near future. We don't need to have the bulk of our ground combat power tied down in Iraq indefinitely, and there are the obvious financial considerations. On the other hand, I think the total withdrawal scheduled for 2011 is a bad idea, and I'm skeptical that it will actually happen. I'll be surprised if we don't retain some forces in the country. Given the expenditure of life, money and time in Iraq, we have a vested interest in it. I would prefer to see a situation where we kept a relatively small but significant military presence in Iraq as a threat to Iran, as a prop to the Iraqi government, and as a lever to exert influence over the country. We'll see what happens after we cut our force level. Obviously if the Iraqis don't want us there at all, we need to leave. But I don't think total withdrawal is the best option.

A Very Short Review

I just finished reading The Forever War, by New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins.  Filkins' book is a series of ground-level personal war experiences, primarily focused on Iraq from the invasion through 2006 or so.  There is also a section about Afghanistan in 1999, while still under Taliban control.  The book is not a cohesive narrative, but rather a series of snapshots.  There is very little if any editorializing by Filkins. He just tells what he saw and did and leaves the reader to interpret what, if any, meaning to draw from his experiences.

I've read innumerable military histories, memoirs, battlefield accounts, and examples of military reporting.  And I was prepared to be highly skeptical of anything written by an NYT reporter, when I checked this book out of my local library.  But I found it difficult to put down, and read the whole thing yesterday.  The overall impression it left on me was that Iraq is a real hellhole. Granted, it isn't a picture of Iraq after the surge, but it gives you a great look at the conditions our forces have had to deal with for most of the war. The only criticism I have is that the book is somewhat disjointed, and jumps from one thing to another.  And to be pedantic, his couple of references to the Dragunov sniper rifle as "Dragonoff" irritated me.  But trivial criticisms aside, I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Iraq War.

Blackwater Guards Were Under Fire

Back on December 8, I had a post up looking at The Blackwater Manslaughter Case.  At the time, I wrote that "it seems unlikely that the guards, all former military men, would just open fire on civilians without a good reason." An AP report yesterday reveals that Blackwater radio logs during the incident

describe a hectic eight minutes in which the guards repeatedly reported incoming gunfire from insurgents and Iraqi police.

It looks like the prosecution's case just fell apart.

The Blackwater Manslaughter Case

The Washington Post reported today that five Blackwater security guards were charged with manslaughter in conjunction with a shooting incident in Iraq in Sept. 2007 that left 17 civilians dead.  According to the article, the guards were: 

working as Blackwater security contractors for the State Department when their convoy pulled into Nisoor Square and they opened fire.

They claim they were under fire from insurgents.  But the Iraqi government contends that they "fired without provocation."  Military & FBI investigations couldn't find anything to support the Blackwater guards' assertion that they were fired upon.

With the caveat that I don't know all the details, but going just by this article and other published reports, this whole thing smacks of a political prosecution.  It seems unlikely that the guards, all former military men, would just open fire on civilians without a good reason.  If they are convicted, I hope the convictions rest on something stronger than the word of the Iraqi government about something that happened in a war zone.

It is also worth mentioning that one of the charges is a firearms charge.  

The guards face the firearms charge under a 1980s drug law that made it a crime to use a machine gun in a crime of violence, according to the sources.

The sheer stupidity of this charge, when applied to paramilitary forces working for the State Department, makes me question the validity of the prosecution.