The New Old-Fashioned Way
Speaking of They have a word for it, “lily pads” are just permanent bases. Note that the force levels are right around the numbers that the Rumsfelds of the world initially talked about drawing down to within a year or so of toppling Saddam Hussein. Note that the remaining mission “deterrent to other countries in the region” is a polite way of restating the original goal of projecting power against Iran and Syria, and anyone else who ever gets out of line. The only difference is that Rumsfeld probably hoped the troops could go off-base now and then and get hookers.
But, once again, the fallback strategy reveals the irreducible imperative of our Iraq adventure: it must never end. Iraq is forever, as far as our Republican elites, and too much of the Democratic elite, are concerned. The “lilypad” plan offers no promise of reducing Iraq’s violence or effecting national reconciliation. Those are guilt trips to be laid on us when our rulers think our concern for Iraqis will perpetuate the core mission of never leaving. They probably even think of “preventing full-blown civil war” or all those other officially humanitarian missions would be nice bonus accomplishments. But the purpose is staying in Iraq now that we’re there. If they can’t accomplish that by playing on our humanitarian impulses, they’ll try instead to sneak past the national attention span: out of sight, out of mind. Which tells you just how important “Iraq the model” is in their hearts as opposed to their propaganda.
Don’t be fooled. Insist on a complete and permanent withdrawal.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
May 22, 2007 @ 7:55 am
Complete, permanent, and immediate. If there’s no good reason to be there, is there any good reason to delay getting out by one more day?
The Congressional Dems’ behavior on this issue is driving me to the brink of total despair.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 22, 2007 @ 7:58 am
I agree, Jim.
Some would say that we need the ability to knock over any Al Qaeda training camps that might spring up. I say that such camps are less likely to spring up if we aren’t there, and if they do spring up we can fly somebody in to do the job and then get the hell out.
Comment by Nell —
May 22, 2007 @ 8:06 am
The world is our pond, apparently… It’s enough to make you wish for a big blue heron.
Comment by John Emerson —
May 22, 2007 @ 10:04 am
The Vietnamese word for lily pad is “Dienbienphu”, you know. True fact. Trust me.
Comment by Pat —
May 22, 2007 @ 10:28 am
“But, once again, the fallback strategy reveals the irreducible imperative of our Iraq adventure: it must never end. Iraq is forever, as far as our Republican elites, and too much of the Democratic elite, are concerned.”
It isn’t just our Republican and Democratic elites. Not by any means. Maintaining a long term presence in Iraq, regardless of any and all ground conditions, has become a matter of great psychological importance for the Republican base. We don’t really need to win (now that it appears to many of them that a win is most unlikely); we need to stay. Planting our asses does not merely substitute for victory, it becomes the victory.
Never mind that a long term military presence on Iraqi soil is not needed for force projection in the Gulf (just ask Adm. Fallon); never mind that the costs of maintaining those 30,000 shit magnets in theater would dwarf any alleged regional benefit; never mind that a tar baby’s still a tar baby, whether to the tune of 140,000+ rotations per annum or under more modest numbers. We used to refer to Operation Just Cause as Operation Just Cuz; one could well apply that moniker to any movement advocating an enduring presence in Iraq.
Just cuz.
Comment by moonbiter —
May 22, 2007 @ 11:16 am
This is kind of a side-track, but I’ve long thought that not only are these lily pads bad ideas morally and strategically, but they are bad ideas tactically as well. If I were Al-Qaeda and I were to get access to a nuclear device in the next ten years, I wouldn’t waste time trying to get it to the US. I would stick it in a delivery truck and drive it near one of these “lily pads.”
Comment by ajay —
May 23, 2007 @ 4:39 am
Never mind that, moonbiter – just keep hitting them with qassams. Target density’s a bit higher in an Army base than it is in Israel…
Comment by mediageek —
May 23, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
I’m utterly unsurprised by this.
FWIW, this is happening in other countries like Kyrgyzstan where they are evidently installing an air force base.
Comment by mediageek —
May 23, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Ah, here we go:
Manas Air Base
Insofar as the US wants to get into the militaristic nation building game, I suppose that building bases in strategically important places makes more sense.
But that’s some seriously expensive sabre rattling.
Comment by mediageek —
May 23, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
To clarify, my previous post should have been more thought out.
I suppose that building bases in strategically important places makes more sense than having bases in places like Germany.
Comment by Alex —
May 25, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
This is ridiculous and so fundamentally noncredible (logistics..) that it can only be an internal Overton-window exercise. For students of the drama, when presenting an unpalatable bureaucratic proposal, it is customary to provide a list of “options” with the real one flanked by equal numbers of impossibilities on each side. This leads the decider to feel they are making a rational and informed choice.