Posted by
Reeson on Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:43:19 PM
By Greg C. Reeson
The House of Representatives passed by a near-unanimous margin yesterday a bill that would bar the United States from establishing permanent military installations in Iraq. While the measure is unlikely to ever become law, it is still worth examining if for no other reason than to point out its stupidity.
In one way, I guess, it is understandable that the measure received great support (it passed 399 to 24) because lawmakers in Congress are desperately searching for an answer to our continued presence in Iraq. Disregarding any talk about the consequences of withdrawal, Congress continues to seek political cover instead of engaging in serious thought about why we need to be in Iraq, and why we need to stay engaged in the region.
Why would we want or need permanent military bases in Iraq? A quick look at the strategic picture gives us a few clues. First, the Iraqi government will require our assistance for many, many more years. That assistance will include military forces which will require fixed facilities for their support. The Iraqi government is too weak, and the Iraqi infrastructure too degraded to provide the necessary level of support for our soldiers. Besides, is "permanent" really permanent? At any time we could sell, loan or transfer any such facilities to the government of Iraq. Remember Germany? Many of the bases we are currently transferring to the German government have been "permanent" U.S. military bases since the end of World War II.
Second, the Middle East is a region vital to the national security of the United States, and our presence in the region helps ensure the steady flow of much of the world's oil supply. What better place to have U.S. military bases in locations approved and requested by the Iraqi government? If we know that we will be engaged in the region for the foreseeable future, doesn't it make sense to take steps to facilitate that engagement? Wouldn't it be wise to expand the number of sites available to us for responding to crises in the Middle East?
Third, Iran's increasing aggressiveness in the region and on the world stage require close attention from the United States. Permanent bases in Iraq put U.S. military forces in a strategically critical location from which to contain Iran and the spread of Iranian influence in an already troubled region. If Iran knows we are not going to go away, they will be forced to deal with our presence.
The problem with the Congress right now is that its members are too focused on the 2008 elections. Instead of worrying about their political careers, they should be realistically assessing the strategic situation in Iraq and the Middle East, and they should be planning for U.S. engagement in the region for decades to come.