New Report Reveals Why We'll Be Paying for the Iraq Occupation for Years to Come, Withdrawal or Not

See my full report at AlterNet.

With last week's announced escalation of the war in Afghanistan, including an Iraq-like "surge" replete with 4,000 more U.S. troops and a sizable increase in private contractors, President Barack Obama blew the lid off of any lingering perceptions that he somehow represents a significant change in how the U.S. conducts its foreign policy.

In the meantime, more reports have emerged that bolster suspicions that Obama's Iraq policy is but a downsized version of Bush's and that a total withdrawal of U.S. forces is not on the horizon.

In the latest episode of Occupation Rebranded, it was revealed that the administration intends to reclassify some combat forces as "advisory and assistance brigades." While Obama's administration is officially shunning the use of the term "global war on terror," the labels du jour, unfortunately, seem to be the biggest changes we will see for some time.

While Obama -- and public attention -- shifted foreign policy focus last week to Afghanistan, lost in the media blitz was an important report that examines how taxpayers will continue to pay for the Iraq occupation for years to come, withdrawal or not. This report, released in March by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, provides a sobering look at Obama's "massive and expensive" Iraq plan, identifying several crucial questions that have yet to be addressed.

Whether or not the Obama administration actually intends to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq in numbers large enough to claim to be "ending the war" as many believe, this kind of official review of the U.S. reality in Iraq -- and the congressional oversight to which Obama will (or will not) be subjected in the coming months -- bears intense scrutiny.

Among the issues identified by the GAO:

-- What will Obama do with the 283 US bases in Iraq?

-- Who will provide security for the massive -- and likely expanding -- army of diplomats deployed in the country at the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad?

-- What is the US responsibility to pay for the humanitarian destruction in Iraq caused by the US?

-- Will Obama comply if Iraqis vote in July 2009 to have all US forces out by 2010?

The Obama administration is likely to portray the costs of "withdrawing" from Iraq as a painful necessity made inevitable by the Bush administration. But there are already calls for Obama to not allocate any new funds for such an operation. Retired Army Col. Ann Wright, a veteran diplomat who reopened the U.S. embassy in Kabul after Sept. 11 (and, while in the military, worked on plans for an Iraq invasion), says, "Everyone in the Department of Defense -- military and civilian -- knows well the expense of going to war and the expense of bringing troops back to the United States.

"DOD has plenty of money to withdraw equipment and personnel and no doubt has had monies specifically for that purpose built into its budgets for years. The Congress should not provide additional funding for withdrawal, but instead require DOD to use existing allocations."

To read my full analysis of the new GAO report, check out my new story, "283 Bases, 170,000 Pieces of Equipment, 140,000 Troops, and an Army of Mercenaries: The Logistical Nightmare in Iraq," on AlterNet.

Comments

[TrekBear]

If we don't stabilize Afghanistan, more trouble will brew there. Our biggest mistake was not following through with that country after the Soviets left. Guess whom we funded to toss out the Soviets? None other than Osama Bin Laden and his jihadists!

[larry278]

I guess plans for ransoming American GI's if anti-US forces capture US troops before the USA gets out of Afghanistan, Iraq are still secret & nobody has talked about raising the money to bring captured, hostage American GI's home alive. BHO, et al won't even consider American GI's being held for ransom. Who would dare hold US troops for ransom besides supporters of bin Laden & radical Islamists?

[Wozzeck]

Jeremy Scahill sets the standard in investigative journalism. We are paying for the neocon's follies because corporate media, including NPR and PBS, have essentially isolated him and other sane voices from their audiences.

[knowBuddhaU]

WORD!

[Dredd]

All we have to figure out is who is in charge. Then complain to them, it , him, or her.

[traveler501]

well...I agree it's a concern, and knowing Biden is so hawking on terror-management in foreign countries adds to that worry. hey, I like Obama on balance...­but sure wish the guy with the good hair had made it. IMO our best presidents have been the ones with a weakness for women *grin*

[wyldthings]

There is only one war the United Nations has ever sanctioned and it was Korea. And this is the only war that has never ended. We still spend Billions of American dollars each year. So don"t be shocked if we still have a presence for a long time in Iraq!

[peterg76]

It does sound like Obama may be employing a bait-and-switch manoeuvre. It's still a step forward.

[WFTomba]

This column really disappoints. That any future plan for Iraq will be expensive is a pretty pedestrian observation. The question is, HOW should we spend the money? I had to go to your AlterNet story and read all the way to the very end of the last page before I found a hint of an idea in that direction:

"According to the World Bank, it would cost $14.4 billion to rebuild the Iraqi public works and water system. In other words, about five weeks of the overall cost of the U.S. occupation.

. . .

Before one more cent is spent on bailing out corrupt corporations that destroyed the U.S. economy, Iraqis should have clean drinking water. After all, it was the illegal U.S. wars that took it from them in the first place. And that is not logic based on lies."

Why not lead with your real opinions, instead of burying them?

[Pucky]

Remind me again. What was illegal about it?

Whose authorization do you think we needed (but didn't get)?

[knowBuddhaU]

Even Kofi Annan declared it an illegal war. That must be one huge rock you crawled out from under. Next you'll be saying Saddam was involved in 9/11 (which is actually blowback from our the war Zbig Brzezinski mongered to trap the Soviets).

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~
Excerpts: Annan interview

The United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said he believes the American-led invasion of Iraq last year was illegal and he cast doubt on plans to hold elections there in January.

[...]

Q: Are you bothered that the US is becoming an unrestrainable, unilateral superpower?

KOFI ANNAN: Well, I think over the last year, we've all gone through lots of painful lessons. I'm talking about since the war in Iraq. I think there has been lessons for the US and there has been lessons for the UN and other member states and I think in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with our allies and through the UN to deal with some of these issues. And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time.

Q: Done without UN approval - or without clearer UN approval?

A: Without UN approval and much broader support from the international community. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm

[knowBuddhaU]

Aside from being upset that you had read a whole column (hint: view as single page),, which lays out the case for the conclusion, before coming to said conclusion, what do you think of the author's assertion?

The point is, we're giving Iraq "economic shock therapy," destroying us both in the process.

"Remaking people, shocking them into obedience. This is a story about that powerful idea. In the 1950s, it caught the attention of the CIA. The agency funded a series of experiments. Out of them was produced a secret handbook on how to break down prisoners. The key was using shock to reduce adults to a childlike state."
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/17/the_shock_doctrine_naomi_klein_on

So, this plan was cooked up—it was between the head of USAID’s Chile office and the head of the University of Chicago’s Economics Department—to try to change the debate in Latin America, starting in Chile...

And so, the Chicago Boys were born. And it was considered a success... hundreds and hundreds of Latin American students, on full scholarships, came to the University of Chicago in the 1950s and ’60s to study here to ...engage in ... a project of deliberate ideological transfer, taking these extreme-right ideas, that were seen as marginal even in the United States, and transplanting them to Latin America. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein

On 9/11/1973, Kissinger & fanatical Friedmanites overthrew Chile. Is it our turn now?

[Pucky]

I am delighted to see that Obama has dispensed with the campaign rhetoric, and is starting to govern like he is actually taking a look at our long term interests.

There is nothing like actual responsibility to make you throw away foolish ideas and actually do the right thing.