Subject: Decades in Iraq???

Without Reservation

A biweekly column by Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)

posted 21 February 04

Commander, USFI?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is fielding all kinds of questions these days. He is asked about the need for a draft ("No, of course not."). He gets asked about rifts – past, present and future – with the State Department ("What rifts?"). He is asked about the progress in Iraq after "liberation" and says things are better, even that "the electricity is starting to come back on," albeit almost a year after we arrived to save the day.

One topic he will soon be asked about is the new command he is proposing to ensure continued military control over Iraq after a so-called sovereign government takes the reins in July of this year. In the mode of United States Forces Korea (USFK), centered in Seoul since the mid-fifties and formalized just over 25 years ago, we may well see the permanent establishment of a United States Force Iraq, complete with a four-star general in Baghdad to run the place.

The Washington Times reports this plan, and with their connections into the Pentagon hierarchy, it bears a reading. The new command set for Baghdad would be modeled on USFK, the four-star command within Pacific Command that controls US and South Korean Forces.

When this information is combined with the words of other senior personnel, it becomes more believable. Chairman of the JCS Dick Meyers says that while the length of time U.S. troops will be deployed in Iraq is unknowable, it will be for some time. Retired Lt General Jay Garner is far more forthright, recently telling the Government Executive magazine that our troops will be in Iraq for the next few decades.

Jay Garner has a lot to say. He honestly reveals one of the primary reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and no, it wasn't WMD, it wasn't because of a grave and growing threat, and sadly, it wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator. Noting how establishing U.S. naval bases in the Philippines in the early 1900s allowed the United States to maintain a "great presence in the Pacific," Garner said, "To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary." So that's what Iraq is for! The Spanish America War redux! Who knew? By the way, USFK Backgrounder Number 3 states: "The United States is also a partner in the operations of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command, an integrated headquarters that was established by the two governments in 1978, and is responsible for planning the defense of the ROK (Republic of Korea) and, if necessary, directing the ROK/US combat forces to defeat the enemy aggression."

An integrated headquarters, to plan for the defense of Iraq, in order to defeat enemy aggression. No doubt, some of that aggression will be from within. Perhaps some sort of controlled fracturing of Iraq can be managed, dividing an oil producing "friend of the U.S." from a terroristic no man's land that can be defended against. With over 130,000 troops already installed on U.S.-run Iraqi bases, we will now write the status of forces agreement and the charter for US Forces Iraq. Iraqi appointed politicians beholden to the United States for life, limb and cash flow will happily sign wherever we tell them. And as usual, we'll worry about the details later.

A key American lackey and Iraqi Governing Council representative, Dick Cheney's good friend Ahmad Chalabi, proudly proclaimed this week that his lies and stories, while lies and stories to be sure, were actually all worthwhile. His version of the "truth" shared directly with the Office of Special Plans and the Vice President's staff served as the propaganda foundation for the occupation of Iraq.

In Chalabi's own words, "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

I wonder what the US Forces Iraq Backgrounder Numbers 1, 2 and 3 will say? On the other hand, does it really matter?

© 2004 Karen Kwiatkowski

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski can be reached at karen@militaryweek.com.