We may well be leaving Iraq, but the Pentagon is buying tanks, planes, copters, etc. for a long haul

[bigtree]

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

American Arms Sales to Iraq: Signs of a long stay?

As President Obama weighs options for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the country’s military is purchasing American helicopters, cargo planes and tanks equipment that typically requires a prolonged U.S. presence for maintenance and training.

Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick, who is in charge of training Iraq’s security services and military, told The Washington Times that some of the ordered equipment would not be delivered until 2012, even though a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) requires all U.S. troops to exit the country by 2011.

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004379



GEN. Helmick said the Iraqi military had already ordered 140 M1 Abrams tanks, up to 24 Bell Assault Reconnaissance helicopters and 6 C130-J transport airplanes. The tanks will not be delivered until 2011, and the helicopters and transport planes will not arrive until the end of 2012 or possibly in 2013.

"The government of Iraq does not have to purchase that kind of equipment from the United States; they have elected to do so," Gen. Helmick said. "To me that could indicate that the Iraqis would like to have a long-term strategic relationship with the United States."

The deals also will begin to redress the economic costs borne by United States to wage the Iraq war. Among the U.S. companies that will benefit from contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars are General Dynamics, which makes the M1 Abrams tank, Bell Boeing, which produces the assault helicopters, and Lockheed Martin, which makes the C130-J Super Hercules tactical airlifter. Lockheed Martin also makes the F-16 fighter jet, which also is generating some Iraqi interest, Gen. Helmick said.

Such complex defense systems require sophisticated maintenance and training that would keep U.S. forces in the country long beyond the deadline set in the SOFA.

"No matter how fast combat brigades are drawn down from Iraq, the president has always talked of the need for a residual force of some size to remain behind to, among other things, continue to train and equip the Iraqi security forces," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. That would require an adjustment in the SOFA, which "as it stands now ... would preclude from doing so after 2011 when all U.S. troops, combat or otherwise, have to leave the country."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/iraq-buys-us-gear-beyond-troop-deadline/

[babylonsister]

1. We're selling arms to Iraq so they can defend themselves and

we won't have to?

Sounds good as long as 10 years down the road those arms aren't turned on us, and no one can predict the future.

[bigtree]

3. funny

. . . that's an argument that I would have shot down from the last administration.

The U.S. interest in Iraq is certainly rooted in the preservation of their petty regime they've enabled and protected in their assumed power and authority. I wonder how we've decided that the Iraqi regime is so integral to our nation's interests (security of otherwise) that we're prepared to invest in their military future?

Where is the political reconciliation that was complained about during the campaign? Has that suddenly manifested itself in the Maliki regime?

I would agree with arming a government which is defending or tied in some way to our own national security needs, but Iraq has never been integral or even tangential to those defense needs of America. The occupation is about preserving military gains which are outside of any defense against any threat which would merit arming and feathering Iraq's military coffers.

The impetus is just another (departing?) gift to the U.S. defense industry. It's obviously an effort to throw as much military industry-generated weaponry and equipment at Iraq before the fearmongering curtain closes.

The U.S. has no more legitimate interest in propping up the Maliki regime when we leave than we do now. On the other hand, greed and imperialism has been the motivating factor for this opportunistic occupation, throughout.

Don't expect that the same argument we rejected from Bush as he sought to preserve his dubious, cynical military gains to suffice for folks who expected the new administration to treat the Iraq folly as the deception it has been from start to present. The notion that we need to enable the corrupt regime in whatever militarism they aspire to is antithetical to the entire opposition we've waged for almost seven years now.

[babylonsister]

4. We own this forever if we don't give them a means to defend themselves.

I'd rather they defend themselves than we do it for them. I want us out of there, and if that's what it takes, so be it. And I don't think that stand is antithetical to anything. It could be considered humane in a warped way.

[bigtree]

7. That argument assumes that there is legitimacy in what the Maliki regime is doing militarily

There may well be, but they are still operating without the reconciliation that those opposed to the occupation have insisted is integral to their legitimacy.

Now, the attitude (reflected in your argument) is to resign ourselves to bestowing a false legitimacy on the Iraqi regime (still artificially preserving Maliki in power through weaponry and other military means), just to effect a consequence-free withdrawal. But, what about the consequences of loading up a dubious regime with weapons?

There is still a principle involved which underlies the entire interventionist stance which propelled our nation into the Iraq folly. That principle is that our nation's defenses are not there for opportunistic nation-building which has little to do with our own national security interests and everything to do with neo-con ambitions to own and control the world through these military manipulations. That principle will not be negated by another opportunistic military solution (arming the Maliki regime to the teeth), nor will the consequences of the opportunistic arming of our junta as we leave be any more justified than the effects of the last administration's militarism in Iraq.

[babylonsister]

10. OK. So what do you suggest? Just leave and let the chips fall

where they may for the Iraqis? We've done so much damage, what would be the logical next step, while getting us the heck out of there? I honestly don't know.

[bigtree]

11. The Iraqi government has been insisting they can survive on their own

I think this effort is less about their survival as it is about the preservation of our ill-conceived, opportunistic military interests in the region.

If it is about their survival, we should ask ourselves if that support is artificially protecting the Maliki regime against legitimate opposition from IRAQIS - like the Kurdish separatists in the oil-rich region in the north, or the Sunnis in the south who have been subjected to suppressive military raids and detentions of their citizens in these 'joint' military missions.

There is no clear-cut, legitimate role for the U.S. invaders of Iraq in continuing to support the regime militarily. Complete military disengagement from the sovereign nation is the only course which respects our own principles of democracy.

Keeping our military foot in the door is not the solution to Iraq's 'stability.' In fact, that military paternalism has 'fostered' and 'fueled' elements in Iraq which are inclined to pursue and support violent expressions of resistance and self-determination which the past administration dismissed as mere threats to their consolidation of power. That imperialism is not negated just because we insist our own administration's intentions are similarly benevolent and benign.

[EFerrari]

16. Not to mention, if we can't predict the future of these efforts by now

we should get out of the super power business.

[stray cat]

2. The complaint has been that we have an Iraqi army with no weapons

[bigtree]

5. who are we arming them against?

'al-Qaeda in Iraq'?

Syria?

Kurdish (oil land) opposition in the north?

Iranians (who have extensive military and economic agreements with the Maliki regime)?


Is the Maliki government really exercising their military force in ways that we should support?

[NNN0LHI]

6. Won't be long and we will be supplying Anthrax and Botulism to them again at this rate

The thing is someone is going to rearm Iraq. Whether it is China, Russia or the US.

Guess we have to look at the big picture?

Don

[Aristus]

8. Problem is, I've seen this picture before. And it starred Saddam Hussein.

We sell tons of weaponry to a power-crazed madman in Iraq, then wonder why he starts all of a sudden making his neighbors miserable with his new toys.

So we're selling more weaponry to Iraq. All we need is a power-crazed madman. And this time, I don't think Iraq will need the CIA to provide one.

God, this war was such a bad fucking idea!... :banghead:

[bigtree]

12. not to mention that this is a familiar and typical ruse

. . . to keep the U.S. military engaged in Iraq in a significant way into the future as they claim the necessity of maintaining these dubious weapons and weapon systems and equipment.

[bigtree]

9. It all goes to what we consider legitimate governance

. . . that nebulous thing we like to call 'democracy'.

I'm not prepared to say that the Maliki regime, in it's propped-up state of existence, represents an entity that the U.S. should ensure is part of our web of regional hosts that we arm to further some ill-defined U.S. national interest. There is still a dishonest insistence that American interests are paramount in Iraq. That ignores even the Iraqi regime's impetus to forge military and economic ties with its neighbors, Iran and Syria.

It's only through the lens of those who view those neighboring nations as a threat to U.S. (and Israeli) interests that we insist on U.S. primacy in Iraq's 'security' considerations.

[bigtree]

13. .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Vietnamization redux? It worked ever so well the first time.

But, it will keep the Pentagon and the "defense" industry happy.

[bigtree]

18. sure

that goes with 'listening to the generals'

[EFerrari]

15. So, is DoD going to war with Obama?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

17. the Pentagon is doing what they do

There is no immediate control on them in the present military leadership which is in line with what we assume is Pres. Obama's promise of a clear change in defense policy in Iraq and elsewhere. There really shouldn't be any expectation that the generals will easily give up their Iraqi prize.