A Question from Iraq


Today Sen Reid ended his press conference with the following comment:

Reid: Feingold/Reid called for American troops to remain in Iraq to do counter-terrorsim…to protect our assets in Iraq. To train the Iraqis. There are estimates that that would still leave tens of thousands of troops to stay in Iraq. No one is calling for precipitous withdrawal in Iraq. No one…

In response, I received a message from some friends who are in Iraq at the moment. (These friends have extensive military experience but not with US forces.) They ask a terrifying question: "How many tens of thousands are the US willing to see killed - tens of thousands of US troops that is?"

They are asking us to take this seriously - they believe that no matter what routes are picked, the US forces will have to fight their way out. They cannot believe that no one seems to understand how truly bad the situation is - and how many US soldiers are going to die as the whole situation implodes - and how completely untenable are any troops left in Iraq.

One contact wrote this weekend that the mood in Iraq is no longer just a desire to see the US leave - but to hurt the US troops as much as possible as they leave as payback for episodes such as the one I wrote about last night at Firedoglake.

They believe that what we have seen so far has been testing and preparation for greatly increased attacks on US troops esp as the surge tactics have spread them in vulnerable ways. To get a feel for the situation, one example: the US/MNF this weekend boasted about a successful shipment of water by air to one base. This means that the MNF is having trouble even moving an essential like water - see Main and Central's analysis. At the same time, remember that tanks get only 1.8 MPG (and less in real world conditions) but there are reports that there's even a gas shortage in the Green Zone itself. Add in the campaign to destroy all the bridges on major routes and you begin to see the level of disaster shaping up.

Things are moving fast in Iraq - Maliki has lost all pull and is expected to lose the no confidence vote, the oil bill is causing things to break faster (as one writer at Azzaman asked - "why should we trade an economic occupation for a military one"). These contacts are saying that Iraq is devolving into a completely failed state, all pretense of central government collapsing, large numbers of Turkish troops (CNN says 30K or so, Iraqi sources say 140K) on Northern border sorting out whether to attack the PKK in Iraq before or after the Turkish election, Iran is allied with Turkey in opposing PKK, Kurdish forces are conducting ethnic cleansing, movement by major tribal sheiks is increasing and the call has gone out from both Sunni and Shia political and religious leaders for the people to arm themselves as the government is no longer able to protect the ummah. The message here is that the Ayatollah's are close to calling for jihad against the US forces - jumping on Al Sadr's bandwagon. This is just a quick list off the top of my head ... there's more.

We are in for a whole world of hurt - and it appears that the debates in DC are very far removed from what these observers see as reality on the ground.

Or as one just wrote a few minutes ago:

this is not vietnam"
"its afghanistan"
"and you're the soviets"


Siun July 9, 2007 - 9:03pm
( categories: Analysis | Iraq )

It is absolutely not in the best interest of the American people for more troops to stay in Iraq over a prolonged period of time. This adminstration has proven that this war has been a failed war. Our government has caused more violence, poverty and choas overseas as well as within the US. This war was costs $450 billion dollars in total. However, it only costs $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world poverty. It is time for this government to take action and be a responsible government to its people as well as a world community memeber and start addressing the important issue of poverty.

Mstessyrue July 9, 2007 - 7:39pm

This war was costs $450 billion dollars in total. However, it only costs $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world poverty.

You are conflating real costs and price. Real costs are what it takes to produce a thing and price is what you have to pay to obtain that thing in the markets.

The price of this war is $450 billion dollars -- the real costs probably a lot lower due to all of the corrupt spending.

The real costs of eliminating global poverty may well be some low figure like $19 billion dollars -- sounds a smidge "tight" but about right to be (a few bucks a head, basically). The price, however, in today's markets, is another matter. (Some of us guess it is, in your math, around $450 + $19 B, so to speak.)

In other words, if I handed you a check for $19B today and said "ok, eliminate poverty for a year" -- you'd fail, badly. It wouldn't be your fault but you wouldn't succeed.

What would kill your effort to spend the $19B is transaction costs. You don't start off controlling sufficient productive and distributive capacity to do the job so you have to rely on the cooperation of many others -- you have to do deals and everyone along the line will take a cut. Obtaining that cooperation will take more money than you imagine.

-t

dasht July 9, 2007 - 8:08pm

I've yet to see a dollar have a calf or sprout a seed. True, curing hunger is often a matter of transport, but throwing money at the problem does not always cure the ill.

For instance. Food is sent to a country at war. Strong people with guns take the food, and at best sell it to those with money. To be certain, no one they consider an enemy sees a grain.

Money doesn't fix the problem in that scenario.

I did inhale.

Don July 9, 2007 - 9:09pm

well 19 billion trying (even if likely failing) to improve the world is still a hell of a lot better than spending 450 billion on making the world worse.

why is it that ever actually trying to bring about positive change in the third world is always too hard and expensive but people still justfy and defend trying to fight a gurilla war on two fronts, with piss-poor planning and leadership, apathetic or opposed populations, and corruption so integrated and expensive that the two wars are becoming unafforable by the richest nation on the entire planet.

yep cause trying to actually help people will totally be harder than iraq and afganistan.

Warvigilent July 10, 2007 - 3:54pm

We've all read recently about the tens of thousands of contractors who are waging what amounts to "war" in Iraq. My question is, what happens to them in the event of a withdrawal. This is an issue no one is addressing for all the talk about quitting Iraq, and I think is an important point of discussion. Purely from a "procurement" prospective, if companies like Blackstone have contracts in place, they are not likely to "go gently into that goodnight".

bluespeak July 9, 2007 - 7:47pm

Gov Richardson has said that his "no residual troops" pledge includes the mercenaries - I am not certain if any other candidate has been that explicit.

One thing to note is that a large proportion of the mercenaries are funded out of the State Dept rather than DoD. I think of them as Condi's army.

Siun July 9, 2007 - 11:17pm

Thanks to Siun for posting this.

I think one thing we tend to forget, and especially those inside the bubble tend to forget, is that the US does not "create its own reality". Things on the ground can go really bad, and when they do so they may go really bad, really fast.

Ian Welsh July 9, 2007 - 11:52pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.