Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Washington Post
Iraq Order of Battle
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News

Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Digby's Blog
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Friday, December 01, 2006

No staying in Iraq

Basra and the oil fields south of the city

The viability of permanent US bases in Iraq

Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:09:50 AM PST

The fantasy world of the Bush administration is proving remarkably resistant to facts on the ground. It appears that Bush's refusal to withdraw from Iraq is connected to the notion that US forces can withdraw to a few heavily-defended superbases and defy the will of the insurgents while continuing to project US power in the Mideast. This strategy is untenable, for the following reasons:

  1. US logistics in Iraq depend on the road network. The bulk of US supplies are trucked in over long roads from ports in Kuwait. Without active patrolling to secure the road network, the bases will be cut off from food, fuel, and ammunition. The US does not have enough tactical airlift capacity to supply a dozen large bases in Iraq in a hostile environment.
  1. US bases in Iraq are big targets for mortars and rockets. As the insurgents improve their organization and training, their use of long-range weapons will grow more effective. If Iran or the Saudis supply insurgents with modern multiple-launch rockets, insurgents will be able to mount devastating strikes against US bases. Even inaccurate bombardment of US bases will impose a heavy psychological burden on US troops serving there.
  1. The oil infrastructure of Iraq cannot be protected by US troops hunkered down in heavily defended bases. Oil facilities are fragile and easily damaged by hit-and-run attacks. Without active patrolling of hundreds of miles of pipelines and thousands of key oil facilities, the US forces will be helpless to perform their key mission: guarding "our" oil.
  1. US bases cannot be concealed from the Iraqis. No matter how much the US forces isolate themselves from Iraqi society, the people of Iraq will view the presence of US troops as a direct challenge to their sovereignty. No Iraqi politician will be able to support the long-term presence of US forces in Iraq.

These significant obstacles to maintaining permanent US bases in Iraq, which even a school child could grasp, seem to evade the understanding of our incompetent President. Let us hope that the new Congress can compel him to end the Iraq debacle before many more young Americans die for nothing in Iraq.

The land south of Basra is hard to actually secure. If a guerrilla force decided to make it inoperable, bunkered down US forces would do nothing to secure it.

posted by Steve @ 10:19:00 AM

10:19:00 AM

The News Blog home page


Editorial Staff

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans