Bush Leaves The Bubble
The latest meme in the national press is that Bush is too isolated, too scripted a president; well, that certainly wasn’t the case today:
Bush unexpectedly invited questions from the audience and immediately was asked about the number of Iraqi casualties in the war.
“I would say 30,000 more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis,” the president said. “We’ve lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.”
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said later that Bush’s estimate of the number of Iraqis killed was not an official figure but that the president was simply repeating public estimates reported in the media.
Another questioner challenged the administration’s linkage of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the Iraq war. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was a threat and he was widely believed to have weapons of mass destruction — a belief that later proved false.
“I made a tough decision,” Bush said. “And knowing what I know today I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.”
That’s refreshing candor, and the 30,000 passes the smell test; it is indeed in line with reputable estimates, and of course, far lower than the 100,000 of the discredited Lancet study that still gets flogged by the President’s opponents daily.
Still, 30,000 or 100,000, that’s a tremendously large number of deaths, and all the more reason to hope that the success of this week’s elections, with their almost assured higher Sunni turnout, will take some of the glow off of the insurgency; for surely, even the most rabid anti-war zealot must acknowledge that the majority of those casualties have not been inflicted by the U.S., particularly of late.
This is the kind of frank talking that is long overdue…Bush continues to impress, and his comeback from a month or two ago is undeniable…
The Q&A was terrific–he was relaxed, confident–very human. The more of this the merrier, that’s what I say.
Don’t you think your standards for “refreshing candor” are ridiculously low? Bush says he regrets the deaths of 30,000 Iraqis, and you make it sound like he’s bearing his soul to the nation. And is this really speaking without a script? Throwing a few, reasonably coherent sentences together? The man is President of the USA, not a 7 year old.
Sorry, Mark, but I think your expectations of Bush are so low – perhaps without you even realizing it – that his ability to actually answer a question without sounding like an idiot is somehow proof that he’s back in his groove.
I saw that article on MSNBC (Mostly Slanted News) too. There were many negative stories out today that reflected on Bush. As if the DNC called up the LSM and told them the Bush’s poll numbers are getting too high again and to crank up the rhetoric.
Our illustrious newspaper, the Kansas City “Red” Star had a front page article entitled “Recession looming some fear”. I am sure that they could find someone who thought the economy was going south somewhere, probably over at UMKC (University of Missouri Kangaroo College). Also saw a poll stating that most Iraqi’s want the US out of their country. Well duh, we want them home too.
The LSM needs an enema to clean out all their bovine scatology.
Well, Joe, I don’t want a president who bares his soul to the nation; I want one who leads. Nevertheless, Bush has been accused of being relentlessly sunny and impervious to criticism; do you think he relishes the thought that 30,000 Iraqis are dead?
I’m not basing the feeling that he’s got back his groove on this story; I’m basing it on recent polling, a more assertive stance towards his critics, the flameout of PlameGate, many, many factors…
Well, Joe, I don’t want a president who bares his soul to the nation; I want one who leads.
Beautiful, Mark. Thanks for that.
Nevertheless, Bush has been accused of being relentlessly sunny and impervious to criticism; do you think he relishes the thought that 30,000 Iraqis are dead?
Huh? Firstly, what does being impervious to criticism have to do with acknowledging that around 30k Iraqis have died? This number is more or less agreed by everyone. So “Bush admits people are dying” = “refreshing candor”. OK. Like I said, the bar is quite low…
Secondly, of course he doesn’t relish the fact that these people have died. So what? He’s a normal human being.
If recent polling is moving in Bush’s favor (btw, I thought only Clinton looked at popularity polls?), I suppose this is because it can’t dip much lower. He will always have his 35% hardcore followers (hint: mirror), so he’s bottomed out.
And I also liked the “flameout of PlameGate”. Very witty. And of course the unmentioned “many, many factors…” Riiiight.
Try to slip out of partisan mode for a minute and think. Bush answers a few questions without making a fool of himself, admits that people have died in Iraq, and you make it sound as if he’s just delivered Gettysburg Address II. That he’s “out of his bubble”. And back in his groove.
Joe perhaps is missing a certain someone who always emoted, never was at a loss for words, and was glib to a fault. How effective a leader he was of course is debatable, but we could always count on his “feeling our pain” ad nauseum. In other words, quite an Oprahesque character, for want of a better term.
Gettysburg Address II? Come off it…I said he left the script and got out of his bubble…and I think the facts back it up…if you want to disagree, of course, you’re welcome to…
You say “Bush answered a few questions without making a fool of himself” and accuse me of being in partisan mode.
Pot, meet…oh, you know the rest…
Oh, and the many, many other factors you scoff at:
(1) the fact that the Iraqis are about to vote this week.
(2) the fact that they are optimistic,
(3) the fact the Republican congressional candidates are begging Bush to campaign for them.
(4) the fact that Democrats have gone too far in their criticism of Iraq and are once again the party of defeat and retreat.
(5) the fact that Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton, the acknowledged Democratic frontrunners, are endorsing Bush’s Iraq policy in deed if not in word.
And that’s just five off the top of my head…
dmac: Please. I vote more Republican than Democrat. It’s just that I’m not blind by partisan BS when I look at Bush and his communication skills. And I repeat, he is so bad that even minimal disclosure (e.g. admitting a lot of people have died in the war, a fact that nobody disputes) becomes “refreshing candor”. The only question is if his inability to be truly candid, truly open and honest about what is happening in Iraq, is due to ignorance, political expediency, or simply the fact he’s a terrible communicator.
My guess is willful ignorance. He doesn’t want to hear bad news so it’s simple yes/no questions to Cheney/Rumsfeld (“Are we winning”, “Can the troops come home next year”), then ESPN and bed by 9. At one time I thought it was not so important to have an intellectual in the White House, so long as he surrounded himself with good people. But now I see I was wrong. Intellectual curiousity matters, especially in today’s world.
By the way, if you’re really interested in building traffic here (I came from ALTHOUSE), perhaps you should look at market differentiation. LGF already exists, so I’m not sure if it makes sense to try to duplicate it here. Repeating Hannity or Rush talking points (“flameout of Phlamegate”) is hardly interesting. Those guys already do that, and by definition Hannity will always be a better Hannity.
It’s not about chaining yourself to the boys at Pajamas. It’s about being interesting, really having something new to say, keeping at it, and a bit of luck. If a Blog reads like a Republican Party mass mailing, well…. Who wants more advertising? Just a thought. Good luck to you!
OK, last comment.
(1) the fact that the Iraqis are about to vote this week.
Firstly, I would hope the vote is about the Iraqis, not about Bush getting a bounce in the polls. Secondly, it will be a minor blip. The killing will not stop, the insurgency is growing. Just look at the number of monthly attacks on US forces, or the number of Americans dying. There is no improvement. Bush knows his only political hope is to pretend he has a strategy for “winning the war in Iraq” (whatever that means anymore) or bring the troops home or both. So he’ll start bringing troops home in 2006, while claiming (wrongly) that Iraqi security forces are now capable to go it alone.
(2) the fact that they are optimistic,
Are you referring to the latest poll from Iraq? Did you actually read it? 65% “oppose the US presence” in Iraq! 78% have “not much” or “no confidence” in the coalition! Those are good numbers? Iraqis are optimistic, but that does not translate into goodwill for our soldiers. In fact, it’s “religious leaders” in Iraq who are most respected according to the poll, and by huge margins. I hope that is setting off alarm bells in your head.
(3) the fact the Republican congressional candidates are begging Bush to campaign for them.
This I have no idea about.
(4) the fact that Democrats have gone too far in their criticism of Iraq and are once again the party of defeat and retreat.
The party of “defeat and retreat”?? Wow, you’re a right-wing Jessie Jackson. Maybe that’s your niche: conservative poetry.
(5) the fact that Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton, the acknowledged Democratic frontrunners, are endorsing Bush’s Iraq policy in deed if not in word.
I repeat, it’s not about Democrats or Republicans. Almost all politicians are opportunistic whores. They’ll do or say anything for power. It’s about admitting your expectations of Bush are so low that a few coherent sentences give hope.
Our political system churns out these kinds of people. Who else could survive the brutal elections process? Bush or Clinton, all cut from the same cloth. You would think as a nation we could do a lot better.
Joe, I wish you well, too, but if you think you can come here, read a couple of posts, and determine that I’m a carbon copy of LGF with nothing interesting to say, well, thank you very much, I’ve done quite well on my own and your consulting services are no longer needed…
Joe-
Just curious: “…the insurgency is growing.”
Does anyone on your side of this debate actually have a single statistic to indicate that?
Can we not recall when the insurgency was mounting actual platoon-sized assaults (see Abu Ghaib attack last spring)? There’s an enormous difference in the size of insurgency required to have fifty gunmen mounting an assault, versus a team burying a roadside bomb.
Can we not recall territorial gains? Symbolic ones like the road to Baghdad’s airport, and serious ones like Sadr City, Fallujah, Ramadi — cities that once were held by armed opposition forces setting up their own rule over the local populations, now held by Iraqi and coalition forces.
Insurgency ‘growing’? Are you discounting all of the groups that were under arms against us two years ago, but are now fighting at our side (see Sadr’s militia and other early Shiite insurgents, more recently see Sunnis militias negotiating with the Iraqi government and participating in the elections)?
Are you ignoring the radical shift in opinion in Iraq and on the proverbial “Arab Street” turning against AQ and especially against AQ in Iraq and Zarqawi? How about the Sunni insurgents declaring hostility to AQ in the runup to the election?
I’m reminded of the scholars who twenty years ago were writing desperate screeds about how the Soviet Union had never been stronger, and how Gorbachev’s reforms would lead to their inevitable victory in the Cold War.
(Also… just in passing: “Can the troops come home next year?” is not even close to being a simple yes/no question.)
I spoke recently with a Jordanian friend of mine who divides his time between California and Jordan — he told me that the “Arab Street” turning against Al Qaeda is due to the many attacks they have made against Muslims (e.g., the recent bombings in Amman hotels) –
It’s interesting the note the miscalculations each side has made. Al Qaeda struck in 9/11 because they did not expect retribution, and then got kicked out of Afghanistan and opened a rift with their sponsors. After succeeding in Afghanistan, Bush overplays his hand and attacks a country which is peripheral to Al Qaeda, giving Osama Bin Ladin the recruiting tool he needs. Al Qaeda then overplays its hand and alienates those who might support it. It would be like the Keystone Kops if it were not so tragic.
Bush wouldn’t be ‘reconciling’ unless this thing is over.
You don’t offer up a number like 30,000 without a lot of thought. Where in the past two-three years it would have been used for ammo in the ‘get bush’ theme of the dems and the world, it is clearly a sign that this thing is over.
70% of Iraqi’s are hopefully, and the Iraqi’s want us out-(noticed that NOW was not part of the question, but soon…)
Mission accomplished. The insurgency is not growing, as it is evident that the towns under the futre Iraqi governments control are pushing out to the Syrian border.
Casualties remain between 2-3 per day, but once the US turns the control over to the IRaqis, that number will drop.
Defining victory? Depose a dictator with the largest standing army in the ME, move a dictatorship to a representative government, repair and improve infrastructure…in under three years.
The influx of foreign trade and local businesses would not be occurring if the situation remained untenable.
The dems will try and make this war seem like a complete loss. I wish them luck. I have met with members of NG, and regular army, and they are as ecstatic over their success and the purpose of their mission, as the dems are pessimistic. Who’s word am I going to take? Who’s word will the American people take? Remember: Dems approval in Congress is lower than the Republicans, and significantly lower than the Presidents. Crediblity is strained, but it would seem the dems are suffering the most.
I anticipate the memorial for the fallen in DC. Will it be a monument to the success of our soldiers, or a monument to their Bush’s failures?
I see Cindy Sheehan has 12 ‘gold star members’ with her, what about the 10,000 other family memebers who have lost a father, mother, daughter, brother….enjoy explaining to them what a failure they took part in.
peter, I have a friend or two with contacts in the Middle East, too, but I never get any good information out of them – they are so consumed with hatred of Bush that it’s useless.
If I said the sky was blue, they would say ‘That’s what Bush wants you to think – but you don’t understand the roots of the conflict!’…
Well, this is a guy who came to America and made a gazillion dollars starting and selling a software business, so he sees things from both sides — also, his father was in the military but could not advance past a certain level because he was Christian, and I think that influenced him a lot –
“Bush overplays his hand and attacks a country which is peripheral to Al Qaeda…”
But not peripheral to the ME-which happens to be the recruiting ground of terrorists. Saddam is openly paying for suicide bomber, despite sanctions. The sanctions were failing, Saddam had bribed three members of the security council at the UN…sanctions would be lifted and Saddam would have been the stick in the eye of US policy in the ME, until he died, and then his sons contiuued where he left off…
There was no other way to resolve Iraq.
If there was another way, I have NEVER heard a democrat suggest it. The ‘peace’ we got from Gulf War I, failed. Failed worse than anything Bush has done.
If some posters here have an alternate solution to achieving a semblance of peace in the ME, without invading Iraq, let’s hear it…
If the Middle East is the recruiting ground for terrorists, then you don’t solve the problem by invading a Muslim country, keeping American troops on the ground, humiliating detainees at Abu Ghraib, and in countless other ways providing everything an Al Qaeda recruitment officer could possibly hope for.
An alternate solution? The recognition that many of the conflicts in the Middle East have existed for centuries and are beyond our control — so “achieving a semblance of peace” there may be beyond the reach of American diplomacy and military power. As for Iraq, I believe we would be better off as things were pre-invasion, even with Hussein in power, so our resources could be applied to Iran and North Korea, who I believe are more serious threats.
Hey Joe, if you actually had read this site for at least, oh, I don’t know, at least one week, you’d know full well that it’s hardly a talking points bulletin for the RNC. In fact, moderates like myself and the far righties often duke it out here on a daily basis.
LGF is a good site, but you know where they’re going almost every day, at least with regards to their discussion threads. Mark looks for consensus from many different points of view, there’s no dogmatic themes expressed here.
And yes, I’ve voted Democratic as often as I’ve voted Republican – so save your narrow analysis for a site you’ve actually spent more than 48 hours on, if you please.
“An alternate solution? The recognition that many of the conflicts in the Middle East have existed for centuries and are beyond our control….”
The problem is that nuclear and biological tech weren’t readily available for centuries…they are now.
To look at the changes in the ME that have occurred, after the invasion of Iraq, and find no regional progress is simply naive.
Your alternative solution suggests also that since the ME is inhabited by a violent people, in the perpetual state of conflict, smacks of racism. A very democratic sentiment.
Your alternate solution is to ignore the problem. Not really a plan, is it?
We won’t be keeping troops there for a long time. The Iraqi’s will ask us to leave, and we will only be in countries that welcome our presense. (Kuwait)
Al Queda recruitment is not the problem. 19 killed 3000. Before we ever went to Iraq/Afghanistan they had a pool of 10,000 to draw upon. It doesn’t matter if there are 100 terrorists, or 100,000-we would never succeed in placating all parties. We never will.
btw…nader in 96.
True, nuclear weaponry is now available, which is why I think our resources are better applied to countries which apparently already have it (North Korea, loose nukes in Russia) and are close to getting it (Iran) than a country which was years from going nuclear (Iraq).
Is there regional progress in the Middle East? There is some, principally in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Would this have happened independently of an American invasion of Iraq? Yes. Has much else changed in the Middle East? Not really. (Saudi Arabia is still a feudal kingdom, Egypt still a quasi-democracy, Syria about the same, Iran more belligerent).
Well, the history of the Middle East is rife with conflict. That’s a fact, whether it is politically correct to say it or not. I don’t think that it is a racist statement (not only because it is factual, but also because there are plenty of Muslim countries outside the Middle East which are peaceful).
We won’t have troops there for a long time? Articles in the press have suggested that we will keep bases there for years to come, and the Bush administration has pointedly declined to say that after an American troop drawdown, the bases will be handed to the Iraqis.
I believe there is a big difference between 100 terrorists and 100,000 terrorists. I prefer 100 terrorists.
Diplomatic solutions have worked with Iran and North Korea?
Wow, we should have tried more ‘diplomacy’ with Iraq. It seems to be working behind the resolve of old Europe, I mean its not like we had to fight in Kosovo, their backyard, for them.
(Is it possible that taking Saddam out before he went nuclear, was a good idea…?)
feckless countries get what they deserve, political irrelevance. That the US would take action without them, is wrong?
Peter-
What resources do you believe we have been unable to apply to issues with Russia, NoKo or Iran because those resources are being spent on Iraq? Surely you don’t mean to suggest that we would have sent ground troops into North Korea, if only they weren’t in Iraq?!
MTL-
I’m with Peter on one thing — we’ll have troops in Iraq for a very long time, just at vastly lower levels than now. A year from now, we’ll probably have very few ground troops (mostly trainers and military advisers and special forces) but substantial air bases, and perhaps armor. We’ll have a vastly smaller footprint, but we’ll still be there to support Iraqi counterinsurgency efforts, and to deter Iran and Syria from any large-scale mischief.
I’m not suggesting that diplomatic pressure alone would work for Iran and North Korea — it would gave to be backed by the credible threat of force — and if force were used, Iran and N Korea are more appropriate targets than Iraq –
NK and Iran were better targets than Iraq
…..ohhh kaaayyy.
Funny thing about the earlier ‘creating terrorists’ theory, Bush picked up 12 million more votes relative to 2000….
Is this because the public agreed with his policies, or disagreed with the Democratic strategy?
Either 12 million new voters got suckered in by Bush, or the democrats found a way to alienate 12 million US citizens into voting against them. Is our foreign policy wonderful…no. We kill people and our soldiers die…everything else about is seems pretty good. And in the absense of a democratic plan…
peter:
Re: North Korea, how do you propose to mount a *credible threat of force* against a megalomaniacal loon who is strongly believed to have nuclear weapons? There’s a reason why no country in possession of nukes has ever been invaded.
As for Iran, what I suspect would work best of all would be a huge helping of covert support for the growing opposition to the mullahs, particularly that part of the population under thirty. From what little I’ve seen in the MSM, they really don’t seem interested in spending the rest of their lives living in a radical theocracy.
The comparison of Iraq with North Korea is a tricky one. In my opinion, North Korea is vastly more dangerous. They apparently already have nukes, and their leader is a certifiable nut job. However, with Seoul about a twenty minute drive from the border, military intervention there is vastly more dangerous than Iraq. There are military measures short of outright intervention which may be able to get North Korea to agree to intrusive inspections: a naval blockade, pinpoint strikes, big time saber rattling. It is impossible to predict what irrational people will do, but there is certainly a strong likelihood that Kim Jong Il would give up his nukes if the Navy were patrolling his waters.
As to why Bush’s 2004 vote was larger than 2000: there are lots of reasons, not least of which is the ineptitude of his opponent. I certainly don’t think it is a mandate for any specific policy, especially considering that the margin was razor-thin. As you recall, we didn’t know for hours after the polls closed who won, and it was a single state which decided the outcome. Hardly the stuff of mandates.
Last democrat to break 50%?
HRC was actually the person who started this silly ‘mandate’ term, with 42% of the popular vote…I agree 51% is hardly a mandate…but also an impossiblity for dems to achieve.
“not least of which is the ineptitude of his opponent.”
Who still is one of the many front men for the confusion that is the democratic message on Iraq.
North Korea?
The solution already exists. It is called assassination. The Chinese already have several teams ready to go. That is what the six party talk is all about…who gets NK after they kill him.
SK is logical, but they don’t want the hit to their economy. China doesn’t want them spilling over, any worse than half a million have already done.
The answer is already known,
but nobody wants to clean up the mess that is left afterwards. They have no trade partners to upset.
Iran is closer to a revolution than any other ME country. Several imprisonments and executions have been overturned, for fear of inciting an overthrow. Last revolution was by students, and guess what? The students are going to do it again.
Iraq was the only country that was incapable of overthrowing their chief, NK and Iran are on the bubble. The Iranians are one of the most progressive countries in the ME, despite the propoganda portraying them as religious nuts.
Iraq was on its way to being the next NK, but independent of foreign support due to the wealth of their country, they could go on forever. Countries breaking sanctions-see China, France, Germany, Russia-3 of which are on the security council…undermine any economic sanctions.
Not to bring up WJC, but he was the custodian of the Iraq sanctions…maybe a reason why the Europeans miss him so much.
Also worth noting that the oil for Russia, China, and France(the three security council members) are directly under control of their government…if a private company broke the sanctions, those governments could have fined them, and squeezed money out of them…hard to do when the govt is the oil company…but I digress into an anti-socialism rant…
Peter-
Second part of the question remains: how exactly has our effort in Iraq prevented our naval forces from blockading North Korea, if that’s what we should do? I would suggest we have more than sufficient naval forces in the north pacific to easily blockade North Korea. (Of course, preventing them from trading by land with China and Russia would be much trickier.)
MTL-
“Last democrat to break 50%?”
Oooh! I know this one. If 50.1% counts, then you just have to go back to 1976. Most of us were alive for that, right? If you want someone who actually topped Bush’s 2004 count of 50.7%, then you need to go all the way back to 1964. How many commenters here were old enough to vote for that one???
Clint: you may be right that we have enough military resources to blockade North Korea and occupy Iraq simultaneously, but I question whether we have enough resources to fight on two fronts in the event that North Korea became a hot war. Or if we were fighting wars on two fronts, would that embolden a third country to try to get away with something? What would we do if, for example, Iran attacked Isreal? Or China attacked Taiwan? I’m not a military analyst and I don’t pretend to be one — but it seems intuitive that with 150,000 men in Iraq, plus those who support them outside Iraq, that our ability to engage in military conflict elsewhere is severely limited –
Re 1964: not old enough to vote (the first vote I cast was for George McGovern) but old enough to remember seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan –
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/maps/world/fullpage.troop.deployments/world.index.html
Good link which will show you available troops. We can fight on two fronts. But I think we are done with major conflicts for some time.
If we ever attack NK, he has all his guns trained on SK. First salvo kills 200,000 and decimates all trade with a top ten economy. Global recession would be the least of our worries. 22 million impoverished NK’s become ours. In the immortal words of Colin Powell, ‘you break it, you buy it’. (Notice that Iraq actually has resources, while NK is lucky to have living trees, after the bark has been peeled off for food. In part, when some speculated that the oil would pay for the war, it might have held the consideration that we will not be making the investments that a war in any other country would carry.)
Troop level is less important if you have the tech to back up your soldiers. We have the best tech.
We don’t send as many as we have in Iraq, unless we are going to occupy another Country, and that ain’t gonna happen for some time, if ever again.
Clint-
“I’m with Peter on one thing — we’ll have troops in Iraq for a very long time”.
I disagree. The final act of legitimacy of the Iraqi’s government will be- quickly showing us the door. After the elections it will come quickly. The Iraqis have a 68% approval of their police, army, and religious leaders, seperately. This is consistent withe the 70% who believe things are going well. (Hidden in the 70%, is the fact that there are three provinces that are dragging the poll down, which means the number in the peaceful provinces are much higher.) That 70% want us to leave is one of the healthiest signs yet, but the press has interpreted this to be a bad thing. As confidence grows in their own ability, they will develop a stronger resentment to our presense, at which point the true leaders, who will ask us to leave, emerge.
We might make a half measure, by moving into Kurdish areas, but this will help legitimize the solidarity of the country, when the non-kurdish request our departure, and the kurds accept it and echo the sentiment.
The press will have a field day on that, but it is true birth of a country-something good. We are near the point that the Iraqi’s are capable of doing what we are doing, in clearing insurgents. The must find their unity, first in fighting insurgents, and then bidding the US adieu. A month after we leave, no more bombings will occur and we maintain good relations-cue happy ending.
The mission was to install a representative government-Dec 15th is the beginning of the end. I think that Murtha knows we are getting out faster than expected-(expected by the press). He wants to make it look like the dems had a plan, and knew that it was time to go. If we have 20,000 in country in June 06, the pressure will be on the Iraqi National govt to get us out. It is demoralizing and demeaning to stay any further, making them look like puppets of the US or too incompetent to do their own work. Whatever….
Iraq will never be a soveriegn country so long as we remain.
After the elections, why would we stay? They have their government, their army, their police.
Then we sit back for 10 years and wonder if we did a good thing…I think we did.
Peter-
I’ll gladly agree that in principle one cost of any military action is that those troops aren’t sitting at home at high readiness should they be needed elsewhere. In practice, however… in none of the examples you’ve mentioned would our position be stronger if the troops in Iraq were instead training in Topeka. Also, keep in mind that the number of troops in Iraq is still less than half of our foreign-deployed troops, and only slightly more than 10% of our total active-duty personel (and a smaller fraction if you count in reserves and national guard, who make up a significant portion of the forces in Iraq).
Big picture: we’re unlikely to face another Gulf War scale ground war anywhere outside of the Middle East in the next decade.
China-Taiwan: Zero chance this will result in our sending ground troops into mainland China. If this does flare up, it’s probably a naval war, and in any case will be over more quickly than we could mobilize a division of infantry and bring them from the continental U.S. to Taiwan. If Taiwan needs more ground troops than the marines we’ve got available in the south Pacific, China has already won (they’ll have enough troops to secure an airport, and fly in more troops than we’ll be willing to face).
North Korea: If this one turns into a massive “hot” ground war, everyone loses. And an extra hundred thousand U.S. troops in Topeka wouldn’t be much help, and if they were stationed in Korea would primarily just increase our casualties in the opening artillery salvo.
Iran-Israel: In this case, I think we’re actually in a vastly stronger position than if we weren’t in Iraq. (As with pressuring Syria or the Saudis) Our armed forces could launch an attack on Iran far more quickly from their present positions in Iraq than they could from half way round the world in Kansas. Not only that… but Iranian troops would have to come through Iraq to get at Israel… unless they wanted to go around (through our massive fleet presence in the Gulf). Israel has never been more secure — part of the reason Sharon has been willing to take such big risks with Gaza.
Also…
MTL wrote: “Troop level is less important if you have the tech to back up your soldiers. We have the best tech.”
Excellent point. And our tech is getting better and better, thanks in part to trial-by-fire in Iraq.
MTL-
I don’t disagree with any of your reasoning. I just think those political considerations will lead to the bulk of our infantry leaving — while much of what might be termed “support” will remain: air bases, signal intelligence, “trainers” and “advisors” (i.e. special forces), a fleet in the Gulf, enough armor to dissuade Syria and Iran from actually invading.
While it’s true that there’s strong consensus on our eventually leaving, it’s more of a Saint Augustine (i.e. “Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet.”) sort of wish. Of course they resent needing us, but that doesn’t mean they don’t realize that they do.
We initially were training their army for conventional war (i.e. to dissuade Syria and Iran) — but we eventually changed gears, and are training them primarily for counter-insurgency, and even skimping on basic things like intelligence, air support, and logistics. We’re providing that, at the moment (see all of the smoke and drama over how many brigades are capable of operating “independently”). We can fill all of that training in later, say over the course of next year – but if we simply pull out, the counter-insurgency (particularly without our UAVs and air support) will get extremely messy.
We’ll pull out most of the light infantry, as their light infantry stands up. We’ll pull out our air support as their air force stands up — but they are farther behind on that, because it’s been (quite appropriately) a lower priority.
My suspicion — though I could be wrong — is that once the front-line, visible infantry presence is almost entirely Iraqi, the pressure for us to leave will mostly evaporate. Each of the three major ethnic communities has a neighboring boogeyman (Turkey for the Kurds, Syria for the Shiites, Iran for the Sunnis) who they hate and fear far more than they dislike us. I suspect we’ll end up “paying” for some semi-permanent military bases with military hardware, training and joint exercises… it’s a formula that’s worked wonders elsewhere in the world — including the Arab world.
To factor in with the boogey man theory-
The tentatacles that extend into the three regions-
Southern Iraq/Shiites border Iranian Shiites.
Northern Iraq/Kurds border Turkey, which has a lot of Kurds.
Western Iraq/Baathist borders Syria/Baathists.
If Civil War did break out-not likely-(but absolutely worst case scenarios must be prepared for) the borders of Iraq would crumble and a conflict among 4-8 ME countries(+ turkey) would ensue.
If the dems were in a vacuum, it would be their ‘best’ case scenario-it would be the one thing that might shift our Foreign Policy back to the dems.
ON the other hand, this is remarkably similar to the development of the US. Seperates states bonding together for a common cause-in our case get rid of the Brits, in the Iraqi’s case-spend oil revenue. If substantial capitalism takes over, and it has, no one in power wants to jeopardize their chance to increase wealth or waste the money they are making.
A civil war is not a pressing issue at this time, but must be guarded against over the next five years. The threat will remain though, for a much longer time.
Biggest dispute? How much oil do the Sunni’s have a right to…if left without financial support, they are extremely vulnerable. If the Kurds and Shiite share their revenues, it may come into dispute regarding how much they are actually reporting re:oil production.
The oil ministry is the hidden power in Iraq, moreso than even the presidency of Iraq. Further disputes may occur when the Kurds start pumping out of the North at a much faster rate-the port will quickly become the largest city in Iraq.
It will also prove extremely convenient, as the need to travel around Africa will be greatly diminished.
Soon the porous borders that are spilling into Iraq, will start going the other way. Iran will be watching their border, more closely than the Iraqi’s ever will…but that is three years down the road.
Clint: your points are very well taken — no argument with any of them — let me think this through some more — thx & rgds, Peter
MTL-
No argument about oil — that’s the single most important issue the new parliament will have to grapple with, though you lost me with the Kurds pumping oil to some port that doesn’t require shipping around Africa…
Saddam previously pumped oil south and (illegally) west to Syria. Running a pipeline thru Kurdish areas would have been a disaster.
5.2 million Kurd in Iraq. 14 million in Turkey. (Iraq’s current pop. is about 26 million.) Brace yourself for a major influx…the don’t have a country, but they have a section of a Country. (a particularily sticky problem if the oil money is divided by population)-If the Kurds relocate from turkey to Iraq-it should be noted that many moved to Turkey, fleeing Saddam, but were still treated as second class citizens in Turkey. (This has the hallmarks of a Kurdish ‘Israel’.)
My error on the port, I keep forgetting Turkey is independent-and rememeber Mosul being on the water(its the Tigris though, and while technically a port, definitely not a sea port) -but the principal is the same. A pipeline could be as easily run across Turkey to Iskendurun-they alredy exist, but not on the scale that could address the potential supply for the demand of oil; it is the same distance south to the Gulf as it is North and East to the Medditeranean. Oil freighter would have to make less Gulf trips, circumventing the Persian Gulf. Russian oil would also find a more accesible market as well- so Turkey would benefit from the pipeline and the security of Russia close proximity.
Mosul will likely have a population of 10 million over the next ten years…the long term plan is to keep the influx gradual, allowing for a gradual pop adjustment. (Probably won’t happen though.) If the Shiites and Sunnis push it, they know they could have a break on their hands-but if the oil is adjusted by population-you might just see an equivalent influx from Iran…who knows.
OPEC is going to have to deal specifically with Kurds…
Accessiblity would increase the profit margin, allowing for a generous payment to Turkey for the line.
Sorry about the ‘port’ statement…
[...] Pro-war bloggers are almost always silent whenever the latest Iraqi police station is blown up or guests at another Iraqi wedding party are slaughtered by American bombs. Why is that silence less revealing than the relative silence of war critics about the elections? George Bush recently revealed that he believes that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives as a result of this war — 30,000 Iraqi civilians dead– and I don’t recall reading much in pro-war precincts about that. Well, you did hear about it from this pro-war blogger…but as to the larger point about why we don’t blog about the slaughter of guests at wedding parties – because it is a random act of violence, and to compare that to millions of Iraqis voting in free elections is moral cowardice of the worst sort. [...]