America's "Enduring" Presence in Iraq

Even as the Bush administration begins discussing troop draw-downs within the next year, the question of America's long-term intentions in Iraq remain unanswered. The Bush administration has not officially stated any intention to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, and some government officials have denied the possibility of such bases being established.

The reality on the ground in Iraq and in the halls of power in Washington, however, seems to contradict the official administration line. The Pentagon has already established 12 "enduring bases" in Iraq, and many of these have expanded into sprawling complexes that resemble miniature American cities, complete with movie theaters, fast food restaurants, and even internal bus routes.

In Washington, while the Pentagon has denied any intentions of maintaining a permanent presence, a number of factors indicate otherwise. In April of 2003, the New York Times ran an article -- which was later called "inaccurate and unfortunate" by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld -- in which "unnamed sources" claimed that there are plans for up to four permanent bases in Iraq. Furthermore, the 2005 supplemental funding bill for Iraq included funds for bases described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." In the most recent sign of intentions to establish permanent bases, Republicans in Congress -- with the full backing of President Bush -- rejected a proposed amendment to an Iraq funding bill that would have put the U.S. on the record against permanent basing and "United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq." It is unclear why it was necessary for Republicans and the President to oppose such an amendment if they truly have no intentions to establish permanent bases.

Many Middle East analysts have proposed that new permanent bases in Iraq could take the place of former permanent bases in Saudi Arabia that were recently vacated. Combined with the American bases in Qatar and Kuwait, as well as a likely permanent presence in Afghanistan, these bases would constitute a significant military presence in the region. Some estimates place the likely number of troops to be indefinitely stationed in Iraq at 50,000 or higher -- almost half as many as are currently deployed.

Although there would likely be widespread opposition among Iraqi people to such a permanent presence, the United States' strong influence within the newly-created Iraqi government would probably be sufficient to overcome popular disapproval. As has been repeatedly evidenced since the new government officially took over from the provisional government, Washington is both capable of applying pressure to get its way in Iraq and willing to do so when it has significant interests at stake.

By maintaining a sizeable, responsive force in the region, Washington would significantly increase their force projection capabilities, allowing a more active stance in securing oil interests, actively opposing Iranian influence, and acting as a protector of Israel. Such a presence would drastically change the dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics, as American interests and allies -- from Israel to Afghanistan and Azerbaijan to Qatar -- would encircle the wider Middle East.

While a significant military presence would give teeth to diplomatic efforts and make the U.S. a major player in regional politics, it would also permanently expose American troops to attack from a number of unfriendly regimes and terrorist groups. Furthermore, the permanent entrenchment of American forces in Iraq is likely to work against efforts at stabilization, acting as a catalyst for continued insurgent activity and terrorism. Also, it would be hard to justify to the international community any exploitation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to secure wider economic and geopolitical goals.

It is hard to estimate the extent of possible "blowback" -- unintended negative side-effects -- of these actions, but it is safe to say that the negative might easily overcome the positive as the U.S. presence would likely ignite ideological and political conflicts throughout the region. What should be of concern to American citizens is that such a move would be in accordance with long-standing U.S. geopolitical strategies (such as the Carter Doctrine, which asserts that any attempt at dominance in the Middle East would be viewed as a direct attack on American "vital interests"), and would likely be justified by those in power as a necessity of the ongoing "War on Terror."