Kabuki Over Iraq – Moon of Alabama

March 28, 2007

Kabuki Over Iraq

Balkinization has posted the House and Senate bills on the Iraq war financing. The brouhaha about these bills somehow restricting Bush seems overdone. The House bill will retract troops other than are needed for:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

The Senate bill is not much different. It would abolish troops but for:

(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ.–The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.

"Redeployment" is NOT the word for getting troops back "home", but describes to move them somewhere around the Middle East. But that is not the big trick here – that is in the excepted tasks.

Some hundreds of troops are in "roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions", some thousands are "training and equipping Iraqi forces" and is not every current kinetic action of U.S. troops in Iraq described as "conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations?" Add to those forces the needed GIs that are "protecting … American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces" or in the Senate version "protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure" and where do you end?

By the way – does the "infrastructure" include the four huge bases the U.S. has built? Of course it does and what about those oil wells?

So if you start a tally you will end up with some 15,000 to 20,000 in the primary role of diplomacy, training and counter-terrorism and about three to four times that number to protect these. Additionally one will need the logistic components to get all these folks their lobster tails and ice-cream and those logistics will need some protection too.

Which leads to a total, according to the scribble on my blotter, somewhere quite north of 100,000 troops – maybe 150,000 – staying in Iraq and about the same number nearby.

The showdown between the President and Congress over this is just for the public theater. The proposed restrictions are all virtual. The Dems have certainly not made a serious attempt to get the U.S. out of its illegal operation in Iraq.

"We’ll use this for 2008 and then we will fix the mess," is their intended play. It will take them some more years and Iraq some hundredthousands of lives to understand, and then acknowledge, that there is nothing fixable left.

Posted by b on March 28, 2007 at 19:31 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Unusually, I disagree with Bernhard on this. He is half-right; the Iraq measures are in large part political theater, because Bush will veto the legislation, and the Dems don’t have enough votes to override the veto. I think, though, that he may not realize how people in the United States have really come to hate this war. With Vietnam, people just got tired. There was a consensus that the US might have had good intentions, but that there was no practical way to win, and it just wasn’t worth it.
Iraq is different, and that may sound odd, because we haven’t had the huge demonstrations against the war that there were with Vietnam. People actively dislike and disapprove of the war. And not just some people, but most people. In fact, I can’t think of anyone I know right offhand who supports the war anymore.
I won’t deny that, if things were going well in Iraq, the situation would be different, but they’re not. The fact that this was a “war of choice” (or, to put it bluntly, a war of aggression) has, I think, bothered many people from the beginning. They were willing to trust Bush (inexplicably) when he said Saddam had weapons, was working with Al Qaida, etc., but I think many still felt uncomfortable about the US just attacking like we did. Now that all the ostensible reasons for the invasion have been shown to be lies, those doubts have reemerged with full force.
The second factor, and this definitely extends to the Democrats in Congress, is the growing realization that the invasion of Iraq has been the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history. We don’t even know how bad the consequences will be, but we’re starting to get an inkling. We do know what the invasion has done to the Army and to the budget. The Democrats realize that this was a huge mistake, and that we have to get out.
There is absolutely a political component to this. The Democratic politicians realize that their supporters are strongly anti-war, and they have to do something. Beyond that, though, I believe there is a sincere desire to get the heck out. Rather than being an excuse for leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, I think the language about troops remaining is basically a fig leaf so the Democrats can say they don’t want to just cut and run (although most of them do).
Of course, many of these same politicians supported the original authorization of force that gave Bush the excuse to do this. But many did not. Even at the beginning, around 30% of the voters opposed the war. At this point, seeing how thoroughly shattered Iraqi society is, I don’t think the Democrats have any illusions about our ability to stay, establish permanent bases, and secure Iraq’s oil.
Our Iraq policy is a car wreck. The car is lying upside down in a ditch, wheels still spinning, with flames licking up the side. When that happens, pretty much the only thing you can do is unbuckle your seat belt, crawl out the window, and walk away before the whole thing blows.

Posted by: Aigin | Mar 28 2007 21:05 utc | 1

Pat Buchanan (via Raw Story) thinks the republicans have set up the democrats because bush will veto then the dems will have to vote on funding and this vote will split the democratic party in the run up to election season.
Considering that Biden and Kucinich are in the same party, I find it more plausible to believe this scenario than one “just for show” — because some democrats do take this issue seriously.
as we have seen over and over again, all the bushies’ actions are political. they don’t “do” policy, but they definitely know how to ratfuck.

Posted by: fauxreal | Mar 28 2007 23:08 utc | 2

What we are seeing is the unfolding Constitutional crisis, not something that is being staged purely for dramatic effect. This is about whether this Congress can exercise the inherent powers of any American Congress. Guess what? When we left Vietnam we walked from billions of dollars of supplies–leaving behind harbors and well established bases, leaving or dumping military hardware as well.
The lobster tail and ice cream dream is over. And the thing that will scuttle the last shreds of Presidential credibility will be if Bush vetoes this Timeline legislation. I hope the son-of-a bitch vetoes it, because it would clarify for every sapient and rational American just what an arrogant, anti-democratic ass he really is. He won’t receive the kind of supplemental funding bill that he demands. Things have changed and Speaker Pelosi said as much today.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 29 2007 1:26 utc | 3

Publican ghouls like Pat Buchanan might chortle that the votes on the bills to be considered for the Iraqi War supplemental might fracture the Democratic Party, but he forgets one very small thing. If the Congressional Democratic caucus cracks, no bill is likely to get passed – period. Lots of bills will be voted on and lots of bills will get amended till hell freezes over. Nothing will get passed. No funding will be approved, much to the uniformed military’s concern.
Do the Publican thugs hate our troops that much that they would be willing to place them in harm’s way and then abandon them? Dubya’s veto and the Publican’s sustaining of it will do exactly that. The Publicans don’t have the electorate’s backing on this issue, as the polls have shown.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Mar 29 2007 3:34 utc | 4

what copeland said – and more if there is time tomorrow. the administration has been preparing for this confrontation for a long time. whether it’s iraq, the doj debacle, the gsa comedy provided by lurita doan, or the potential email mess, we are in for a fight. the same way gonzalves is still there, they won’t admit wrong doing or compromise or make nice in anyway. we are in for a showdown. let’s hope the dem leaders have it in them. the pipa survey shows the american public suppports a strong stand. i think they might beginning to get the message. even peter beinart agrees. now is not the time to stop calling your reps and senators and reminding them who they work for.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 29 2007 4:15 utc | 5

Right, so that’s why Idiot Boy’s threatened veto is just a 2-yr. old throwing a temper tantrum, as Pelosi noted w/her comment “Calm down w/yr. threats.” That was great 🙂
But is this the beginning of throwing Am. Elites out of ME?
1) From tomorrow’s NYT:
U.S. Iraq Role Is Called Illegal by Saudi King
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.
The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging.
…
Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said.
Mustapha Hamarneh, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said the Saudis were sending Washington a message. “They are telling the U.S. they need to listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel’s side,” Mr. Hamarneh said.
In his speech, the king said, “In the beloved Iraq, the bloodshed is continuing under an illegal foreign occupation and detestable sectarianism.”
He added: “The blame should fall on us, the leaders of the Arab nation, with our ongoing differences, our refusal to walk the path of unity. All that has made the nation lose its confidence in us.”
King Abdullah has not publicly spoken so harshly about the American-led military intervention in Iraq before, and his remarks suggest that his alliance with Washington may be less harmonious than administration officials have been hoping.
###########
2)The “lords of war” will decide Israel’s future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia’s veteran foreign minister warned yesterday.
As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today’s summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails.
Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967.
This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer.
…
But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom’s oil boom.
The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf.
Saudi Arabia is quietly moving to contain its bellicose neighbour…. Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told
The Balance of Power has shifted & xAm. extreme bellicosity has awoken the Arabs to unite in self-defense; in fact, I think it’s definitely shifted in the last month since Saudis told them they wanted them to stick around.

Posted by: jj | Mar 29 2007 9:01 utc | 6

A few weeks ago the Saudi’s were worried about the U.S. leaving Iraq — now they say the occupation is illegal. A few weeks ago the Saudi’s were all over Iran — now they have Ahamedinejad over for dinner. The times they must be a changin’.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 29 2007 9:48 utc | 7

Yeah the Saudis can read the polls and know that everyone in the US thinks Bushco stinks, but what, really, has prompted this apparent shift? Is it for show, or what? Whatever happened to that Sunnis-united-against-the-emerging-Shia-crescent thingy?
Also: (Sunni?) attacks raining down inside the green zone in 6 of last 7 days with people inside killed.

Posted by: Hamburger | Mar 29 2007 10:26 utc | 8

The Saudi/Putin/economic angle mulled at the culture of life site.

Posted by: Hamburger | Mar 29 2007 10:52 utc | 9

I think that Pelosi and the Demoplicans were strictly playing this bill as a looser : give the regime all the money it wanted to prosecute the war and tack on the do nothing trailer. They figured it would dropped in the Senate(“Hey we tried!”) or it wouldn’t (it doesn’t really mean anything anyway, as b points out).
But Bush “takes it personal” and is going to veto it.
So now everyone is going to push the Demoplicans to pass a real “no more money for war” bill.
They are in a tough spot. Do they deliver for their “constituents” (Israel, Oil, War) and defy the schmucks back home? Or are the schmucks finally getting wise?
I hope the schmucks are getting wise.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Mar 29 2007 11:04 utc | 10

iraq supplemental bill passed the senate 51-47 with all dems voting as a bloc and two repugs crossing over (hagel and smith). dems showing spine? gaining confidence and conviction as investigations proceed? finally listening to their constitutents? and now for the veto/or not process.
have to say, while it’s way over due, it does make me smile to see the dems do the right thing – both legislatively and with the investigations. impeachment next?

Posted by: conchita | Mar 29 2007 17:05 utc | 11

Operation Recurring Frequent Wind

Posted by: biklett | Mar 29 2007 22:59 utc | 12

Back to Main