home

`Bunker` mode for U.S. bases in Iraq

Kevin Drum at `The Washington Monthly` blog asks a very important question in his article, `REVOLT AT THE PENTAGON?`:

Second, even if the generals do stand their ground, can someone explain how this makes sense? We're not fixing things now even with 168,000 troops, and if we draw down we're supposedly going to unleash a massive civil war. So what are 50,000 troops in scattered outposts going to do while that's going on? Hunker down? Head out and get slaughtered? Evacuate? I just don't see how this makes any sense at all.

As Mr. Drum asks, what are 50,000 American troops scattered around Iraq at various Forward Operating Bases going to do?  

From August until November, 2006, I was in Iraq.  I traveled from Al Faw to Tikrit.  I briefly visited the Forward Operating Bases (FOB) at Talil, Balad and Tikrit.

It is no secret by now that President Bush not only wants to occupy Iraq, but force regime change in Iran and Syria.  By all indications, it will be by force, if necessary.

So, as Mr. Drum asks, what would a reduced American force in Iraq actually do, especially with the Iraqi opinion that attacking American soldiers is acceptable:

Fifty-one percent said they thought it was "acceptable" for "other people" to attack coalition forces. In the 2004 survey, 17 percent said such attacks were acceptable.

This March, 2007, poll is telling in its wording; `other people`.  It is telling because the average Iraqi isn't inclined to violence against United States forces; but the militia's are a different story.  Unlike the American bases in places like Germany, Japan, and Korea, the reality in Iraq is that you travel in Iraq without armed escort at your own peril.  

The August, 2007, poll shows a few slight shifts in who the Iraqi's blame for the violence, however, the prevailing attitude of "leave now" rose:

Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February.

However, the August poll has one staggering statistic in it:

One of starkest statistics from the poll is the overwhelming support for attacks on coalition forces among Iraq's minority Sunni population; 93% of those surveyed said they considered it acceptable.

In fact, 57% of all Iraqi's now believe it is acceptable for there to be attacks on coalition forces, whereas, in the above poll, it was 51%.  Let's not forget that the 51% was up from 17%.

Mr. Drum answered his own question; yes, American troops would, in fact, hunker down behind the walls, the wire, and rarely, if ever, travel outside of the base.

Politicians, for the price of our government having their military bases in the Middle East, would condemn our troops stationed in Iraq to being little more than prisoners inside their own bases.

It cannot bear repeating enough; first it was 17%, then 51%, now 57% of Iraqi's that see attacking coalition forces as acceptable - and a full 93% of Sunni Arab's view attacking coalition forces as acceptable.

For the average American to imagine what our troops are going to be subjected to if we continue our presence in Iraq, I can only give you this comparison; lock yourself in a mall and do not leave for 12 - 15 months.

While I applaud the Democratic candidates for at least paying lip service to bringing our combat troops home, which of the "big 3" would remove our presence totally from Iraq?

John Edwards:  

Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops in Iraq within about a year and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over into other countries, creating a regional war, a terrorist haven, or a genocide.

Hillary Clinton:

The Democratic frontrunner has advocated "bringing the troops home," but she tells the newspaper she'd keep a reduced U.S. military force in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, discourage Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and perhaps assist the Iraqi military.

Barack Obama:

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

As you can see, while touting how they would bring home our combat forces, Clinton and Obama would leave forces in Iraq at the "enduring" bases (ie, permanent).  John Edwards would leave troops "in the region", which I assume, means in Kuwait.  

So, yes, I am here to tell Mr. Drum that "hunkering down" in the bases is exactly what our troops are going to have to do in Iraq.

< General Petreaus and Moveon.org Ad | In memoriam >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    As Mr. Drum asks, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    As Mr. Drum asks, what are 50,000 American troops scattered around Iraq at various Forward Operating Bases going to do?

    Just offhand, I would guess, protect the oil that everyone has forgotten about.

    PS - Nice post Michael.

    Oh by the way... (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    Oil hits $80 a barrel. Shall we shoot for a hundred?

    Parent
    Sure. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    Bomb Iran. It'll be over a hundred in no time. ;-)

    Parent
    Well, he'd better get cracking, (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    It is no secret by now that President Bush not only wants to occupy Iraq, but force regime change in Iran and Syria.  By all indications, it will be by force, if necessary.
    that's a lot to accomplish with the precious little time and resources he has remaining...

    A typo correction until I can figure out editing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Michael Gass on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:28:29 PM EST
    The troops, for the price of our government having their military bases in the Middle East, would condemn our troops stationed in Iraq to being little more than prisoners inside their own bases.  

    Should read:

    Politicians, for the price of our government having their military bases in the Middle East, would condemn our troops stationed in Iraq to being little more than prisoners inside their own bases.  

    I made the edit (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:53:28 AM EST
    for you.

    Parent
    thank you... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:22:53 AM EST
    I tried to edit it... but it would never change...

    Parent
    It took me awhile to figure this out (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:27:33 AM EST
    editing my own diaries Michael. I could not make the changes "take" unless I first made the changes, then chose "HTML Formatted" in the dropdown box just below the "Update", "Preview", "Delete" buttons before clicking "Update"

    Parent
    Great diary, Michael. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:34:34 AM EST
    For the average American to imagine what our troops are going to be subjected to if we continue our presence in Iraq, I can only give you this comparison; lock yourself in a mall and do not leave for 12 - 15 months.

    In the early '80's I worked for a year at Fox Main radar station in the high arctic on the DEW Line. 80 people at the station. No one else for more than a thousand miles in any direction. weather too extreme to go outside for six months of the year without very high risk of death from exposure.

    Occasionally we had to send people home because they became what we called "bushy" from the isolation. I can only imagine how much worse that isolation would have been if we'd been surrounded by and had very high risk of death from a hostile civilization just outside the gates.

    great post and comments (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    but you need to think this through a little more.  Now, this:

    I can only imagine how much worse that isolation would have been if we'd been surrounded by and had very high risk of death from a hostile civilization just outside the gates.

    You haven't gamed it out enough.  

    You're forgetting having mortars and RPGs whomp in on you any time, from any direction.  It's a truism that, in a hostile enviroment if you don't send out patrols beyond the wire to push the "bad guys" back, they'll come right up to your wire.  It's easier to hit your target if you're nearer it, after all.  So these guys won't be hunkered down behind the blast walls, at least not all the time.

    And, because patrolling is essentially a combat operation, politicians' statements notwithstanding, they will be on constant combat operations.  And, if you minimize patrols (to minimize combat operations), then you wind up pretty much requiring the inhabitants of the bases to engage in starting and ending their days with the Vietnam-era "mad minute" - everyone dumping everything in their bullet-launcher's clips downrange in a random spray for a minute or so.  Eats up a lot of ammo, sometimes kills an "enemy" sneaking up on the wire.  Very, very popular with the locals (/snarky sarcasm).

    And, what about little things like, um, getting food and water into these bases, let alone all that ammunition for the "mad minutes", spare parts, medical assistance and so on?  And we aren't even down to things like shoelaces, soap, razors, replacement clothes, and all the little crap that makes life bearable.  (I'm assuming they can get the oil by poking a stick in the ground....)

    Lesson 10 or 20 in my military education was summed up by the title:

    "Amateurs think about tactics, professionals think about logistics".

    The knuckleheads who want us to believe that we can keep half the number of troops in Iraq - a more hostile Iraq - and not engage in combat operations by keeping the troops in their bases are just blowing smoke.

    That, or they're inhaling stuff they shouldn't be.

    Those soldiers will be out there as, effectively, human shields.  And the ones who don't die from hostile fire will surely go mad from being in the trenches so long.

    Parent

    yes... and no... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    How are they going to get supplies?  The same they have been... airlift and convoy.  

    We are not talking, in most cases, little "outposts" here...many of the FOB's are mega-bases (ie, huge).

    Will the troops have to "patrol"?  Yes and no... true, if they get attacked they would go outside the wire... and would probably still send out patrols around the perimeter.  At the FOB's that are in the middle of nowhere, that would work... the FOB's that are near cities????  Not so viable, or, (as you note), it was be the exact same situation as we have now - troops cruising around being blown up by roadside IED's.

    My entire point is that right now there are 168,000 troops in Iraq... they have the man-power to do that.  You cut that number to 50,000, and they won't have the man-power to do much but guard the perimeter.

    Parent

    Thank you Edgar... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    I just truly don't believe that most of America realizes the true extent of what they are "supporting"... and the cost it is going bring to the troops.

    Parent
    Most of them don't I think. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    But some do and just don't care.

    Parent