Thread: Iraqi sees need for U.S. military until 2018

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's defense minister said on Monday his country would need foreign military help to defend its borders for another 10 years and would not be able to maintain internal security until 2012.

Abdul Qadir's remarks, in an interview with The New York Times posted on the newspaper's Internet site, could become an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

"According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country," Qadir said.

"In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020," he said.

President George W. Bush has said U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq for years but most presidential candidates, especially Democrats, would like them to withdraw much faster.

Qadir is currently visiting the United States. On his agenda is weapons acquisitions for the new, U.S.-trained Iraqi army. According to the Times, these included ground vehicles, helicopters, tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers.

The United States disbanded the country's previous armed forces built by Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president who was executed in December 2006.

The United States and Iraq have said they would negotiate a formal agreement governing the legal status of American military forces in Iraq but talks have not yet formally begun.

Iraqi sees need for U.S. military until 2018: report - Yahoo! News

***

Doesn't sound like a country anxious to get rid of the occupying infidel devils. Let's see, at a billion dollars a month, that's $120B (without inflation)

Excuse me Mr. Qadir, will you take a check?

Originally Posted by Texpat

at a billion dollars a month, that's $120B (without inflation)

Numbers like that almost become meaningless after a point, it's pretty hard to actually conceive of that much.

New Zeland's GDP in 2006 was $106B -- does that help?

Nope. Anything beyond the multiple billions is personally meaningless to me. It just devolves into a number with an awful lot of zero's after it.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Let's see, at a billion dollars a month, that's $120B (without inflation)

Will ten years be long enough to siphon $120B worth of oil out of the country?

Originally Posted by Plan B

Will ten years be long enough to siphon $120B worth of oil out of the country?

Sure, and there are other sources of revenue as well:

Qadir is currently visiting the United States. On his agenda is weapons acquisitions for the new, U.S.-trained Iraqi army. According to the Times, these included ground vehicles, helicopters, tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers.

The $120B will be paid by taxpayers, but the oil and weapons profits are unlikely to find their way to the treasury.

I saw a documentary called "Iraq - In Fragments" recently.... The Iraqis on the street don't seem so keen to remain occupied and have all their assets sucked away by what they see as an occupying force...

Is it possible that the current Iraqi defence minister is a stooge placed there to toe Americas line?...

I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by rawlins

Is it possible that the current Iraqi defence minister is a stooge placed there to toe Americas line?... I could be wrong.

Sure many in the Iraqi government are pro US (aka stooges) but at the moment, the last thing the US wants to hear (even if they know it) is an Iraqi Defense Minister saying the troops need to be in Iraq another 10 years.

Originally Posted by rawlins

The Iraqis on the street don't seem so keen to remain occupied and have all their assets sucked away by what they see as an occupying force...

Is that a joke? What assets do Iraqis on the street stand to lose to the occupying force? Iraq's main source of income is oil and as far as I know the US doesn't get any discounts.

I'm interested in knowing what assets are being sucked away.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Is that a joke? What assets do Iraqis on the street stand to lose to the occupying force? Iraq's main source of income is oil and as far as I know the US doesn't get any discounts.
I'm interested in knowing what assets are being sucked away.

There's no doubt that the 'prize' was about getting control of the oil for the global market.... The big Western oil companies now have 30 year contracts to exploit these reserves...

(The American public demand cheap petrol, big vehicles, and unlimited consumption of a vast proportion of the world's oil.)

It obviously wasn't that great under Saddam, but things don't seem to be any better on the ground under the new set-up...

Biased report based on US view. Rubbish.

well, it's not the Iraqi government to decide,

Iran and the insurgents will make the call,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

well, it's not the Iraqi government to decide,

Iran and the insurgents will make the call,

I think it's the insurgents, Iran, the competence/incompetence of the Iraqi government and their security forces, and the USA to decide.

The US did de-baathification, and offered all of these construction and reconstruction projects to ensure they would be need there for many years, IMO.

Originally Posted by rawlins

The Iraqis on the street don't seem so keen to remain occupied and have all their assets sucked away by what they see as an occupying force...

Indeed.
This article has a different emphasis, but the surveys are relevant:

...
A May 2004 poll sponsored by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority found that roughly 80 percent of Iraqis had "no confidence" in US-led forces to improve security and that most "would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately."

A year later, in August 2005, a secret poll conducted for the British Defense Ministry found that "less than one per cent [sic] of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security."

January 2006: A poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that around two-thirds of respondents agreed that "'day to day security for ordinary Iraqis' would increase," that "violent attacks would decrease," and that "the amount of interethnic violence will decrease" if the United States withdrew by the summer of 2006.

September 2006: A second PIPA poll found that 78 percent of Iraqis believe the occupation "is provoking more conflict than it is preventing."

March 2007: A poll sponsored by US, British, and German news agencies found that "[m]ore than seven in 10 Shiites-and nearly all Sunni Arabs-think the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making security worse." A separate survey by the UK-based Opinion Research Business found that 74 percent of Iraqis (including 77 percent of Baghdad residents) expected the security situation in Iraq to improve (53 percent) or to stay roughly the same (21 percent) immediately following a withdrawal of occupation forces. Only 26 percent expected security to get worse.

August 2007: A poll sponsored by news agencies in the US, UK, and Germany found that around 70 percent of Iraqis "believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military 'surge' of the past six months" Moreover, 67-70 percent "believe the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development." When asked how much confidence they had in the US-led forces, 85 percent of Iraqis answered "not very much" or "none at all"-compared with 82 percent in February 2007, 78 percent in 2005, and 66 percent in 2004. When given a list of 14 individuals, groups, and factors influencing the level of violence in Iraq, 27 percent of Iraqis identified the US-led forces or President Bush as the single biggest culprits for that violence. Seventy-two percent said that the presence of US forces continued to make security worse, with another 9 percent saying it had no effect.

October 2007: A poll by the US Defense Department found that 12 percent of Iraqis "had at least some confidence in the Multi-National Force to protect their families against threats"-evidently the most optimistic phrasing possible for such a dismal statistic. Curiously, the report also boasted of the "growing support of the local population" and marvelous improvements in security courtesy of the US surge.
...

Kevin Young: The US Occupation and Popular Opinion in Iraq

Originally Posted by Texpat

Or maybe the Iraq government did award US companies the contracts in appreciation for their liberation.

Sure, that's what it is - if you believe this, I bet you're still staying up all night at Christmas to spot that bearded guy delivering the presents!
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with bribery and manipulation?

Yes, all oil-companies buy their oil somewhere, what's your point?

Thanks for asking. If the US didn't buy, notice I said buy (not steal, suck or rob) the oil from Iraq some other country would have.

Simple as that.

Iraq (if indeed they did) sold their oil to a country that has a vested future in their security, stability and well-being -- because they provided it. Makes perfect business sense to me.

No need to bring Santa into this. He uses reindeer.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with bribery and manipulation?

So where is the bribery and manipulation? If your country hadn't run like a pack of scalded dogs when the going got rough, you might still be around when Iraq decides who they want to sell their oil to.

Damn stroll, did you drop Economics 101?

Stroller did drop ecomonics 101. He needs to face reality, as do most others. This is not a kind and gentle world. Those who can do. Those who can't.... don't do anything.

But I'm still not convinced the US went into Iraq because of oil.

Far more noble goals of liberation, self-governance, liberty and freedom were at stake. Most early coalition nations have turned their backs on those ideals. Some have not.

If the current goverment had granted any concessions (I've seen none yet despite their request for $120B in future security) I'd think it merely inconsequential.

Originally Posted by Texpat

If your country hadn't run like a pack of scalded dogs when the going got rough, you might still be around when Iraq decides who they want to sell their oil to.

Countries don't "run like scalded dogs", it's people who do that, like the yanks in 'nam.
Germany wisely refused to get involved in the attack on Iraq.
So, of course, we (and others) will not get any spoils of war either.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Stroller did drop ecomonics 101. He needs to face reality, as do most others. This is not a kind and gentle world. Those who can do. Those who can't.... don't do anything.

That's not economics, but powerplay of the invaders and occupiers, dude.
Which was exactly my point.

It's texpat who needs a lecture on reality....

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Texpat

If your country hadn't run like a pack of scalded dogs when the going got rough, you might still be around when Iraq decides who they want to sell their oil to.

Countries don't "run like scalded dogs", it's people who do that, like the yanks in 'nam.
Germany wisely refused to get involved in the attack on Iraq.
So, of course, we (and others) will not get any spoils of war either.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Stroller did drop ecomonics 101. He needs to face reality, as do most others. This is not a kind and gentle world. Those who can do. Those who can't.... don't do anything.

That's not economics, but powerplay of the invaders and occupiers, dude.
Which was exactly my point.

It's texpat who needs a lecture on reality....

Well, I guess well all need a lecture on reality. This world is not getting any less complicated, and in fact, is getting more complex. But, it's true, the "haves" will always rule over the have nots.

The US (well, at least Dubya and Condi) has pledged a long term committment to Iraq. I seriously doubt America will sustain the BILLION BUCKS A MONTH ride we've been on. But ask Germany and Japan what kind of cards they were dealt following their misgivings. Different scenario in that Iraq was only a putrid administration... but how soon we forget.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Far more noble goals of liberation, self-governance, liberty and freedom were at stake. Most early coalition nations have turned their backs on those ideals. Some have not.

Actually the of noble goals of liberation, self-governance, liberty and freedom followed after Iraq being complicit in 9/11. And shortly after WMD cabale of imminent launch.