Khalilzad Says What the Administration Won't On Permanent Bases In Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Juan Cole quotes US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad as saying in an interview with al Hayat as telling sectarian opponents of the US presence that:  "We don't want to stay in Iraq."  He's apparently concluded that one way to tamp down the hostility toward the American military, and perhaps even political tensions more broadly, is to reassure the relevant parties that America does not intend to station its military permanently in the country.  But President Bush and and Secretary Rumsfeld have never given such assurances, and - as Kevin Drum has reported - are instead allocating resources to build up what are said to be permanent military installations. 

Right now Khalilzad's efforts are about the only thing standing between Iraq and full-scale sectarian warfare.  Why won't the Administration support him by officially disavowing any intention to build permanent bases?

Comments

[Jay C]

Why won't the Administration support him by officially disavowing any intention to build permanent bases?

Suggested simple answer: Because establishment of permanent US military bases in Iraq has been the aim of the Bush Administration all along: but they are (as they have been all along) afraid to admit this (for fear of Iraqi opposition).

Seriously, what does one expect out of this clownshow Administration? Having been caught short (as with so much of their Iraq policy) by the non-appearance of the candy-and-flowers reception, replete with gushing gratitude from the indigenes for having been "liberated" - the peculiar nature of the "democratic" Government we have seen emerge from the wreckage of Ba'athism - the incipient civil war brewing over there (pace Adminstration shills' pooh-poohing); the issue of bases ,and their supposed "benefit" for the security of the region, and the US, is the last scrap of prewar policy remaining which has not been totally shredded and rendered irrelevant by events. Iraqis say "No" to US bases? Great: just what the Bush crew needs: a total rejection of the last credible rationale for the war!
Need we wonder why the "bases" issue stays under the radar??

[noah]

Would not military bases in Iraq be of great strategic importance? Master strategist Jay C apparently lacks the nuanced understanding to appreciate this.

I see a greatly reduced presence but no complete withdrawal from Iraq. Sure we can assure them all day but on that day we announced withdrawal they would be begging us to stay!!

[Jay C]

Uhh, noah... I must modestly disclaim the title of "master strategist" (I am, after all, just a humble blog-commenter) - but in my comment I did not mean anywhere to suggest that US bases in Iraq might not be "important": merely that the Administration's policies in Iraq have pretty much, at this point in time, closed off (AFAICT) the chance that we might be able to establish such bases, since, now, the weight of (non-Kurdish) Iraqi opinion seems to be dead set against them.
For what it's worth: I agree with your vision of "...a greatly reduced presence but no complete withdrawal from Iraq. as a reasonable scenario for the (hopefully near) future - but given the -as I see it- irremediably negative attitudes of so many Iraqis towards a US presence; the best, I think, we can hope for is a handful of Middle East Guantanamos: useful military facilities to discourage/prevent the emergence of an(other) overtly anti-American government in Iraq -or whatever is left of it; but bases planted amid a hostile and uncooperative populace.

[J Thomas]

Yes, military bases in iraq will be of great strategic importance.

While we can drop large numbers of large bombs anywhere in the world from B52s, we can't do that on short notice. It takes them long hours to reach their targets. And planes from carriers are very good but the pilots tend not to be intimately familiar with their targets -- a month ago they might have been in another part of the world, bombing someplace else. Plus there are limits to the number of planes a carrier can keep in the air at one time. High limits, but large bases are limited only by our ability to supply them.

So, suppose we wind up with the sort of operations the israelis were doing in lebanon. Their spies would tell them "Yassir Arafat is hiding in this mosqued we've pinpointed in east lebanon.". So they'd bomb the mosque. Then the spies would tell them, "You missed him by ten minutes. Now he's hiding in a hospital." So they'd bomb the hospital. And the spies would say "You missed him by five minutes. Now he's hiding in a kindergarten." So they'd bomb the kindergarten. "You missed him by seven minutes. Now he's hiding in a church." So they'd bomb the church. "You just barely missed him. Now he's hiding in a maternity clinic."

If the time comes that we're doing precision strikes on terrorist leaders or government figures in iran or syria or saudi arabia or whatever, we need nearby bases with lots of planes and lots of pilots who are intimately familiar with the targets. We sure don't want to be bombing the *wrong* hospitals and orphanages by mistake.

[noah]

Jay C,

A good idea for an internet business would be to set up a site so that blowhards like you and me could get a bet down on our respective positions. Your two posts contain a number of dubious pronouncements that I would be willing to bet on. Sort of like a Tradesports for sucker bets.

Gratuitous insults hurled against the Admin at every opportunity does not enhance your argument...they just make you sound like the typical BDS sufferer.

[Doc]

-get your bets down , gentlemen

[Diesel]

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.

[Neo]

Bld duraba buy tramadol online here.