← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 9222 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-08-22
2003-08-22 23:32 | User Profile
From The Financial Times, available online at: [url=http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479232025]http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...d=1059479232025[/url]
US troops may stay in Iraq indefinitely
By Peter Spiegel in Washington Published: August 21 2003 23:57 | Last Updated: August 21 2003 23:57
The US commander in charge of all forces in Iraq said on Thursday American troops might not be brought home once international peacekeepers are deployed to the war-torn country, a reversal that means 150,000 US soldiers may stay in Iraq indefinitely.
General John Abizaid, the new head of US central command, said foreign troops and indigenous Iraqi forces would gradually take over internal security duties from American soldiers, but added US troops would then be redeployed for a "more aggressive posture on external duties", such as securing borders.
"It depends on the security situation," Gen Abizaid said of the role of foreign peacekeepers. "It doesn't necessarily mean that additional foreign troops would cause a corresponding drawdown of American forces."
The Cencom chief's comments are a clear break from previous Pentagon statements on the status of American deployments. General John Keane, the acting chief of staff of the US army, told a congressional hearing last month that a Polish-led division in southern Iraq would replace 9,000 US marines this fall, and that once another foreign division arrived - the US has contacted India, Pakistan and Turkey about a division-sized force - four brigades, or approximately 20,000 troops, from the US army would be replaced.
"I believe that that's exactly the purpose of getting foreign troops in," said Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, when asked at the same congressional hearing if American forces would be reduced when foreign troops arrived. "We are trying to get other people to fill in for us. We're trying to get Iraqis to fill in for us."
Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, has tried to remain circumspect about the length and number of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying the Pentagon must constantly re-evaluate the security situation before deciding on the number of US troops to return to home bases and when they will leave.
He repeated that stance on Thursday, saying: "Trying to look ahead and anticipate and predict all of that is very difficult."
But he also acknowledged Gen Abizaid would have the most important say in US troop presence. "The level of US forces will be totally a function of the general's recommendations to the president and to me."
The level of US troop strength in Iraq has become highly politicised in recent weeks, with some conservative lawmakers, such as the influential Republican Senator John McCain, calling for additional deployments. At the same time, several Democratic senators - and a handful of Republicans - have taken the Pentagon to task over the rising costs of the war, which is directly linked to force size.
Before the war, the Pentagon repeatedly tried to play down expectations that US forces would be forced to stay in Iraq in great numbers for a long period of time.
When General Eric Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, told a congressional hearing before the war that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to stabilise Iraq, Mr Wolfowitz publicly contradicted him, calling the estimate "wildly off the mark".
2003-08-23 00:47 | User Profile
The British maintained a military presence in Iraq for 42 years between the expulsion of the Turks in 1916 and the fall of the monarchy in 1958. The presence was relatively limited, but then so were the goals, of which there were only two. First was maintenance of the oil supply and second, protection of the Empire air routes to India and the Far East. There was no pretence about nation building nor ever any attempt at grafting a democratic structure onto a shambolic and frequently antagonistic tribal society.
The Royal Air Force maintained two large and secure bases, one in Basra, the other at Habbaiyah west of Baghdad. From there, punitive expeditions would be periodically launched against any dissident sheikhs who might from time to time fancy chancing their arm. In those days tweaking the lionââ¬â¢s tale frequently had fatal consequences.
Internal security was the responsibility of the Iraqis. The small Iraqi army and the police force were trained and equipped by the British. They dealt with troublemakers and criminals in their own effective manner. British troops never had to perform police duty in native areas; they left the locals to dispense their own, sometimes rough, justice.
Between the sporadic troubles in the tribal areas, the British largely left the Iraqis to their own devices and, from all accounts, it proved to be a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
Many people feel that, had Britain not been stabbed in the back by Eisenhower and Dulles during the Suez campaign, the Hashemite monarchy would still be in place in Iraq today, as it is in Jordan. As it happened, US enthusiasm for ââ¬Ëde-colonizationââ¬â¢ and misguided support for Arab nationalism and ââ¬Ëdemocracyââ¬â¢ has served to destabilize the whole region leading to the present outcome.
One wonders if anyone in the Bush administration knows that any of this ever happened.
2003-08-23 00:54 | User Profile
Dan,
When did the British split off Kuwait?
2003-08-23 01:08 | User Profile
Kuwait was a province of what was then Mesopotamia at the time of the original mandate. It became separately administered when Iraq obtained formal independence in 1932, and became a British protectorate until its independence in 1961.