Permanent US Stay?

As early proposals in notebooks at the White House and the Pentagon are slowly revealed to a US public increasingly opposed to the Iraq war, Middle East experts warn that any plan for permanent bases would cement the US image in Iraq and the region as that of an occupying force. Larry Diamond, a former official with the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) which governed Iraq in the two years after the ouster of Saddam's Sunni/Ba'thist dictatorship, says: "This is a really bad idea, one that will only feed the image of the US as the occupier, the colonial power. There's no way long-term military bases are going to be acceptable to a majority of the Iraqi population".

Now an expert in democratisation at Stanford University, Diamond has argued for more than two years for the US to relinquish any plans for permanent bases. Such a step, he says, would cool the conflict and ease deadly opposition to 160,000 US troops on Iraqi soil.

Even supporters of a permanent US presence in Iraq say now is not the time to stoke flames of anti-American feeling by openly discussing prospects for permanent bases. Ralph Peters, a retired US Army intelligence officer specialising in the Middle East, says: "We'd be stupid not to be planning for what I see is the probability of long-term bases. But it's premature to openly discuss the prospect until you win the war, so I'd have to say the floating of these ideas was not very artfully done".

In recent comments to the press, White House spokesman Tony Snow broached the idea of a long-term US military presence in Iraq and specifically drew a comparison to Korea and the 30,000 troops the US keeps there five decades after the end of the Korean War. At the same time, Defence Secretary Robert Gates spoke of a "protracted" US presence in Iraq. Such comments from the civilian leadership increasingly mirror the perspective of US military leaders on the ground in Iraq. The Christian Science Monitor recently quoted a US Army officer as saying a consensus was growing among US military leaders for the need for long-term training of Iraqi forces and a continued US presence to fight al-Qaeda.

In making public statements about the possibility of permanent bases in Iraq, the Bush administration sought to send a signal to the Iraqi government. Michael O'Hanlon, a military affairs expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says: "The reason these ideas were floated out of the White House now basically lies in the context of all the speculation and congressional debate over a big drawdown being just over the horizon. This is the Bush administration wanting to send a message of resolve, to Americans but mostly to the Iraqi people. If Iraqi leaders believe we are getting ready to leave, they are more likely to focus on preparing for full-blown civil war and less on the steps needed for national reconciliation".

The Korea comparison and comments from military officers in Iraq suggest the US may be contemplating a long-term presence in Iraq of 30,000-50,000 troops. But experts caution against equating Iraq in the 21st century with South Korea in the 20th. O'Hanlon says: "The analogy doesn't make sense. South Korea was threatened by an external enemy. Iraq is threatened by internal chaos". Others single out the perception of US forces as the essential difference between the two cases. Stanford's Diamond says: "Korea was pro-American, and there was a sense of common cause in the face of the communist threat".

Planning permanent bases in Iraq could backfire and set back the progress the US has made against al-Qaeda by turning some newly acquired US allies back into opponents. Diamond says: "Certainly this would not sit well with the Sunnis, who are finally willing to engage with us and ally with us against al-Qaeda. If we start talking about permanent bases with 30,000 troops, they'll go back to seeing us as something they need to resist".

Peters takes a different view, however, saying the minority Sunnis are starting to see the US presence in a different light as they wrangle with the majority Shi'ite population and government over Iraq's future. Still, even he assumes that any permanent US bases would have to be in the "pro-American" Kurdish north, adding: "I don't think we'd try to keep open bases the Iraqis didn't want". His assumption is that the US plan would call for one or two air bases jointly located with ground-forces bases. He sees US discussion of permanent bases as part of planning for a possibility that Iraq may not hold together.

A continued US presence then becomes a kind of caution light against jittery neighbours who may step up their intervention and openly take sides. But Peters sees some sense in the Korea analogy, saying: "The point is, our forces in Korea really have kept the peace, and they did allow South Korea, a country that was in ruins, to develop. By talking about Korea, they're talking about giving Iraq time to develop". That assumes a long-term US presence will aid in Iraq's stability and development.

O'Hanlon says: "We are going to have to be in Iraq for a number of years still, but to talk in terms of a number of decades is not helpful. Despite our best efforts, we have been part of the reason for the turmoil in Iraq. We should not presuppose that our long-term presence will be beneficial".

With the Republicans pressing their partner in the White House, President Bush, that progress in Iraq must be evident by September, Iraqi leaders in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) have come to the conclusion that much of their fate depends on US politics. The US presidential race has begun and the Democrats are squeezing Bush in a way which may cause another change in Pax Americana (see fap5-Iraq-USPoliticsMay14-07).