As Predicted Here: Diplomatic Presense In Iraq Will Be Downsized

October 23, 2011

A week ago AP reported that all U.S. military will leave Iraq by the end of the year. The retreat was first denied by Pentagon sources, but then officially announced by Obama two days ago. Still, according to those reports, 10,000 diplomats and 5,000 contracted security personal were supposed to stay in Iraq. That seemed unlikely to me and I wrote:

[The] embassy is a fixed target which can easily be harassed with by rocket and mortar fire. Its logistic lines of communication are also open to permanent challenges. The mercenaries guarding it will have severely restricted rules of engagement and will not be able to prevent attacks.
..
Additonally there is pressure from Congress to reduce the State Department's budget.

This all will soon lead a reduction of the now planned immense U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq. A year from now that presence may very well come down to more normal levels of just a few hundred people.

Today a New York Times report confirms my analysis:

Beyond the final withdrawal of troops that President Obama announced Friday, America’s fiscal troubles are dictating a drastic scaling back of plans for diplomatic, economic and cultural programs once deemed vital to steadying Iraq, building a long-term alliance and prying the country from Iran’s tightening embrace.
…
[T]he expansion of a diplomatic presence will be much smaller than imagined, a victim not only of budgetary constraints but also of a growing awareness that the decision to withdraw American soldiers makes it much harder for diplomats to safely do their work. The State Department’s more extensive plans were drawn up at a time when military officials were pushing to keep up to 20,000 soldiers in Iraq next year.

There will be no U.S. consulates in Mosul, Kirkuk and Dilaya province and allover the plans will be harshly reduced. The piece gives no new numbers for the currently assumed diplomat and contractor presence but one can guess that the plans are now down to a total of some 5-10,000. This will come down further and in the end there will be nothing left but a normal embassy and an oversized static security ring manned by contractors around it.

That will still be an attractive target and al Sadr calls to take it on:

In response to a query of one of his followers […], Muqtada said “they are all occupiers and resisting them after the end of the agreement is an obligation.”

Posted by b on October 23, 2011 at 04:29 UTC | Permalink

Comments

So, it looks like my theory is the more relevant one. It will appear as a substantial withdrawal, a build-up of resistance enabled by Intelligence Services will be allowed to manifest, and Iraq will be slated for further intervention down the road, and the MIC perpetuates its necessity into infinity….or until the oil runs out….whichever comes first.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 23 2011 13:24 utc | 1

Iraq will be slated for further intervention down the road, and the MIC perpetuates its necessity into infinity …
I agree that their intentions are hegemonic, but their abilities are limited by the pesky fact of Uncle Sam’s insolvency.

Posted by: Watson | Oct 23 2011 17:02 utc | 2

I’m sure the US will abandon Iraq altogether, as they did Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. There’s no point in keeping a large embassy. All aid programmes will be stopped, sooner or later. No US control equals no aid. Not that it was ever real aid.

Posted by: alexno | Oct 23 2011 17:07 utc | 3

but their abilities are limited by the pesky fact of Uncle Sam’s insolvency.
The U.S. will continue to be the Enforcement Arm of the New Global Order for the forseeable future. The insolvency cover is exactly that….cover to continue to rob the clueless “Americans” blind to pay for the Enforcement.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 23 2011 17:25 utc | 4

National armies, soldiers from X country, fighting others far away from Y country is no longer an easeful narrative.
Many, most? US enlistees join only for food, a stab at a future life, a green card for non-nationals, health insurance for wife and children, some goddam status somewhere, Vet benefits, a stab at future ‘college’, respect in the community, a time to get through, something has to to give ….
These soldiers cost a lot, all their lives.
They are being replaced by mercenaries, private armies, contractors, etc. who are not only cheaper in the long run as they demand nothing, count on nothing, as they are paid upfront for their services and their ‘employers’ foot the bill on insurance (life, health, dependents, etc.) all signed and sealed. The Cos. can be terminated, junked. And are partners! As they all make money…
How many US grunts to Iraq and Afgh believe in the USA aims in these countries? They have to pretend, of course. Make patriotic noise! Do they see that they are treated like their Iraqi counterparts? Some do. For sure. That is another danger…

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 23 2011 17:57 utc | 5

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that Iraq this last year passed a law insisting that security contractors in the future will have to be Iraqis. And that they also will not have immunity. Though I haven’t gone looking for a link.
It is very likely to be true, even if not passed yet. After the events in Nissoor Square.
That will put the kybosh on the theories going round of how the US is going to continue its domination. No way.
What the US can do is to turn Iraq into another drone free-fire zone. Though whether they will have Maliki’s agreement, I don’t know.
It’s all because of American brutality earlier in the war. We all knew it; but it is here we see the effects.

Posted by: alexno | Oct 23 2011 19:05 utc | 6

Not quite related but did you see the news from Afghanistan where Karzai said he would support Pakistan in a US-Pakistan conflict? Smart move on his part and really puts the kibosh on talk of boots on the ground in Pakistan. I for one was very happy to see that statement. Karzai is still who he is but atleast on this point he has done something very sensible.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Oct 23 2011 20:13 utc | 7

@6 & @7, you have to be joking, right? I think it’s pretty clear from the fate of Saddam, OBL and now the Marvelous Mug what the message is. Defiance leads to a nasty, brutal end, so if survival to breath, eat and shit another day is a fellow despot’s goal, poking the Beast is not the prescription. Learn from the Zionists. Form a lobby and pay off the U.S. politicians. Saudi Arabia figured it out, although their efforts pale in comparison to the Zionists.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 23 2011 20:55 utc | 8

re 8. It’s a funny thing – I’ve been saying it here and elsewhere since 2008, and the first round of the SOFA – but those who are cynical about US intentions also for some strange reason believe in US omnipotence. 8 is a good example.
But, the US is not omnipotent; it has just lost the war in Iraq. It is no longer free to do what it wants. It is now constrained by what it did and didn’t do.
The only freedom it retains, as I said, is to send in the drones.

Posted by: Alexno | Oct 24 2011 11:40 utc | 9

” but those who are cynical about US intentions also for some strange reason believe in US omnipotence. 8 is a good example.”
It’s not belief in U.S. omnipotence, but, rather our belief in the size and scope of the U.S. military acting as the enforcement arm of the Global Corporate State. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. I don’t see that changing for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: ben | Oct 24 2011 13:02 utc | 10

@9, I do not believe in U.S. Omnipotence, and I do not believe this is just about the U.S. The U.S. is the Enforcement Arm of a loose coalition of Global Plutocrats which is insidious and extremely formidable….but not omnipotent. However, its created despots will not defeat it, so it’s laughable when you talk about Karzai and al-Maliki denying their progenitors. That’s not the way…in fact, it plays right into the hands of the progenitors. Saddam was so useful and so lucrative in so many ways, one wonders why they kill these Golden Geese. I suppose, for this Global Syndicate, there are so many Golden Geese, they are expendable, and the expending process yields quite a few Golden Eggs.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 24 2011 13:04 utc | 11

re 11
However, its created despots will not defeat it, so it’s laughable when you talk about Karzai and al-Maliki denying their progenitors.
I don’t know who that remark is addressed to, certainly not me as I never said anything of the kind.
Karzai will be gone three days after the US leaves Afghanistan. So you are right there. Nobody pretends he is anything more than that, not even himself.
On the other hand Maliki has been elected twice, so he’s not a despot. Nor was he the preferred candidate of the US. That was Iyad Allawi. So whatever you mean about progenitors, you should be talking about Allawi. And Maliki has defeated the US, so that’s a third way in which you are wrong about Maliki.
If I were you, I’d learn something about Iraq, before making that kind of statement.

Posted by: Alexno | Oct 24 2011 14:44 utc | 12

I, for one, will take and wait and see attitude with regards to Maliki’s autonomy. If he pushes the wrong way against the formation of the Empire’s hegemony, he’ll be gone in a heartbeat. I would really like to be wrong on this, but, time will tell. Globalism is a runaway train, and gaining on all of us who believe in national independence.

Posted by: ben | Oct 24 2011 15:13 utc | 13

the U.S. military acting as the enforcement arm of the Global Corporate State
Juan Cole has suggested that the US may end up as ‘the Hessians of a future Asia … in danger of being reduced to the role of impoverished foot soldier fighting for others’ interests.’
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175319/tomgram%3A_juan_cole,_the_asian_century/

Posted by: Watson | Oct 24 2011 15:16 utc | 14

boohoo, surprise
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/10/24/why-the-u-s-couldnt-stay-in-iraq/
“The reason was very simple: even Iraqis who benefitted enormously from the security provided by our troops, and for whom the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the happiest moment of their lives, could not, in the end, support a continuation of foreign troops in their country. Call it visceral. Call it cultural. The fact is, no one likes to be invaded and occupied, and for eight years, told what to do and how to behave. To extend the stay of even just a few U.S. troops was to extend what many Iraqis, mindful of their country’s history, considered another occupation.”

Posted by: somebody | Oct 24 2011 15:19 utc | 15

If I were you, I’d learn something about Iraq, before making that kind of statement.
How about you learn something about how the world works and runs these days, rather than hanging your hat on Paper Tigers. Iraq does not have a Democracy. Iraq cannot have a Democracy….not at this time, so don’t hand me that nonsense about Maliki being democratically elected. He’s as democratically elected as Obama or any U.S. president is/was….which means he was appointed.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 24 2011 16:02 utc | 16

This makes me feel better about US intentions vis a vis Iran.
For a while, I was genuinely worried that the absurd “have a used car dealer hire Mexican gunmen to kill the Saudi Ambassador as graphically as possible” sotryline was the intentional prelude to war.
In light of this news, and Obama’s formal announcement that the US is leaving Iraq, it appears the storyline is more designed to ramp up international pressure and keep Iran on the defensive in order to facilitate an American withdrawal from Iraq without Iranian harassment. The assassination plot story is part of the wind-down in Iraq, not the wind-up in Iran.

Posted by: Bill | Oct 24 2011 16:07 utc | 17

Bu haber ve Obama’nın, ABD’nin Irak’ı terk etmek olduğunu resmi bir duyuru ışığında, hikayesi İran taciz olmadan Irak’ta bir Amerikan çekilmesini kolaylaştırmak için daha fazla uluslararası baskı rampa ve İran savunmacı tutmak için tasarlanmıştır.Suikast hikayesi rüzgar aşağı Irak’ta değil, İran’da rüzgar parçasıdır.

Posted by: medyumlar | Oct 24 2011 19:45 utc | 18

re 16, Morocco Bama
How about you learn something about how the world works and runs these days, rather than hanging your hat on Paper Tigers. Iraq does not have a Democracy.
I don’t pass my time these days to explain to individuals who haven’t bothered to keep up with the archives, quite why the US has lost in Iraq, and quite why the US is no longer free to exercise its world-domination fantasies.
But it is the case, the world-domination fantasies are no longer believable. The US position in Iraq is in immediate disappearance, in spite of what the Pentagon tells you.
Ambitions to retain a position in Iraq have been limited to the Pentagon, not chez Obama. He knows that politically the Iraqis will not agree

Posted by: Alexno | Oct 25 2011 20:32 utc | 19

@19, you must keep up with the times. Winning and Losing wars in the conventional sense is no longer applicable because war itself has changed. Iraq was and is a resounding success and it will be a success again when the time comes for it to be bombed down to its bare bones.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 26 2011 11:07 utc | 20

Also, @19, you are the one who has thrown out the infamous “conspiracy” charge, yet you are engaging in conspiracy theory, yourself. You claim that the U.S. has lost in Iraq, yet the official story is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was to help the Iraqis bring about Democracy in their country. According to you, this has manifested, and yet you claim the U.S. lost? Sticking with the Official Cover for this invasion and occupation, how did the U.S. lose if Iraq now has a Democracy as you claim? The only way it could be a loss for the U.S. is if the strategy for Iraq was other than the Official Reasoning, but that would be conspiratorial, and there we have it, you are engaging in conspiracy theory. Take the plank out of your own eye before worrying about others’ specks.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 26 2011 13:23 utc | 21

Back to Main