The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

(Page 8 of 17)

Once again, Dr. Kramer demonstrates the ability to think clearly and the courage to speak freely.

I just finished reading Yale Kramer's article, "Grasping the Nettle." While he makes some good points regarding the reasons for the degeneration of the situation in Iraq that has culminated in its current state, he fails to grasp the "strategic" significance of Iraq.

The United States did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. This nation is not that altruistic, nor that stupid. If we wished to liberate oppressed peoples around the world, we could have started with Cuba forty years ago and continued throughout Eastern Europe for the next three decades. No, the reasons for the Iraq invasion were simple. We invaded first to send a message to our enemies, second, to provide a stable location for large, permanent forward military bases from which to put pressure upon and, if necessary, to support a war against Iran. The third reason was simply because we could justify the invasion of Iraq.

Now, just in case you all have missed it, the United States has been busily constructing four huge military bases within the borders of Iraq. These bases will be capable of housing and supporting approximately 80,000 military personnel and hundreds of aircraft and armored vehicles. While none of these is located in the Kurdish controlled area of the North, this is a calculated decision.

The Kurds welcome a U.S. military presence in their area and it is possible to stage a significant numbers of U.S. personnel there without a large permanent base. In addition, we do not wish to alienate the Turks, who are having a problem with Kurdish separatists in the eastern area of Turkey, bordering Iraq; nor do we wish to embolden the Kurds into attempting to form a separate nation of Kurdistan straddling the Iraq-Turkish border. Any sort of "permanent" base in that area could do exactly that. Hence, no base.

As for "humanitarian" missions for our troops, forget it. To provide these types of services, personnel would have to go to those areas of the country that are unstable. This means that the non-combat troops (I love that term) would have to be protected. To do that, combat troops would be necessary to provide this protection. As we cannot depend upon Iraqi units to do this, nor do we want to, U.S. combat personnel would have to assume that role. In other words, we would be doing exactly what we are doing now.

While it is nice to fantasize about curtailing our involvement in Iraq, it is a waste of time. U.S. troop strength will not decrease in Iraq until Iran's nuclear threat is eliminated. This will happen when Iran goes nuclear, the Israelis (with U.S. assistance) knock out their nuclear production sites or the Iranians voluntarily back down and allow unfettered inspections of their facilities. The only other reason for a drawdown in troop strength would be for Congress to eliminate funding for Iraq operations, something that is unlikely at present.

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Trade, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Entitlements, Islam, Abortion, Books, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, United Nations, NATO, Africa, Fascism, Oil, Unions