The Dog Ate My Exit Timeline
Those poor Iraqi kids. Who’s going to keep them supplied with new soccer balls after we leave? Will the poor things have to go back to eating Iraqi food after all the Hershey bars run out? (Cue Sally Struthers). And what will happen to all those adorable puppies American G.I.s adopted as pets that get left behind? (Cue Sarah McLachlan.)
The entire planet knows Obama’s “fulfilled promise” to end the U.S. combat mission was an exercise in sleight-of-tongue Neo-speak, and all signs indicate that the December 2011 status of forces agreement (SOFA) deadline by which all U.S. troops are supposed to leave Iraq has already gone the way of the pay phone.
The desensitizing phase of the propaganda offensive designed to turn the citizenry apathetic to the warmongery’s next escapade has been in effect for some time. It was clear back in February 2009, long after the SOFA exit deadline had been established, that Ray “Desert Ox” Odierno announced, via David Petraeus hagiographer Tom Ricks, his desire to see 30,000 to 35,000 troops remain in Iraq until 2014 or 2015. More recently, Odie has suggested that the U.N. establish a new Iraq occupation mandate once the SOFA expires, one that will be supported by the same personnel that supported the old U.N. occupation mandate, i.e., U.S. troops. Odie didn’t mention the part about the U.S. having to provide the troops. It must have slipped his mind.
Lapdog-of-war Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, has been yodeling onto the echo chamber of late about why we need to prolong our stay in Iraq and why we can. In a recent New York Times “news analysis” piece, Crocker told emerging star of the Long War steno pool Tim Arango that even as the SOFA deadline was negotiated, plans were in place to renegotiate it.
“For a very long period of time we’re going to be on the ground, even if it’s solely in support of its U.S. weapons systems,” Crocker told Arango. That way talks Crocker apparently all the time – a reflecting of it is how convoluted the pretzel logic he for his Pentarch* pals makes about why more war need we.
The weapons systems Crocker refers to aren’t required to keep militants, insurgents, and the local al-Qaeda trademark violators under control. According to a Pentagon press release reproduced by Liz Sly in the Los Angeles Times, “commanders” say “they are reasonably confident in the Iraqi security forces’ ability to keep order while facing insurgents or other internal threats.” But when it comes to Iraq’s capacity to protect itself against attacks from other nations, Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, commander of the U.S. military training program in Iraq, says it is “inconceivable” that the Iraqi army will be able to stand alone by the end of 2011.
The “defend Iraq from its neighbors” argument is as specious as the rest of the “buy our war” hucksterism we’ve heard since Shock and Awe blew back in our national face. It’s inconceivable that any country, after having watched the best-trained, best-equipped, best-paid, best-fed, best-publicized, best-entertained armed force in the history of humanity get its turrets blown off for seven years, would be in any rush to embark on a comparable escapade.
If a war wonk like the hideous Max Boot tells you things will work out differently when a Muslim country invades Iraq, he’s trying to get his mitts on something you keep in your pants. No matter which of its neighbors might invade it, Iraq possesses at least one major religious and/or ethnic faction that will hate the new occupiers as much as they hated us, and thanks to “King David” Petraeus, every faction is armed to the canines because he bribed them all not to shoot each other by giving them all guns.
So if any of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors decide to invade them, they’ll be up to their ammo belts in Mahdi Army and Badr Brigade. If the Persian Shi’ite Iranians invade, they’ll be swarmed by more Sons of Iraq, Sahwas, Concerned Local Citizens, Very Worried Iraqis, Awakening Movers, and other Sunni militiamen than you can sheikh a stick at. If the Turks decide to attack the Kurds in northern Iraq, then… Oh, wait; they’ve already done that. In fact the Kurds in Iraq (specifically the Kurdish Workers Party) and the Turks have been in an open war with each other since 1984. We’ve barely noticed that conflict, despite having been involved in at least three (depending how you count them) Iraq wars in that time frame, one on Iraq’s side (the Iran-Iraq War) and the others – Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Desert Sword, Desert Saber, Granby, Daquet, Locust, Friction, Southern Watch, Northern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, Infinite Justice, New Dawn, Telec, Falconer, and the rest – against Iraq.
Even if one of Iraq’s neighbors were crazy enough to want to prove it’s as crazy as we are, it couldn’t. The nations in that region simply don’t possess the kind of operational reach or strategic depth it takes to move into and occupy a country as large as Iraq for any length of time. Our Mesopotamian Mistake has nearly broken us in half economically. Imagine what a similar shenanigan would to a pismire like Syria.
That’s where arguments that the absence of U.S. military power in West Asia will lead to a widespread regional war break down. The powers in that region, to use the term “powers” generously, can’t support a war that big, no matter how many killer gizmos we sell them. Sure, there might be a temporary uptick in border skirmishing if we vacate the subcontinent, but that sort of fighting has been going on in the Muslim world since Lawrence of Arabia created the camel cavalry back in World War I.
Liz Sly tells us, “The gravest concern may be Iraq’s inability to defend its airspace.” Fortunately for Iraq, we’ve agreed to sell them 18 shiny new F-16 fighter jets for that purpose. Alas, the poor dumb Iraqi pilots won’t be able to fly the pretty things by themselves for a time so long we’re not sure just how long a time it will be. “I would say we’re five years into a 10-15 year program,” says Brig. Gen. Scott Hanson, who heads the U.S. mission in charge of training the Iraqi air force. “We’re on a glide path, but we’re not in the final stages of approach,” Brigadier Scotty adds.
What a steaming pile of wild-blue balderdash.
Conventional combat air power, specifically aerial bombing, seldom rises in significance above the tactical level of war. It is merely, to borrow from Clausewitz, a continuation of terrorism by vertical means. Once we move into the nuclear arena, post-Clausewitzian paradigms and other art-of-war mumbo jumbo kicks in and air power becomes a predominant strategic factor.
But arcane nuclear warfare theories lose relevance when you consider that only one country in the region we’re talking about is capable of delivering a nuclear air strike, and I’d just love to see Charles Krauthammer go on Fox News and explain that we need a permanent military presence in the Middle East to protect all the Muslim countries from Israel.
*Pentarchs are the oligarchs of the Pentarchy, that cabal of sandbox generals, bathtub admirals, beltway bandits, AIPAC rats, Warlord Fauntleroys, New American Centurions, Long War legislators, Dr. Strangeloves, G.I. Joe Six-Packs, Pavlov’s dogs of war, and other patriotic psychopaths whose narrow self interests and well-funded efforts have made the long dreamed-of permanent American security state a reality.
Read more by Jeff Huber
- $80 Billion Down the Plumbing – November 1st, 2010
- Bull Feather Merchant Marines – October 25th, 2010
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Care – October 20th, 2010
- Long Warfare Theory – October 11th, 2010
- Uncle Bob Wants You – October 4th, 2010





Amry
August 30th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Playing the devil's advocate here, one argument is that if we leave Iraq, we will leave Iraq's non-Muslims and women to the predatory Islamic extremists; therefore, until we can transform Iraqi society, we must remain.
Rebuttal?
Shootist66
August 30th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Oh, for crying out loud!! Get real!
mickperry
August 30th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Seconded. Amry, go to the back of the class and stand in the corner.
davidgrayling
August 30th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
One thing that America achieved in Iraq was to leave the place radioactive and full of suicide bombers.. Yes, America will continue to kill Iraqis for decades one way or another.
Beyond that I can't think of anything else America achieved. Perhaps you can?
Montaigne
August 31st, 2010 at 12:52 am
I think a new kind of logic is at play. Since you have no reason to stay, and did not have a good reason to come in the first place, NOBODY can now PROVE, that NOW – or any other given time – you must leave.
Perhaps, strategically the logic is like this: If there are not a great deal of possible threats, there are no reason for keeping NATO alive. But that would mean the start of dissolving of the empire. And that great virtual reality for the leaders – their meaning of life – cannot, MUST NOT, be given up. Better erase every last human on earth! And og course any last American – remember how Hitler wanted Germany destroyed when the enemies came in? I think that is a similar type of humans, you are harboring and nurturing, oh so lovingly, in the US leaders. How your president makes an appearance at a meeting "Ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States!" The worlds leader, and me, however poor, uneducated, or criminal American shines from that too! The proof of the pudding is in the eating! The proof of the Empire is to keep it alive!
mickperry
August 31st, 2010 at 1:33 am
They turned an awful lot of the women and children into prostitutes. They turned a lot of people into homeless refugees. They turned a lot of other people into corpses. They turned the educated professionals into migrants. They turned Baghdad into a walled maze. They turned the power grid into a shambles. They turned the infrastructure into rubble. They turned a secular society into a faction ridden living hell. Then some of them turned round and went home and called it victory, while the remainder stayed hidden in their fortified bases to train the local 'dirty guns' to carry on fighting their 'dirty war' for them. And they achieved a lot more than this. The story is not yet over, and it is not going to have a happy ending for anyone, because they also turned the thoughts of many Iraqi's towards vengeance.
geo1671
August 31st, 2010 at 5:39 am
Mick/Shoot– how about both of you wear dunce caps next to the teach–just to make sure you don't go halfcocked. Kosher media/govern has always been spewing the notion that Women need to be liberated from these awful religious nut case men. Yes! Muslim women should wear the G-string in public and hold public office and the hell with looking after the kids at home. Got to get those women working 9 to 5.
This con job is about getting American stupid women to accept the American invasions–U dummies :^o
geo1671
August 31st, 2010 at 5:41 am
David–none what you said will damage the propsed oil pipe line
Phil Giraldi
August 31st, 2010 at 7:28 am
Great article Jeff! The only reason I can see for staying in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is to prove to the world that we are still the big dog and can do whatever we want to do, burnishing the war credentials of great leaders like Mr. Obama, who promised to get us out of those various places that he has now doubled down in… WTF is going on here? Iraq had a reasonably competent army before we dismissed it and fired all its officers. Now we need fifteen more years and 50,000 trainers to finish rebuilding it seven years after we started the enterprise? WTF indeed.
DavidSpero
August 31st, 2010 at 10:21 am
In case you didn't notice, the status of Iraq's women has been declining precipitously ever since the US got there. Staying longer won't make it better.
gary
August 31st, 2010 at 1:37 pm
they should put up billboards all over iraq with saddams face on them asking "do you miss me yet?"….hey they are doing that for our fearless ex leader bush….no matter what you think of obama he is a piker in the field of death and destruction compared to the repubthugs
jeff_davis
August 31st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
None of you have it right. Your first mistake is believing anything any politician says, and integrating that bullsh*t into your follow-on logic. Your second mistake is in thinking there is any kind of plan being followed here. The military and political leadership is winging it from one failed moment to the next failed moment, and everything out of their mouths is spin, directed at the sheeple, and intended to deflect the sort of career-killing bullet that put an end to McChrystal.
The original plan was the Neocon "slam-dunk", rose petals, cake walk, that would pay for itself with Iraqi oil. But that fever-dream was dead before Saddam's statue hit the pavement in Baghdad. Neocon plans suffer from a gigantic flaw, namely that the Neocons are completely disconnected from reality. Someone said it before me, and hit the bull's eye, "The Neocons got straight A's in school, but flunked "life"." To prove my point check out the Neocon plan: win fast, win cheap, install our puppet, get Iraqi oil on the cheap, create massive US military bases from which to attack Iran and rule the mideast, turn Iraq into a Muslim Mall Of the Americas complete with American-loving muslims, and live happily ever after. Total whack job.
When things went south, it was jump to it and find a plan B,…and then a plan C,…and so forth through the alphabet. That's what we've got today, a daily hustle to reposition the goal posts and avoid failure on one's watch, hoping to make it(1) to the end of his administration: Bush; (2)through the next election: Obama; or (3) to your next command: Petraeus.
That the empire wants the bases, still wants them, was never in doubt, and so long as there are huge profits to be made in the attempt, it will continue, until brought to an end by military defeat or economic catastrophe, …or both.