Maybe Biddle should get in touch with the advisor who tried to tell them the war was going to cost a bit more than a billion or two.

I bet he's found work by now. Maybe he could put in a word.

20 years if we're lucky. The populations there have had five years of our war, 21 years of Hussein before that, and are participants in a Sunni/Shiite split going back about 14 hundred years.

Not to get biblical, but as the Israelis were forced to wander in the desert to kill off the generation that remembered slavery, it sounds like 20 years of relative peace would also be required to grow up a generation that might be able to forget the old enmities and ways of doing business.

I remember in the late sixties wondering what the big deal was with Mercedes Benz and VWs in the temple parking lot.

Twenty years if we're lucky.

Freedom is on the march. Iraqi freedom will however, get very tired marching along after 20 years.

What a FUBAR disaster. Only idiot boy and his cast of clowns could screw this up to the point where exiting this tragedy is not possible.

What bothers me most is not what the President and General Patraeus think--that's pretty obvious--but what Congress will do. I mean, is it really possible that Dems in Congress do not know this? Is it really possible that they could not recognize what this means and what it would ential in terms of cost to our country? A magic fairy is not going to appear and put Iraq back together again. No shuffling of the leadership deck chairs in the Iraqi government is going alter the fundamental trajectory of the situation. Does Carl Levin understand this?

I fear not.

KC,
Fear not. They all know. And none of them needs "waking up". They are all in on the con.

Gotta get our money's worth out of "...our massive logistics 'footprint,' our many installations..."

That's batshit insane. 100,000 for 20 years? How much would that cost? For a long shot?

I imagine they believe "the oil would pay for it", but we've heard that song and dance before, and if we continue to invest all that life and wealth to secure the oil in Iraq, how much real political courage and muscle would we see to really wean ourselves off fossil fuels and especially oil with a 21st century Marshall Plan?

Not much.

Get the hell out of Iraq, make the plans now.

Excuse me, to our more sensitive readers, I meant to say guano loco.

Jimm: Get the hell out of Iraq, make the plans now.

Jimm, buddy, you've got to see it from the president's point of view, like Groucho's (Rufus T. Firefly) in Duck Soup.

Ambassador Trentino: I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.
Rufus T. Firefly: It's too late. I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield.

100,000 troops for 20 years...for a long shot gamble...

I wonder 1) how much that will cost, and 2) is that really in the USA's long-term interests (unless the invasion of Iraq really has been about oil); and 3) Is this Biddle's way of undermining the Petraeus and Crocker, er, the WH report?

And 4) why have the impeachment proceedings not begun?

Kevin: "Fred Kaplan has a good piece in Slate today ..."

And it's a damn shame that you're the only one who'll probably read it. Speaking for myself, I gave up on Slate years ago. It's in the same league as The Politico and Joke Line -- excuse me, I mean, "Joe Klein."

Jimm: "I meant to say guano loco."

Didn't Ricky Martin sing that song at Bush's first inaugural?

Lucky for who?

Nobody in Congress--Democrat or Republican--will ask General Betrayus any hard questions because the GOP are Bushbots and the Democrats are afraid of Cheney. Nobody--and I mean NOBODY--in Congress believes that the will of the people means anything at all. Once they get to Washington, they forget who they work for.

What will it cost? Based on recent trends, about 25,000 us lives and 100 times that in Iraqi souls.

Great example of one of I. F. Stone's "shirt-tails," the really interesting stuff that sometimes can be found at the very end of an article. Nice catch.

Freedom is on the march. Iraqi freedom will however, get very tired marching along after 20 years.

What a FUBAR disaster. Only idiot boy and his cast of clowns could screw this up to the point where exiting this tragedy is not possible.
Posted by: Jay in Oregon on September 7, 2007 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, I don't believe there ever was any intention to exit this country...this is and was a sheer economic imperialist takeover from the beginning, designed to gain a permanent foothold in the middle east...why else would this administration take a left turn into iraq for any reason other than blatant opportunism, when our attention should have been, and should be, focused on bin laden, his people, and those who attacked this country on 9/11.

The only reason why it would take 100,000 troops and 10 years to bring democracy to Iraq is that liberals won't let us take the gloves off. With less troops but more attack helicopters and Predator drones, we could have Iraq up and running as a democracy in 9-10 months.

Kevin--

I honestly believe that the reason Kaplan buried the lede on this is because it is taken as given, in the Washington Consensus, that the US is committed to an indefinite occupation. It doesn't occur to Kaplan that this is all that newsworthy, other than 1) the number of soldiers involved (the WC is 50,000) and the 2) the willingness to commit to a timeframe.

That is, even though everybody knows that it is very unlikely that the occupation will accomplish anything other than keeping a US military presence in Iraq, the plan is to keep a massive US military presence in Iraq, because, of course, the reason for the war was to establish a permanent, US military presence in Iraq.

At this point, nobody can state an objective. Bush can talk only of "progress" and "success." But there's no objective left to progress toward. The objective cannot be an independent or democratic Iraq; neither is attainable by current practice.

Independence is impossible in the absence of a sovereign government or a national defense force. Democracy is impossible without security, and the actual objective, US military bases, is unattainable in an Iraq with a representative government.

the actual objective, US military bases, is unattainable in an Iraq with a representative government.

While I think you are right that establishing permanent bases was one of the original actual objectives (as opposed to the disarmament PR fig leaf), by now I don't think the Cheney/Bush thinking goes much past January 09. Their current actual objective is to "gum it to death" till that time and then hand off the mess. If the lucky recipient is a Democrat, then they gin up the dolchstosslegend when withdrawal starts.

Mid-level pentagon strategists are still operating under the old conceptual framework, but it's clear to everyone else that we'll be out in the next few years.

It oughta be the first question at the press conference and the first hearing: "General, is Stephen Biddle right that it will take 100,000 American troops 20 years to make this strategy work?"

And nobody should stop asking the question until we get a straight answer.

"Maybe Biddle should get in touch with the advisor who tried to tell them the war was going to cost a bit more than a billion or two."
-----------------------------------------
That was Andrew Natsios, the exact figure was $1.7 Billion, and that's not the only batshit crazy thing he's said.

After being sworn in as head of USAID, "Natsios dismissed the idea of distributing Antiretroviral drugs to treat those suffering from HIV/AIDS in Africa, telling the House International Relations Committee that Africans could not take the combination of drugs in the proper sequences because they did not have clocks or watches and lacked a proper concept of time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Natsios

So what do you do with a clown with a proven record of not knowing his ass from his elbow as well as demonstrable hostility and bigotry towards Africans? Well, if you're Bush, that's easy. You make him the Special Envoy to Sudan, focusing specifically on Darfur.

100k troops for another 20 years for a longshot. Which means we probably really need 200k+ for 30 years. Or what was the number General Shinseki (sp?) said - $250k plus?

But the US public was told we would be greeted with flowers and chocolates. Rumsfeld didn't plan for long term occupation, as evidenced by all the delays in supplying up-armored Humvees, MRAP vehicles, and personal armor. The original plan seems to have been knock off Saddam, turn it over to Chalabi, and get out fast.

What is the opportunity cost of 100k US troops being tied down for 20 years?
What is the actual cost? We are at $500B after 4 years and rising fast.
What could we have done with that money? What would have happened if we threw $500B at alternative fuels research, or Solar, or Geothermal, etc...?
What if we had simply offered Saddam $20B to retire to a nice place in Dubai? Wouldn't that have been cheaper?

Niall Ferguson's assertions notwithstading, imperial possessions never, ever pay for themselves. The cost of staying in Iraq for two decades would be immense, and oil revenues would no more cover the cost than tea and opium revenues covered the cost of the British Empire in India.

I imagine they believe "the oil would pay for it", but we've heard that song and dance before, and if we continue to invest all that life and wealth to secure the oil in Iraq, ...
Posted by: Jimm on September 7, 2007 at 3:17 AM |

Kevin, you're repeating the GOP meme by calling it "the upcoming Petraeus report." It will be written by White House staff "with input from" Petraeus and Crocker. That means we can guarantee that it will say whatever the White House staff think it is in their best interest to say, and it may or may not reflect what Petraeus and Crocker think. It should be called "the upcoming White House report."

Northzax: What will it cost? Based on recent trends, about 25,000 us lives and 100 times that in Iraqi souls.

Ah, but you are assuming that Bushies believe that Iraqis have souls.

Al,
That's "fewer" troops, not "less" troops.

Yes, remarkably, or not, the Beltway Consensus has become that we'll be there "for years to come." Ted Koppel announced the decision on NPR this morning.

Welcome to the Great Game, America!

Both modern American political parties will be wiped off the face of our country's political landscape before 20 years of this war have passed. The Democrats need to learn a lesson from the Whigs as to what happens when a major political party completely ignores the defining political issue of the day.

Both modern American political parties will be wiped off the face of our country's political landscape before 20 years of this war have passed.

I think that's right, though I think the main illusion is the one that says we have the capacity to keep six figures worth of troops over there indefinitely. We couldn't sustain it politically, fiscally, or even personnel-wise. (Eventually they won't get enough volunteers for military service if it is just a matter of signing up for moving to Iraq forever, and a draft is out of the question.) Whoever becomes President in 2009 will withdraw. (S)he won't have any choice.

Here's what is also astonishing: Biddle says 100,000 troops for 20 years buys us a long-shot gamble at success, and he's in favor of doing it. What kind of thinking is that? By what possible moral yardstick does that make sense? Only by one in which it's not your ass getting shot at, that's what kind.

Ted Koppel announced the decision on NPR this morning.

I heard that on the way to the office this morning.

Jeebus. Talk about mass insanity at work.

Forget the Petraeus report--we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon.

On NPR this morning, Ted Koppel said his sources say its a done deal that US forces will be in Iraq for years, and that there will be no troop withdrawal in the next year except maybe a token 5,000.

Also:

. . . So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on Jan. 20, 2009, can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate. The powers that be just wouldn't stand for that. They see themselves as the guardians of world "order." They feel a sacred obligation to maintain "stability" throughout the imperial domains, which now means most of planet Earth – regardless of what voters may think. The Democratic front-runners know that "order" and "stability" are code words for American hegemony. They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones, see the price of hegemony in Iraq and just don't want to pay it anymore.

So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war – with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts – while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11333

This morning on C-Span, Anne Murline, a senior editor for US & News Report said that because of our great cost, we should stay forever in Iraq.

Somebody should ask Hillary Clinton if she is good with the idea of leaving a bunch of troops in Iraq indefinately. She seems to be the person most likely to win the next election.

The only reason why it would take 100,000 troops and 10 years to bring democracy to Iraq is that liberals won't let us take the gloves off.

"Us" you chickenhawk war pornographer?

It's called "Rules of Engagement" you fucking idiot. Or are you advocating for wholesale commission of war crimes?

With less troops but more attack helicopters and Predator drones, we could have Iraq up and running as a democracy in 9-10 months.

And everyone who knows anything about these things knows that attacking from the air is by nature indiscriminate and hardens the population against the attacking bully. Air strikes mean that the physical battle is won, but the psychological battle is lost.

The ironic notion that of "enforcing Democracy" by bombing the piss out of a country is just jaw-droppingly stupid But then, it's Al. Chickenhawk, war-monger, sick fuck. Pick a label. Any will do.

"We're kicking ass," Bush said to Vaile Tuesday, according the Herald, after the deputy prime minister inquired about his trip to Iraq.

Ranks right up there with "Mission Accomplished."

On the other hand, back in the real world . . .

Seven U.S. troops killed in Iraq

There is a point at which dishonest self-centered political posturing and decisionmaking morally becomes murder.

The "Decider" has clearly crossed that threshhold.

Why is this this report from General Petraeus? Whatever happened to the Iraq war czar, General Douglas Lute? We certainly don't hear much from him.

Diplomatic efforts are crucial for Iraq and the rest of the middle east. So what happened to our public diplomacy czar, Karen Hughes?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

"not allowed to take the gloves off"

Doesn't really matter, Al - Shrub and Cheney's fingerprints are all over the debacle of Bush's War. This is really a case of "If it fits, you must convict".

And your getting tougher, is like the old joke of two Nazi's commiserating about the war and one of them says, "Next time, no more Herr Niceguy".

Whatever happened to the Iraq war czar, General Douglas Lute? We certainly don't hear much from him.

He is far too sane and honest for this lot. They don't put him out there to speak. Too great a risk he might tell the truth, like he did last month.

Isn't this all fiddling while Rome burns ?
There aren't 'trained' men - despite more 'contractors' than military - enough for indefinite occupation unless one factors in roughly 225 Iraqis dying for every American lost - not too far off I shouldn't think - what with loss of power, drinking water, medical help and professionals including engineers, etc. Which leaves the American aid projects which self-destruct shortly after completion - unless you count the 'temporary' ( ha ) bases.
All this while the economy goes for shit because the US is spending money it owes to China and the residual value of the currency internationally should decrease to that of toilet tissue because it defies any resemblance to profit and loss balancing. I knew there were reasons for Halliburton to take the money and run.

The military follows the Code of Bush-ido. Kiss butt or follow Gen. Shinseki into retirement.

Blue Girl,

Any word as to the rumors that the Czar, Gen Lute has been transferred to Yekaturinburg?

http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/ Let's get real here for a minute. If you're sick of listening to TomDispatch here's a guy who has put up reasonable tactical analysis of what the Bush League is up to. It even matches the facts on the ground ! See "Is the chaos in Iraq on purpose?" ( Well, yeah )

Four Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed during a combat operation in Anbar province, the Sunni-dominated territory west of Baghdad.

I thought Anbar province was a shining example of success.

Liars.

On Friday, the top U.S. general in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, released a letter to U.S. troops saying military progress in the conflict has been "uneven" but that coalition forces have "tactical momentum."

Translation: "We can't point to any measure of success but because the president has loudly and publically proclaimed that we must succeed and that we are succeeding, I need to come up with a generic dishonest characterization of progress that doesn't refer to specific benchmarks for measuring success to give the president cover because I am an ass-kissing Bush sycophant with no sense of responsibility to the country as a whole."

In other words, Petraeus is a mentiroso muy grande.

100,000 troops for 20 years only gets us a "long-shot gamble" of success? ... I'd like to know if they agree with their advisor about this. I don't think they'd admit it even if they did, but someone sure ought to ask them.

—Kevin Drum

Not going to happen.

The dem clowns in Congress are more interested if Obama is really "stinky" and "snorey" -- like his jealous, pathetic, loudmouth wife says he is.

Econobuzz,

Cancel next Thursday.

Oprah

it sounds like 20 years of relative peace would also be required to grow up a generation that might be able to forget the old enmities and ways of doing business.

So when will the "relative peace" start? Even if you doubt the Lancet mortality studies (why?), it's ridiculous to claim that things are relatively peaceful in Iraq right now.

Let's see . . . a Christian army occupying an Arab Muslim country. Indefinitely. Yup. Hey, that's worked for centuries, hasn't it?

And any problems? Why, it's the Democrats' fault!

Extra credit: Who said, "A nation that continues to make distinctions between its fighting man and its thinking man will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards"?

But, I thought our occupation in Egypt went so well.

As, my old mentor, Thucydides, once said.........

"It's a gut-check issue about where you stand on life ... where you stand on whether o[r] not we should be using taxpayer funds for abortion," Brownback said.

It's a gut-check issue about where you stand on life . . . where you stand on whether or not we should be using taxpayer funds for torture, murder, mass slaughter, destructive and unnecessary war.

Apparently Brownback is fine with taxpayer sponsored murder, as long as the individuals murdered are black or brown non-Christian actual men, women, and children.

That was Andrew Natsios, the exact figure was $1.7 Billion, and that's not the only batshit crazy thing he's said.

Correct, but not the guy I was thinking of. I was thinking of Lawrence Lindsay, the advisor who tried to tell the Bush administration that the $1.7 billion figure was wildly optimistic and the real cost would be something like $200 billion. Mr. Lindsay's careful analysis was rewarded with an opportunity to spend more time with his family.

That's the guy Mr. Biddle may need to get in touch with.

You win the extra credit, of course, Napolean B . . .

Well, 20 years isn't PERMANENT, is it? I mean, we only want to stay until Hell freezes over, not FOREVER. Someday the sun will go supernova and destroy everything on earth, including our bases in Iraq, so they're not PERMANENT, as in FOREVER, are they?

"The only reason why it would take 100,000 troops and 10 years to bring democracy to Iraq is that liberals won't let us take the gloves off."

Yea, those damned liberals. They started this, after all. They've denied funding for the troops again and again and have NEVER given Bush the Lesser what he wanted. We could have won in Vietnam if we had used nuclear weapons, as bombing them back to the Stone Age didn't quite work with conventional bombs, agent orange and napalm. If we could have REALLY destroyed Vietnam, we COULD have saved it. And THAT's the lesson from Vietnam we have to apply to Iraq.

Nuke the county and no more problema.

Oops. Did I fall for a fake Al?

"Whatever happened to the Iraq war czar, General Douglas Lute?" I think he's out to lunch, literally. A nice, long, 17 month lunch hour. I also think he took the job to double dip on his pensions and to work on his golf game.

Graveyards are real peaceful.

U.S. forces have been in Korea for about 60 years. Remind me, what was our goal over there? Have we achieved it? No one asks that question now, because everyone realizes it is irrelevant.

The Iraq occupation has nothing to do with "goals" in the sense of accomplishing something specific within the occupied country. Rather, Bush's adventure has everything to do with military and economic dominance of the region containing the world's largest oil reserves.

Bush and the Neos now realize they can't transform Iraq into a peaceful client state. So they have decided to settle for a perpetual, and perpetually violent, occupation.

Once they get to Washington, they forget who they work for.

No, that's when they learn who they really work for. Otherwise, it's a short stay.

Cal Gal: "Oops. Did I fall for a fake Al?"

I wouldn't worry about it, Cal Gal. You can no more "fall for a fake Al", than you can disprove a negative. How do you possibly lampoon someone who's really his own best parody?

I guess if we continue to offer huge cash bonuses to recruits we might be able to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for twenty years. I sure don't think we'll be able to keep our reserve forces up to the required numbers.

The costs will increase madly after we have used up all the people who signed up in good faith to serve their country in a just war or in times of emergency.

The shame I feel at being an American keeps increasing. My spouse has been suggesting we move to Mexico after retirement. My preference is to remain where we've always lived, but if America is going to be running a lottery for young people with minimal educational and physical qualifications by enticing them with large cash payoffs to risk their lives in Iraq for twenty years with no attainable goal--well, maybe it's time to consider citizenship alternatives.

Never one with that rare ability to gamble the rest of my life on one step, political admiration walked out the door once power waswith the bush, held open and splayed by vain stupidity. I would sincerely like to embrace notions of deep meaning, leavened with the instant rice of informed social convention, yet find my self stranded, gape-mouthed, eyes akimbo, staring goose-like at that big rock candy mountain vanilla dollop of existential grab-assing with business partners, nankers, and profiteers of a conservative, nee, selfish demeanor, cut from a cloth both tattered and mollusk scented.

Some where out there run the gazelles of my idealistic humanism, stomachs swollen as they are with the earnest anticipation of even fouler digestive volition masquerading as “compasionate consevatism”, as I admit to myself, as if anybody ever cared, of my complicity, yeah, my cowardice in the face of candy-assed home field advantage granted at the point of a ballot box by numbskulls subseviant to the lord and lardasses.

All this because I dream of eating sandwiches on the train, sax bellowing in intense, ad-hoc, race horse piss-off meanderings, intergalactic sausages wrapped around the vertical column of the same, as I defy the extra gravity of the situation, desperate to recycle, along with the fish, chickens, and vegetables I grew up with, admixtures and there waste products.

"Oops. Did I fall for a fake Al?"

Almost certainly. The real Al got tired of the fakes and stopped posting here a couple of years ago.

Blue Girl, Red State,
And everyone who knows anything about these things knows that attacking from the air is by nature indiscriminate and hardens the population against the attacking bully. It worked in Germany and Japan. It failed in Viet Nam. Your certainty aside, I'm not so sure that anyone knows for sure.

It's called "Rules of Engagement" you fucking idiot. Or are you advocating for wholesale commission of war crimes? Rules of Engagement determine when, where, and how force shall be used and vary by situation, location, timeframe, etc. They can be severly restrictive or quite liberal. If they are too restrictive, they interfere with mission objectives. Liberalizing the rules does not necessarily mean that there will be war crimes.

we should bring edward bennett williams(1920-1988) back from the grave to cross-examine gen.
petraeus. a lot of people think that EBW was possibly the greatest cross-examination lawyer of all time(see wikipedia art.).

he was absolutely obsessive
about preparing his cases---he and his assosiates would spend 500 hrs. in preparation for every actual hr. of cross-examination time. he would know patraeus's mother-in-law's middle name. he would know every military and every civilian casualty statistic for every month, every day, every hr.,every min. and every sec. of every yr.

somebody once commented that being cross-examined by EBW was like standing in front of a one ton steam roller barrelling downhill in overdrive.

ebw was not cheap. for his first two cases, against the gov. EBW charged jimmy hoffa (and the teamsters union) a half million dollars for each case--- and he won both. for the third case he wanted
a million dollars. hoffa decided to get another lawyer and lost.

there is a long interesting art. on petraeus
by patrick cockburn in the independent.

(the art. is more than a little bit on the neg. side.)

you can get to the art. by typing:
independent
petraeus
surge
cockburn
into the google search box
it appears as hit1 on page1.