Putting U.S. Bases in Iraq
The U.S. needs to quietly begin establishing permanent bases in Iraq. In fact, this has already started. The strategy of having permanent bases worked incredibly well in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. All were undemocratic when we established the bases - and all are important, peaceful, and prosperous democratic countries today. The experiences in these countries also show that long term U.S. bases can be accepted by the local governments and populations.
We need to continue to push for Iraqis to take charge of their own future, especially in security matters. We need to gradually move to a low profile in Iraq, and our troops need to do less patrols and military operations to get them more out of harm’s way. But our continued presence in Iraq will provide an anchor of strength to a growing democratic movement radiating outward from Iraq’s borders. It will also provide a source of back-up strength to the democratic government of Iraq. We can continue to provide advanced training to security forces and practical advice on organizing democratic institutions. Bases can provide us leverage to make certain that Iraq stays on the path toward a free and democratic future.
There are circumstances, though, that will require us to leave even after the bases are complete. Iraq is a Muslim country, and things could play out differently than in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. But this is not necessarily so. In the 1991 Gulf War, one reason the U.S. stopped short of going into Baghdad was that the very thought of fully taking over a Muslim country seemed an impossible task. The hostility of the population would be insurmountable. Well, history has now shown this not to be true. The general population in Iraq is surprisingly less hostile than one might have expected. So will they gradually accept the idea of U.S. bases for the next decade or two? Time will tell, but don’t rule out the possibility.
And there are practical reasons why most Iraqis may decide that it is better if some American forces stay. Iraq’s economy is likely to continue to make steady improvements. It has been the fastest growing economy in the world for the last two years. If the Iraqis come to see the U.S. presence fostering prosperity in their country, they may conclude it is better if the Americans stay.
To be clear, if at any time the Iraqis collective decide that they think it is time for us to go, and their elected leaders tell us that it is time to go, then we should leave.
But my guess is that over time the majority of Iraqis will want us to stay. The Kurds surely will need little convincing. The Shias will likely grudgingly prefer us to stay because of a fear of the Sunnis ruthlessly regaining power. And the Sunnis will want us there because they will see us as helping prevent the Shias from taking revenge for all the years of brutal repression inflicted on them by Saddam and his Sunni allies.
One situation that could require us to leave is if the U.S. presence continues to serve as a permanent magnet for attracting terrorists to Iraq. It is hard to know if this is a temporary phenomenon or it will be on-going on a sizable scale. Right now every Jihadist and his brother want to head to Iraq for the big Jihadi party. However, if people come to know that their friends and family members that left for the big party never come back, they might not be so interested in going themselves. The Muslim world may also tire of seeing Iraqi innocent civilians killed by Jihadist bombs. Even the potential Jihadist may be put off enough that they would just rather not bother going to Iraq.
But if the U.S. presence in Iraq does make it a permanent site for significant numbers of terrorist attacks, then the Iraqis might ask us to leave for this reason. And again, if they ask us to leave, then we need to leave.
And of course, if the terrorism does not drop to a low level over time, yet the Iraqi government is very stable with clearly adequate security forces to hold the country, it will make sense for the U.S. to unilaterally decide to totally withdraw. That decision point does not come for perhaps another three to five years. But the work of establishing bases will be completed before then. It will just be a question of whether to continue to stay on the bases - or whether it is time for the remaining American troops to leave Iraq.
Update: Ken McCracken gives his views on why we need permanent bases in Iraq, and he has some nice graphics showing where they will be.
July 2nd, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Wow, that’s some bad news on all fronts. Permanently committing US troops to Iraq is a disastrous misuse of our resources.
Dave
July 2nd, 2005 at 5:13 pm
NM, I checked the source. If it’s in The Guardian you can generally assume that it’s not true.
Dave
July 2nd, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Dave,
Here is the same story from May 21st in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611_pf.html
We committed over 50,000 troops to South Korea since the 1950s. I would not call that a “disastrous misuse of our resources”. If we are going to commit troops to foreign countries like we always have, and foot the bill, it seems like Iraq would be a top candidate.
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Would you rather have U.S. forces engage them there or here?
July 3rd, 2005 at 7:27 am
Comrades,
The real advantage to having permanent bases in Iraq is “Democracy by Osmosis.” Keeping large numbers of well-educated young Americans in country will naturally lead to fraternization of all types, with the result that many or our ideas and philosophies will hopefully rub off on the Iraqi citizens. That term, citizen, is also now appropriate for the Iraqis. In the past, they were merely subjects. Now that they have a voice, they can rightly be called citizens, and it’s up to us to help them realise their full potential.
Month after month, and year after year, we can learn from each other, and hopefully our 2 centuries plus of self-governing can be of some small use to the Iraqis. I bet it can, and in a very big way. Iraq’s future is in the next 2 or 3 generations, those who will be the first to grow up in a free Iraq. Our young folks can certainly help theirs and, if for no other reason, THAT would be a good result of permamnent basing in Iraq.
July 3rd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
[...] y Administrator in Iraq, America, Terror (Sunday July 3, 2005 at 2:13 pm) No Speed Bumps dwells on the possibility, its benefits, and its dangers. No comments for Permanent U [...]
July 3rd, 2005 at 3:39 pm
I’m confused about who you call tyrants.
Certainly the Emir of Kuwait is no more democratic than the King of Saudi Arabia, or do you disagree? Is the King of Jordan not, like the Emir of Kuwait and the King of Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarch? I have to admit to being somewhat charmed by the young King of Jordan’s efforts (posing as a commoner and mixing with his people), but that doesn’t make him a liberal democrat.
In fact, the King of Syria is also an absolute monarch.
And Iran? Iran would be the most (classicly) Republican of them all, wouldn’t it? Suffrage is fairly widespread, the debates of the Majlis are (most of the time) aired on the radio for the people to hear, they have one branch of a four branch government which is despotic, the Guardian Council, which has two powers (to the best of my knowledge), vetoing laws and approving candidates.
In America, who gets to debate to be President? Even though Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, he was barred from the debates in 1996. Nader, who got millions of votes in 2000, was not allowed to participate in 2004.
I’m not saying either were great candidates, but both were on the ballots in enough states to win, but the Democrat and Republican parties get to decide who is allowed to debate, which, in at least one way, is similar to deciding who gets to run.
By the way, the solution is not what the Libertarians and Greens want, they want something dumb-ish, called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). The correct solution (and it is a mathematical problem, not simply a choice) will be a Condorcet variant. Only problem with Condorcet itself is that there is a chance for a three way tie. All a Condorcet variant needs is a determined (and fair) way to break such a tie.
July 3rd, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Quick Hits
A finance professor looks at prediction markets and the forthcoming SCOTUS nomination Patterico catches the LAT in a most embarassing error Jon’s got three posts on Mike McConnell as a possible SCOTUS nominee (1, 2, and 3) Permanent bases in
July 4th, 2005 at 12:43 am
Josh,
In the map, you noticed I labeled “Tyrants Here” for Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. You say “I’m confused about who you call tyrants”. You mention that Iran is to some degree “classically Republican”.
The question I think is when does an authoritarian country cross over into a true democratic country. I think that a key test is whether they achieve status of assured “democratic peace” with other democracies. I wrote about democratic peace here: http://nospeedbumps.com/?page_id=17
Key power today in Iran still resides in the hands of a few mullahs. Yes, there is a democratic element, but Iran is still far from being trustworthy for maintaining peace with its neighbors and other countries. Therefore, it is still authoritarian at its core - decisions are still dominated by tyrants.
July 4th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Permanent bases exist in Germany,Japan, and Korea.
Think BMW, lexus, and KIA. That is success for the people of those countries.
What will they call the first call manufactured in the Middle East ?
July 4th, 2005 at 10:26 am
wm wyatt,
Interesting point. Not sure of the name of the vehicle, but I can think of some names that won’t be used:
Not the Talivan
Not the AlQaedaCar
Not the SuicideSedan
Not the OsamaWagon
Not the SaddamySportster
July 4th, 2005 at 11:38 am
“The experiences in these countries also show that long term U.S. bases can be accepted by the local governments and populations.”
Accepted hell, try prying them out: Remember when we suggested drawing down our bases in Germany? The local communities went fliedermaus-shit: “Nein, hegemonistiche Amerikaners! Come back! Come back! We still the beer have to sell undt der daughters to rent!”
July 4th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Establishing Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq
discovered a new weblog that just might make my daily reading list. It looks promising. An interesting concept from Dan Morgan over at No Speed Bumps blog on permanent US Military bases in Iraq. nospeedbumps.com | Putting U.S. Bases in Ira…
July 4th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Dan,
Your post reminds me of this, The Pentagon’s New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett.
I read this in 2003, but have not yet read the book that followed it.
Take a look.
July 4th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Dan,
As to when US forces will be leaving Iraq?
Not for a long time, per T.P.M. Barnett.
Here.
July 4th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
In the cases you mention the countries were toast. In the cases of Japan and Germany all the young men had been killed; in the case of South Korea the young men had been terrorized by the North and were too afraid to do anything but put up with us.
Iraq is overflowing with young men, men who are unemployed, members of a religion that won’t allow them sex outside of marriage thus fueling a masculine anger that is dangerous, and one with NO prior good contact with whites. Add to that the Muslim hatred of outsiders, their rules against innovation and change, and their Shiria Law and I think you have a case where bases will be the constant target for the mad imams.
A non-starter.
July 4th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
[...] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bases in Iraq NOT: MoveOn.org I mentioned here that I think that the U.S. should be moving toward permanent bases in Iraq. These bases will let help promote [...]
July 4th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
The Kurds really, really, really, really want us to establish a base in their territory.
If they were independent, it would be almost impossible to say, ‘no’.
If they were autonomous, it wuold be difficult to say ‘no’.
We’ll see what the constitution comes up with.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Since military weakness combined with rich natural resources, is nothing less than provocative, American bases (airbases at least) will help everybody, by taking regional wars (for oil) off the table.
July 5th, 2005 at 6:07 am
I think the car manufacturecd in Iran is called the Pride. Something like that anyway (looked it up. Pride and Paykan). They’ve been making cars there since the Shah’s time.
http://www.ameinfo.com/46564.html
July 5th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Other Models for Iraq
I note this thoroughly sane and measured post from Dan Morgan over at nospeedbumps, who notes that while the ‘debate’ rages over when and how to pull out of Iraq, the better course for our own interests is to maintain a presence there for as long as …
July 5th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Recovery And Its Discontents
Roger L. Simon links to a post at Nospeedbumps.com that explains which nation has had the fastest growing economy over the last two years:There are practical reasons why most Iraqis may decide that it is better if some American forces…
July 5th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Gwedd;
Excellent points. And as far as “One situation that could require us to leave is if the U.S. presence continues to serve as a permanent magnet for attracting terrorists to Iraq” goes, I think it’s a misconception. It is more the US’ democracy project which is attracting the jihadists. Removing the troops will not stop the jihadists’ efforts to turn back the clock; in fact, it is likely to attract even more as they see the opportunity to crush a non-theocracy.
Josh’s inane comments are shipwrecked on the belittling of the mullahs’ power; the bit about “approving candidates” is the rock that rips the guts out of Iranian democracy. Since the only candidates approved are the ones who defer in all things to the Governing Council, only sham governments can ever exist there. This is so obvious I feel embarrassed to point it out, but it seems to be necessary for some “useful fools”.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Josh, both Jordan and Kuwait have a functioning Parliment. I believe Kuwait even allows women to vote.
There is no “King” of Syria. Assad is a dictator with a similar bunch of criminals to those who Saddma enabled.
Howard and I disagree about Iraq. I think they have a decent chance at stability. Remember that Saddam’s regime was secular, so the Iraqis don’t have two or three generations of indoctrination into radical Islam. What they do have is a couple generations of the “nanny” state, and everything good coming from the government, and that may be the toughest to overcome.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
The point about Iraq’s economic growth is off the mark. The same source you quote also states: “The high percentage gain estimated for GDP in 2004 is the result of starting from a low base.” This is better illustarted by the chart at http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/images/ch2_anxD_img01.jpg
Point being, there is economic growth relative to the immediate postwar timeframe, when tremendous amounts if the national infrastructure was looted and destroyed. Growth in GDP relative to 2000 is flat. The average Iraqi is almost certainly very happy with the economic growth of the last couple years, but to assume that they’ll attribute this to American involvment is dangerously naive. The Iraqi economy has recovered to a point roughly equivalent to before we went in. This is not something to be bragging about, and it certainly isn’t a motive for Iraqi support for a continued American presence.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
Recall when, in Lebanon, Reagan sent troops to protect Arafat and his cronies while they were escorted out of the country? Then some bright fellas said, “Now that we’re here, why not stay?”. Forget that ‘two week’ stuff, let’s set up a base and stabilize Lebanon, right? That was shortly before a 250 of our troops were killed and Reagan raced to pull out.
I take it you’re another bright fella advocating that we should go back on our word and set up house in Iraq now. people like you are the reason we have written contracts…..
July 6th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
So how’s the Koolaid taste? I prefer the cherry cyanide favor, myself.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
If building bases is something that is legitimate and desired by both the Iraqis and the international community, why do it “quietly”?
How would we like it if some world power unilaterally decided to build bases on our soil. You know . . . “quietly,” and all that. How do you think we would feel about that?
Also, does Iraq have a “sovereign” government? Yes or no? If it does, what should we do if the “sovereign” government isn’t too jazzed about the idea of a permanent foreign military presence on its soil?
Put down the Kool-Aid, check into rehab. There’s hope for you yet.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Chuck,
When I said “quietly” I did not me to be clandestine about it. That is hardly possible when Iraq is in the news around the world on a daily basis. I meant be very respectful of the Iraqis while putting in bases. U.S. public officials should not make sweeping pronouncements about it. Misspoken words by public officials regarding bases could easily offend Iraqis. So by quiet, I meant stepping vary carefully.
You say: “what should we do if the “sovereign” government isn’t too jazzed about the idea of a permanent foreign military presence on its soil?”
I was clear on this. I wrote: “To be clear, if at any time the Iraqis collective decide that they think it is time for us to go, and their elected leaders tell us that it is time to go, then we should leave.”
July 7th, 2005 at 4:44 am
‘How would we like it if some world power unilaterally decided to build bases on our soil. You know . . . “quietly,” and all that. How do you think we would feel about that?’
Let’s see, the German forces stationed on US soil, you know, seem to have been moved there without much debate, one might nearly say rather “quietly” .
… You didn’t know there were German forces stationed on US soil? …
(If you wonder how I know about it, a German soldier in the circle of my acquaintances married an American girl he met while stationed in the US)
http://www.sweetliberty.org/news8.htm
July 7th, 2005 at 7:40 am
hmmmmm. I like the concept, but am troubled by the memory of South Vietnam. That ended (for us) badly. They seem to be better off now, tho. what do others think?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
[...] th Considering I have supported the Iraq military efforts from the beginning and still do. However, it is important to listen to responsible and reasonable critics. The critic that I take mos [...]
September 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
[...] democracy will continue to strengthen and take deeper roots. Gradually U.S. forces can stay more on bases in Iraq, and we can let Iraqis do most of the fighting. The U.S. and our allies can use these b [...]
October 15th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
[...] timate test is after we fully withdraw. But that will not be for a long, long time. We can withdraw more to bases to get our troops more out of harm’s way, and help Iraqis more in a background role. [...]
October 19th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
[...] nger than that. We are still in Japan and Germany 60 years later. Once our troops are on permanent bases in Iraq, and do far less patrolling, U.S. casualties will drop substantially. Then the opposition [...]
November 19th, 2005 at 12:06 am
[...] a and like-minded Islamic radicals. The opposite of withdrawal is needed. We need to put permanent bases in Iraq. (Okay, we can’t call them permanent and sound diplomatic, just like we don’t [...]
December 11th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
[...] ermanent Bases in Iraq I have been saying for some time that in Iraq we need to put in bases that are, to use an undiplomatic term, permanent. Permanent really means that they are there indefini [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
[...] nd countries below $3,000 are almost bound to fail. In July of 2005, I proposed that we establish permanent bases in Iraq as a basis for continuing to help Iraqi democracy succeed – but while gett [...]
March 8th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
[...] As I have said often, we need to be quietly building permanent bases in Iraq (see here, here, here, and here). Former Senator Gary Hart thinks differently, as he stated in an interview with Dick [...]
March 21st, 2006 at 10:25 pm
[...] president to decide when to bring them all home. Yes, we are in Iraq for years to come, as we should be. If the violence can be brought within a manageable level, Iraq will do fine. The Kurds are alread [...]
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
[...] at stake, it makes no sense. I have consistently said here at NoSpeedBumps that we need permanent bases in Iraq. (And sorry, but that is what is going to happen.) The idea is to help assure that democra [...]
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:53 pm
[...] at stake, it makes no sense. I have consistently said here at NoSpeedBumps that we need permanent bases in Iraq. (And sorry, but that is what is going to happen.) The idea is to help assure that democra [...]