Watch carefully what happens when the Brits pull out of Basra. If the drawback to Kuwait turns into a bloody rout, as former Petraeus advisor Stephen Biddle seems to think it will, the costs could be catastrophic. Retreating under fire is by far one of the most difficult maneuvers in war.
Now bear in mind that our U.S. trained-and equipped allies in Iraq shamelessly support the same insurgents who attack us daily. Then recall that the few stability metrics not trending in reverse call for ten years of occupation or more, yet readiness issues will push us out on a time scale closer to a year or less. Surprisingly, it turns out that people who create their own reality cann’t create their own troops. Assuming that things don’t get measurably worse the situation when we leave will look almost exactly like the security situation today.
Maybe Biddle has a point, maybe he’s just gaming expectations or trying to dissuade the Brits from leaving. One way or the other the British example will handily preview what we have to look forward to when our turn soon comes.
Salty Party Snax
I wonder why the Iraqis haven’t figured out that if they were to just cool it for a bit we’d declare our mission a success and get out. Then all those happening Iraqi factions would have the place all to themselves, and could murder one another at a very merry pace.
Or how about those dumbasses in Iran? All that stands between them and the vastly exanded empire we gave them is Georgie’s war adventure. Just pay some lip service to Bush, keep their guys in Iraq quiet, and within a year our presence would be greatly diminished and the whole shooting match would belong to the real victors in this mess, Iran.
demkat620
I hope people also recall our supply lines come through southern Iraq. How’s that gonna work out?
jnfr
We’re going to have a very hard time stretching to cover our supply lines, which all snake up from the south. I’m very worried about this, have been since I heard this NPR broadcast on the Brits leaving Basra earlier this month.
jake
Fixed.
Yes, it is going to be a clusterfuck. The only things in doubt are when it will occur and how bad it will be. But what’s the choice? The death of a thousand cuts or a big fucking axe to the neck. And that’s not even counting the fact that whatever day anyone decides to leave, however they decide to leave, there will be no way to keep it a secret from the myriad of people who want to do them harm.
Tsulagi
You might as well call Basra little Tehran. Iranian rials are used as currency there in addition to Iraqi dinars. Helps since a lot of the siphoned and smuggled oil off the Basra area fields and exporting facilities by militias, insurgents, crooks, and assorted bad guys makes its way to Iran.
In 05 the Iraq Oil Ministry estimated 60 million barrels or so were “missing.” They don’t know how much oil, and money from it, makes its way to the militias and/or insurgency as one of the many brilliant decisions by our CPA was for oil production not to be metered. You can find some background on Basra, oil, and those feeding off it in this Middle East Quarterly article. Righty alert: The Middle East Quarterly is your friend.
Well, at least Iraqi oil isn’t being siphoned off to pay for Saddam’s palaces. We solved that. Now it’s going to fund militias involved in civil war, IED planting insurgents, or just simple crooks. Much better. Stay the course. You can never have too much success.
The Other Andrew
If the Dems had any balls or savvy at all, they’d latch onto “Taxpayer dollars are being used to kill US troops!”, which has that sort of emotional, hard-hitting nature that talking points need. And it just happens to be the truth. The press conferences that involve nuanced policy discussions aren’t getting any serious media coverage, they need to switch to a single, visceral point of outrage. In turn, it’d act as a lead-in to the issue of Iraqi corruption, which has been quietly brushed under the carpet by many pundits. They’ve tried ending this war through Congress, and with Bush in office, it won’t work…the next step is to get the facts out there, using an extreme, ugly example of this disaster to get their foot in the door.
stickler
Tim:
You’re engaging in the same speculation that Steve Gilliard (RIP) engaged in over two years ago.
And people called him a raving moonbat crazy man back then.
So what if he was talking about supply lines, Sadrist militias, and end-games long before anyone else.
…
Ah, hell. I was trying to be snarky, but just writing his name and remembering his predictions makes me angry and sad. We’re in deep muddy water and I used to rely on Steve to tell me what we were going to stub our toes on.
Carry on.
Tea Jay
Stickler,
I know that good analysts are hard to find. I think the clearest voice in this has been William S. Lind. You can find an archive of his writing over on d-n-i.net. That’s Defense and the National Interest. It’s actually got a pretty slow publishing schedule. Lind has been writing since before the Iraq war, and he’s nailed practically everything. He’s the craziest conjunction of ideas, he’s a monarchist who also has a big social conservative side (no one expects the Frankfurt School!). Clear as a bell though, and front-running this war in a spooky way. I’d say “enjoy” but all you can enjoy about it are thoughts well thought, not the conclusions. The American Conservative just ran an article by him as well that argues any state in Iraq is better than none.
TenguPhule
In order:
1. Paying the Dane Gold doesn’t get the Dane to Leave.
2. Not their guys in Iraq.
3. Watching their greatest enemy weaken itself by shooting itself repeatedly in the foot makes for good fun domestically. Every soldier we lose is one less the Iranians have to worry about when their turn comes.
Bob In Pacifica
Once the Brits pull out of Basra either Halliburton or the U.S. army will have to replace them.
All the saber-rattling against Iran will be for naught. Any attack against Iran after that (probably even now) will jeopardize the supplies coming in by sea.
If you want to see a mess, wait until the military’s supply lines are cut. How many of the 80-something percent who want the Americans gone and really, really hate us are going to decide that it’s time to take some revenge on the guys without gas or ammo who are marching out of there in the hot sun?
Vietnam? This could make Vietnam look like a victory.
Zifnab
Dems have tried to play the talking-points game, but for some reason right-wing corporate media never seems to want to echo it. Much easier to get your Chris Mathews / Wolf Blitzer / Sean Hannity parrots to spout jibberish jingoisms when you can have their corporate overlords prod them a bit with sticks.
Much harder to speak truth.
Besides, you know what the counter talking-point would be. “Dems voted for those tax dollars to fund terrorists. Dems hate our troops!”
LITBMueller
Biddle is a CFR idiot. Southern Iraq is Shiite dominated, and the battle there is between Shiite groups – the Brits are just in the middle. Both Shiite groups want the Brits out, but they aren’t “insurgents” in the sense of the Sunni insurgency, which wants both the foreign troops out, and the Shiite-dominated government destroyed. The Shiite groups want the position themselves to dominate a Shiite-controlled government once the US & coalition troops leave.
This can be seen in the fact that 2 southern governors have been assasinated – the groundwork is being laid. Juan (not John) Cole explains it thusly:
And, as the link Tim F. provides indicates, these Shiite groups have been very very effective at infiltrating the very same police and army units that the Brits are going to leave in control of the south. So, there probably won’t be a bloody rout of retreating British troops. More likely, the withdrawal will be nice and neat and orderly, the Shiites will all come out and wave goodbye, wait until the troops are over the horizon, then start to shoot at each other. Guys like Biddle are praying for a messy rout so they can justify the presence of our troops in the north.
This is why we’re arming and cutting “deals” with Sunnis and their militias: For years, we worked to maintain a sort of regional balance between Iraq & Iran. Taking out Iraq has completely disturbed that balance. Now, we are trying to establish a Sunni-Shiite balance by arming both sides simultaneously. Meanwhile, we can withdraw our troops form the battlefield and hunker down behind the high walls of the largest embassy ever built. This balance-building strategy can also be seen in the nearly simultaneous arms deals we did with Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Of course, the blowback & unintended consequences from this kind of strategy can be tremendous.
The Other Andrew
Zifnab–I don’t disagree that it’d be an uphill/possibly impossible battle, but if they stubbornly clung to that single talking point and kept using their media appearances to further it, I think that “mavericks” like Hagel and “serious” journalistic institutions would eventually latch on, as well.
Barry
Salty Party Snax Says:
“I wonder why the Iraqis haven’t figured out that if they were to just cool it for a bit we’d declare our mission a success and get out. Then all those happening Iraqi factions would have the place all to themselves, and could murder one another at a very merry pace.”
Because the US goal has been to control Iraq. If various Iraqi groups stopped shooting at US forces, those forces would probably continue to attack the Iraqi groups. Moreso, since US forces would spend less time and energy on the defensive.
The goal of the US was *not* to liberatre Iraq, was *not* to defend against Saddam Hussein, but to conquer Iraq.
Geoduck
Like Barry says. We won’t be leaving Iraq until we are forced out, literally, at gunpoint.