Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Even as it prepares withdraw the last American troops from Iraq by this coming December, the Obama administration is preparing to step up, not diminish, our presence in the region. From the Sunday New York Times:
MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense….
Now, this of course raises all kinds of questions—just all kinds. Couldn’t it be pretty persuasively argued, for example, that Obama is trying to have it both ways? That’s he’s appeasing his base by getting out of Iraq while at the same time attempting to placate the Pentagon by placing a ring of steel, as it were, around Iraq and Iran? What does this say about the way we Americans make our foreign policy? An increased presence in the Gulf? When did that get raised in Congress? When did the president begin discussing it in his speeches? Why, never, of course. Somebody in the administration simply decided to give a couple of Times reporters a briefing, communicating with Congress and the American people by way of what almost amounts to an elaborate leak.
Putting those questions aside, however, here’s the question that strikes me as most important: Aren’t we about to make the same mistake in the Persian Gulf that we’ve been making in Western Europe over the last quarter of a century or so?
Guaranteeing the defense of Western Europe made a lot of sense when Britain, France, Italy and other nations were still recovering from the Second World War. But once those nations became stable and prosperous—say around the early nineteen-seventies—our failure to draw down our own presence in NATO, forcing the Western Europeans to pay for a much greater share of their own defense, began producing perverse effects. Western Europe ceased to view the United States with gratitude, resenting us instead. The European elites became convinced of a fantasy—namely, that it was the European Union and not the presence of American troops that had kept the peace in Europe. As the late Irving Kristol used to argue during the Eighties, the defense of Western Europe was certainly in our interest—but it was in the interest of Western Europe, too. Today? We still have some 50,000 troops in Germany. We created a military and diplomatic structure with such a powerful life of its own that even now we’re unable to escape the thing's sheer inertia.
Now note the membership of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the organization mentioned in the Times excerpt above. They’re rich nations—very rich nations. Two of the nations on the list, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, enjoy per capita GDPs higher than ours. We’re supposed to defend them? (Pictured, just to help fix this proposition in our minds: the sultan of Oman, the king of Saudi Arabia, and the emir of Kuwait.)
Maybe there are good reasons why we should—maybe. But doesn’t one official or another have the obligation to tell us what they are? The Secretary of State, maybe, or the Secretary of Defense? Heck, doesn’t the president have some explaining to do?
Victor Davis Hanson? Paul Rahe? Richard Epstein? Anyone? What say?
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Well, that's a relief--lets make sure the left knows this.
Dec '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
As every decision with this Administration seems to be focused on November, 2012, perhaps they just want to keep the maximum number of military personnel having to vote via absentee ballot.
May '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Well put.
Dec '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
How do we, Peter, balance protecting our interests in that region (or any other region for that matter) with making the regional governments do something on behalf of their own peace? It is in this moment that Perry's jobs/energy plan makes the most sense. We have to keep that region of the world stable because our whole way of life will collapse if the price of oil doubles (again.) Most could adjust to higher gas prices, but when all the basics of life go up as real purchasing power goes down (thanks Ben!), wages remain stagnant, and the government consumes an even greater share of the GDP the whole American experiment gets very, very shaky. Our very real need for energy makes us a backstop to the rest of the world's desire to buy butter rather than bullets. The administration won't say anything about this because it is our nation's dirty little secret. We are our own crack head cousin, sort of.
Mar '11
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
First of all, I sure hope someone smarter than me is having a close look at this.
I imagine that there have been a large number of anguished communications from the "friendlier" nations in the area since the announcement that we are bugging out of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Dubai have got to be wondering what our intentions are and whether our retreat is long-term and they are being kicked to the curb. Iran is going nuclear, and when that happens, all bets will be off.
“They’re worried that the American withdrawal will leave a vacuum, that their being close by will always make anyone think twice before taking any action,” Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said in an interview, referring to officials in the Persian Gulf region.
Sheik Khalid was in Washington last week for meetings with the administration and Congress. “There’s no doubt it will create a vacuum,” he said, “and it may invite regional powers to exert more overt action in Iraq.”
Nature abhors a vacuum. Predatory states relish one.
Dec '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Peter, you are now hitting upon the bedrock of why it is so important to be a conservative. The inherent contradictions of the left wing mindset can no longer be hidden once they have actually achieved office. The highest office, the Presidency, reveals the greatest contradictions. The fantasy peace dividend bought by abandoning American interests abroad is the ultimate deal with the devil. The peace turns out not to be peace and the dividend always turns out to be a down turn in the economy. There is no free lunch in foriegn policy either. Defending the Gulf in the way you are describing is just good strategic thought. Unfortunately, if you are a left wing demogogue President, your lies may get in the way of prudent policy. The Republicans should "break his legs" over this. Not because we enjoy punishing but because it is the quickest way to keep the walking disaster in the White House from causing anymore disasters.
May '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Do we get any oil out of this? Do we get anything out of this?
Or are we just going to borrow money from China to pay to defend arabs from whom we'll buy oil with more money borrowed from China?
Feb '11
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Yesterday the LA Times had an article online about how technology is raising oil production in the United States. Combine that with the shale gas boom and we can we might drive down the price of energy from fossil fuel worldwide. If so, good by Arab oil wealth. At least something to hope for.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-boom-20111029,0,7414545.story
So, what if we - the US - did achieve energy independence? Do we allow its export of natural gas and petroleum? Thus keeping us tied to the world price on oil?
Every once in a while I wonder about the value of free trade. :-)
Aug '11
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Because exiting through Syria, and into the Med, was a bigger hassle? No wait... that's not right either? Was Saladin really a Kurd?
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
The really bizarre thing is that, as this is presented, it's poised against Iran and in case of a collapse of Iraq. But keeping troops in Iraq would be a better guarantor of either. No?
(And, yes, Midnight Golfer, Saladin was really a Kurd. His family was originally from Dvin in Armenia. He was born in Tikrit, in Iraq, where his father was a military governor for the Seljuks.)
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Peter, while I think the way this decision has been made, as you note, is fundamentally undemocratic, I also observe that Americans seem to have so little interest in foreign policy that it's easy to get away with making these decisions with no debate. In this respect, we're getting the government we deserve. Of course, I think this should be debated at every level--in Congress, in the media, by Republicans, non-stop, in fact. But it won't be.
That said, I think it's exactly the right decision. Get the troops to a place where they're welcome and relatively safe, but for the love of God, don't pull them precipitously from the region. We can worry about the long-term security architecture of the region when we're not imminently confronting Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf.
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Not if the Iraqis don't want them there.
May '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
If I were to let my cynical conspiracy side run wild I would guess:
- Iran is having a tough time economically. The only two big time partners it has in energy exploration and development are China and Russia - both of whom are failing in the projects they are managing. Iran needs oil revenue to placate its population, which means billions more invested than it can currently attain.
- Iran just tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador. It is the Shiite counterpart to Sunni Saudi Arabia. Antipathy reigns.
- Obama needs any and all good news for 2012 - like lower oil prices and maybe a conflict everyone can get behind.
Conspiracy: Saudi pumps up production to lower oil prices and inflict economic damage to Iran - as they did in the late 70s. USA beefs up its military presence throughout the Gulf to reduce the possibility of Iran trying to shut the Straights in reaction to the Saudi move.
Saudis get revenge the only way they can - at an acceptable price. Obama looks strong and gets lower gas prices. Win - Win.
As I said....If I were to let my cynical conspiracy side run wild.
Aug '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Wait, I'm confused. I thought the US presence in the Gulf was the whole reason that Al Qaeda attacked in the first place.
Was I malinformed?!?!
Aug '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Double-Post. My kingdom for a delete button.
Edited on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:57amDec '10
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Steven Zoraster: Yesterday the LA Times had an article online about how technology is raising oil production in the United States. Combine that with the shale gas boom and we can we might drive down the price of energy from fossil fuel worldwide. If so, good by Arab oil wealth. At least something to hope for.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-boom-20111029,0,7414545.story
So, what if we - the US - did achieve energy independence? Do we allow its export of natural gas and petroleum? Thus keeping us tied to the world price on oil?
Every once in a while I wonder about the value of free trade. :-) · Oct 30 at 3:54pm
If the price of oil goes down a lot, I'm not sure that shale oil is feasible.
Oct '11
Re: Out of Iraq--and Into the Persian Gulf. How Come?
Good point Claire, this decision is fundamentally undemocratic. It should not be uncommon knowledge that much of our troop strength is merely being adjusted to another area of the same region.
Should we as conservatives be happy though that the President isn't completely removing our military power from The Gulf? Certainly it is what his base really wants.
In a different direction, I've always wondered what political Europe would look like if we had pulled most of our troops out after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Would they have been financially able to engage in every state project or welfare program enacted today?
In the same way I wonder what the GCC states will be able to attempt because they will not need to fund as much of their own military presence in the region?
Edited on Jan 9 at 9:15am