Image courtesy of Marion Doss under CC BY-SA 2.0.
This week, the Bush Administration unveiled plans to station a force of 200,000 troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Only the day before, General Eric Shinseki, the Chief of Staff of the Army declared that, “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably a figure that would be required,” to garrison Iraq after the war was ended. Both Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded by attacking General Shinseki and stating that his estimates “were wildly off the mark.”
Retired Army Colonel David Hackworth has stated that virtually all the Joint Chiefs and top Pentagon brass oppose the Administration’s plan to invade Iraq, an allegation which has been supported by various insider news reports over the past several months. Accordingly, Shinseki may have deliberately high-balled the number of troops that it would take to occupy Iraq to provide support to opponents of the war and allude to his continuing behind the scenes opposition to the Administration’s plans for a new US invasion of Iraq. Previous estimates were that a force of “only” 75,000 troops would suffice. The latest rather conservative statement of the cost of war with Iraq and the immediate occupation provided by the US Department of Defense are that it would total $95 billion. With this latest revelation that 200,000 troops would be used to garrison Iraq indefinitely, it seems that this estimate would have to be revised substantially upward. Unofficial estimates including the cost of planned US funded reconstruction of Iraq which go as high as a trillion dollars may be more accurate.
The rationale for a permanent commitment of US forces to occupy Iraq, let alone an occupying army of 200,000 troops is visibly lacking and has yet to be explained by the administration. It seems that President Bush is intent on remaking the Middle East in America’s image after all in a bid to make a name for himself in the history books. A permanent commitment of US troops on this scale has not been contemplated since the Cold War occupation of post-war Germany. For forty-five years, this massive commitment of US military forces in Europe consumed fully half of the US defense budget. Could an occupation of Iraq consuming as much as one-third of the US defense budget be justified? Could it be that the liberals are right that the Administration wants to secure permanent, imperial access to the oilfields of the second largest oil producing country in the world since the Democrats in the Senate refuse to allow him to develop our own ample reserves of oil here at home?
Some have alluded that this planned massive troop deployment might be aimed at affecting regime change in Iran, despite recent reports that it might already possess intermediate range nuclear missiles. However, the President declared 9-11 Islamist terrorist supporting Iran off limits to US military attack early last year and has since repeated that the US has no intent to attack Iran despite clear links to its support for Al Qaeda and equally despicable terrorists. This is after all not about fighting the soon to be defunct and in all likelihood soon to be lost war against terrorism. It is about fighting a war to “get Saddam.” A US invasion of Iraq and ensuing indefinite occupation of its territory will serve to enflame the Middle East, incite further acts of terrorism against the US and make the current level of anti-Americanism there look tame in comparison. In short, a permanent occupation of Iraq is a recipe not for peace as recently proclaimed by the President but rather a recipe for perpetual war.
In his latest speech on his post-war plan for reshaping the Middle East delivered on February 26th at the American Enterprise Institute, a longtime neoconservative bastion, he stated that “the new government of Israel…will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state — and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement.” Accordingly, even as the President is unflinching in his determination to invade and occupy Iraq whose links to terrorists are essentially limited to providing death benefits to Palestinian suicide bombers, he appears to be calling for the creation of what could potentially be a new terrorist-supporting state which could pose a dire threat to our greatest ally in the region–Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state and likely safe haven to terrorists and suicide bombers is in manifest opposition to Israel interests as has been stated by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Once again, it seems that the President’s plan to reshape the Middle East will do far more to fuel the fire of terrorism than it will do to counteract it.
In his speech, Bush invoked visions of World War II and the reconstruction that followed. The President, it seems, is attempting to refight World War II. For him Saddam is Hitler, Iraq is Nazi Germany and the alleged threat to the US posed by Iraq must be met with immediate and overwhelming force to liberate Iraq from that unique brand of secular tyranny known as Saddamism Iraq must be garrisoned indefinitely with nearly half of the United States Army even though the Army is already badly overstretched by its current commitments and troop deployments. Such an occupation would leave the US powerless to fight and win even one major war and our enemies would be left free to attack, overwhelm and occupy our allies on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his overly anxious chief of US conventional military disarmament, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Steven Cambone are reportedly preparing to move forward with plans to cut the Army’s already much downsized force structure by as much as 40% later this year. Such a draconian force cut combined with a massive US troop commitment in soon-to-be occupied Iraq could potentially leave the new American Empire without sufficient troops to even defend the US homeland from illegal border incursions, let alone fight new wars abroad. So much for homeland defense.
Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Bin Laden’s recent tirade calling for all Muslims to rise up and attack the United States in defense of Iraq as further evidence of Al Qaeda’s alleged ties to Iraq. In the same speech, bin Laden also attacked Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government as “socialists” and “infidels”. Interestingly, in a second audiotape aired by Al Jeezera, Bin Laden used the same term, “infidels” to describe Americans whom he exorted all Muslims to fight and kill. Accordingly, far from demonstrating a link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, the tape seems to indicate that Bin Laden considers Saddam an enemy, which he equates with the would-be American invaders of Iraq. The purpose of the tape seems to demonstrate solidarity with the Iraqi people both against invading US forces and against secularist dictator Saddam Hussein.
Bin Laden’s verbal denunciation of Saddam Hussein two weeks ago seems to indicate that he wants to see Saddam replaced, presumably by an Islamist leader like himself. He may get his wish since the planned smashing of Iraq and its military will likely result in a fracturing of that country into its three component parts—Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites—that will leave it and much of the Middle East wide open to Iranian, Shiite and thus Islamist control and influence. British intelligence and many senior US intelligence officials have pointed out that Saddam and Islamists in Al Qaeda and other Iranian-supported terrorist organizations are natural enemies and largely debunked alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda before President Bush’s and British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s politicization of their respective intelligence communities swung into full force.
Currently, Osama Bin Laden is relegated to hiding and has refrained from repeating the spectacular attacks of 9-11. He needs a provocation on the part of the US to fuel his terrorist organization building efforts. A US invasion of Iraq and subsequent indefinite large-scale US military occupation of Iraq would likely be Bin Laden’s dream come true as terrorists recruits would flock to his anti-American standard and likely double or even triple Al Qaeda’s numbers and funding. Hundreds of millions of dollars more funding and several thousand additional terrorist and suicide bomber recruits would enable him to stage additional attacks as devastating or perhaps even more devastating than the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11. CIA Director George Tenet and FBI Director Robert Mueller recently declared that it is the view of the intelligence community that Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein remains the greatest risk to US homeland security. One wonders if there is anybody listening to them in the senior levels of the Administration.