by Eric Martin
Some good news (in a qaulified sense) for a change from Joel Wing regarding the Obama administration's fealty to the SOFA-related Iraq timetable, as first agreed to by the Bush administration:
U.S. forces are scheduled to draw down to 50,000 by September 1, 2010 following President Obama’s withdrawal plan. It’s hardly been noticed, but U.S. troops are almost at that level already.
Since 2009 over 60,000 U.S. soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq. In January 2009 when Obama first took office, there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. After that, several thousand were withdrawn every couple months, going down to 140,000 in February, 137,000 in March, 134,000 in May, 130,000 in June, etc. According to the spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, there are currently 77,500 U.S. personnel in Iraq as of July 2010. […]
Pulling out the troops isn’t the hardest part of the process, it’s moving or transferring all the equipment. 1.1 million items have already been shipped out of Iraq, with 1.7 million in 405 bases still leftover. Anything that’s not considered essential can be turned over to the Iraqis. Each base can donate between $25-$30 billion to the locals. So far 500,000 items have been given to Iraqis as a result. The rest can be sold to Iraqi businessmen, who then sell it to the public. Some Iraqis also claim that the Iraqi military illegally sells off some of the equipment to make money on the side. […]
By the end of 2011 all U.S. personnel are supposed to withdraw from Iraq. That process is already well underway. After that date, it’s likely that Baghdad will ask for some continued American support however, because it’s unlikely to have a military capable of defending the country from foreign threats. That means U.S. personnel will remain in the country for several more years, past the final drawdown period.
This otherwise positive news is only so in a qualified sense because while we are leaving Iraq and that is for the good of all involved, unfortunately we are leaving behind a country that is still wracked by violence, riddled with corruption, ruled by a regime that pays little mind to human rights and civil liberties and with a traumitized and, in some instances, radicalized population that must embrace a conciliatory mindset in order to broach the stark ethnic and sectarian divisions that threaten to erupt in ever increasing bouts of conflict.
While the invasion set these tragic events in motion, staying past this deadline would not have helped their resolution. In fact, the imminent departure itself was ameliorative. While it is fashionable to deride timetables with respect to Afghanistan, the fact that a reasonable firm schedule was imposed on the US presence in Iraq did much to tamp down the anti-occupation insurgencies, and focus the attention of the Iraqi government on the task of managing the country post-departure. That created positive momentum in more ways than one.
Whether that momentum will be enough to drag Iraq away from the many pitfalls that loom remains to be seen. Nevertheless, even this macabre denouement is probably more than we can hope for in terms of the Obama administration's present Afghanistan policy. Even with the 2011 start date on the horizon, Afghanistan is far more fractured than Iraq. Of course, their relative starting points determined the present discrepancies as much as any other factor. In each case, disengagement is the best option.
base can donate between $25-$30 billion to the locals.
This is wrong, it’s million, not billion, per the underlying NPR article (someone should tell Joel). Still, 405 bases at $25 million a pop is…$10 billion. Try getting the federal government to spend $10 billion on, say, mass transit.
Oh, and we have 405 bases in Iraq, still?
After that date, it’s likely that Baghdad will ask for some continued American support however, because it’s unlikely to have a military capable of defending the country from foreign threats.
Whatever, this is completely unnecessary, no country is stupid enough to invade Iraq. Oh wait.
heh
This from the NPR article is wonderful:
The reason some material is being given to the Iraqis is simple, U.S. officials say. For example, a blast wall is worth $5,000, but it would cost $15,000 to ship it out. So, leaving it to the Iraqis is actually saving the U.S. military money.
I would love to see the calculations that went into the supply and demand curves that arrived at the market clearing price of $5,000 for “blast walls.” Is the demand curve elastic? Inelastic? What about the supply? And how do we control for variety and quality across producers of blast walls to ensure that each one is, in fact, worth $5,000? I mean, there’s a guy down the street willing to sell me his custom-made Balsa Blastwall for 500 bucks.
Also, did no one think that for any particular blast wall it might be cheaper to “ship it out” (what did it cost to “ship it in”, BTW?) if it were broken into smaller bits prior to shipping and thus easier to pack? I’m sure we can find someone in Iraq with expertise in the area of blast wall de-construction. They might even be motivated to do the work by something other than money.
But hey, at least we’re saving a bundle on blast wall shipping costs. At this rate, the Iraq War will pay for itself.
I think we’re going to recognize not so very long from now that this exercise in Iraq at least equaled Vietnam in cost, destruction, and pointlessness. Other than getting Saddam hanged for trying to blow up W.’s daddy, I cannot see one single thing that the US, Iraqis, or anyone else has gained from it. Did it even make anything better for the Israelis? Ten years from now is Iraq going to be any friendlier to Israel than it would have been otherwise?
The calculation of how much I personally paid for this disgusts me.
I think we’re going to recognize not so very long from now that this exercise in Iraq at least equaled Vietnam in cost, destruction, and pointlessness.
What is it with these freaking Asian land wars anyway?
The calculation of how much I personally paid for this disgusts me.
Try the calculation the other way, Jacob: $1 trillion spent to “liberate” 25 million Iraquis comes to $40,000 for every man, woman, and child (still) living in Iraq. “Freedom” is not “priceless”: the price is easy enough to calculate.
A similar calculation for Afghanistan is left as an exercise for the reader.
–TP
Iraq was a nation-state before we blew it all to shit, whereas Afghanistan wasn’t.
I cannot see one single thing that the US, Iraqis, or anyone else has gained from it.
I think that the stockholders of Xe, General Dynamics, Boeing, and other companies in the military/industrial complex would argue the point. I’m betting the Karl Rove would, too. Not to mention Osama bin Laden. Now those may not be the people we want to have benefiting from our wars, but they have benefited.
I think that the stockholders of Xe, General Dynamics, Boeing, and other companies in the military/industrial complex would argue the point.
But then you’d have to accept that Obama is complicit in the war profiteering, too.
That would be like the end of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.””
I somehow feel reminded of the papal offcial who wrote a letter including the (in)famous sentence (paraphrased, can’t find exact word): When the popes came to Avignon, we found just [small number] prostitutes. When we left we left behind a brothel reaching from the East to the West gate. (Alternatively: Coming we found a single brothel, leaving we left the whole city a brothel).
Given that many Iraqi refugee women have to survive as prostitutes*, the analogy is even partially literally true.
There are usually net winners where the US enters by force an leaves with the place in tatters but in most cases the people would have been better off without the ‘help’. But they are still expected to be grateful.
*and (involuntary) male prostitution is rampant in Afghanistan.
From the front page of today’s WaPo, a perfect illustration of why we need to GTFO of Afghanistan now:
“This is not how you fight a war, at least not in Kandahar,” said a soldier at the outpost who described the incident, which occurred last month, on the condition of anonymity. “We’ve been handcuffed by our chain of command.”
With insurgent attacks increasing across Afghanistan, frustration about rules of engagement is growing among troops, and among some members of Congress. Addressing those concerns will be one of the most complicated initial tasks facing Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the country.
The controversy pits the desire of top military officers to limit civilian casualties, something they regard as an essential part of the overall counterinsurgency campaign, against a widespread feeling among rank-and-file troops that restrictions on air and mortar strikes are placing them at unnecessary risk and allowing Taliban fighters to operate with impunity.
As for the emphasized section, which members of Congress? Rajiv doesn’t bother to tell us.