Contributer anna missed relates an Alternet piece about the media stories on the "Korea model" – the idea of U.S. troops staying in Iraq for another 50 years. As the authors point out, none of these stories included any Iraqi voice or comment.
When I read Thomas E. Ricks’ A01 WaPo story yesterday, a similar thought occurred to me. Writing from Baghdad(!) Ricks reports how the U.S. military "envisions" a long stay in Iraq, albeit with a reduced force of some 50,000 troops.
This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. military officers and other officials here, including senior commanders, strategists and analysts, remains in the early planning stages.
It is based on officials’ assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009.
Ricks talks to 20 U.S. military officers, but does not include even one Iraqi’s opinion.
At times his wording seems deliberate deceitful:
Despite the significant differences in the way the war has been
discussed in Washington and in Baghdad, this plan is emerging as a
point of convergence between the two capitals.
If there is convergence between two capitals, does that not include the assumption of two governments? But Ricks has not one quote other than from the U.S. side.
As the Alternet reporters document, all political parties in Iraq are vehemently opposed to a permanent occupation.
Without a very unlikely Iraqi acceptance, any longterm occupation will see continued armed opposition from multiple sides. Besides that, talk about troop reductions occur every few month at least since mid 2003 without any real reduction ever taking place.
But those are not the only reason to disregard troop reduction rumours.
The Ricks piece depicts roughly 50,000 soldiers left behind with some civilian contractors and including logistic elements. But 50,000 troops in Iraq can’t live off the land. They require some 5,000 tons of supply each day. On top of that come the logistic needs of the Iraqi Army.
That amount requires more than 250 trucks full of valuable stuff per day. These have to run hundreds of miles from Kuwait to Baghdad each day. How will that be possible without very men extensive protection? How will interruptions like yesterday’s bridge bombing be avoided? Is the Air Force supposed to deliver hundred of tons of gasoline for Stryker vehicles by plane?
I don’t think that’s possible. Indeed as Col. Pat Lang remarked the other day:
I would continue to argue that the maintenance of these bases will require a force just about as large as the present force when all requirements; combat, logistical, communications, transportation, etc. are taken into consideration.
Judging from that the only options now are either a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops or no significant withdrawal at all.
Those are the only two options – total stay or total withdrawal.
But before the Generals, ever compromising politicians and journalists will get "serious" about these binary choices, much more bad stuff needs to happen.
Until then, "seriousness" continues to be the incestuous brain-child of the Washington D.C. mafia. As the Alternet writers explain:
But [the reporters] didn’t make those calls [to Iraqis], and that’s an important part of how consent for throwing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars into an occupation of a distant land is manufactured here at home: It starts with the assumption that the story of the U.S. "intervention" in Iraq can be told by talking to military analysts and "senior administration officials" in D.C., but without ever hearing from the people living on the fringes of the American Empire. It is not always intentional; it’s a facet of our media culture: You talk to "serious" analysts in Washington if you want to be seen as serious yourself.
They ask:
Where would the political fight over this four-year occupation be if it were widely understood that the vast majority of Iraqis — of all ethnicities and religious faiths and across the ideological spectrum — are united in at least one thing: their desire not to live under open-ended U.S. occupation.