Stuff Happens: The Pentagon's Argument of Last Resort on Iraq

Reposted from TomDispatch.

It's the ultimate argument, the final bastion against withdrawal, and over these last years, the Bush administration has made sure it would have plenty of heft. Ironically, its strength lies in the fact that it has nothing to do with the vicissitudes of Iraqi politics, the relative power of Shiites or Sunnis, the influence of Iran, or even the riptides of war. It really doesn't matter what Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or oppositional cleric Muqtada al-Sadr think about it. In fact, it's an argument that has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with us, with the American way of war (and life), which makes it almost unassailable.

And this week Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen -- the man President-elect Obama plans to call into the Oval Office as soon as he arrives -- wheeled it into place and launched it like a missile aimed at the heart of Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan for U.S. combat troops in Iraq. It may not sound like much, but believe me, it is. The Chairman simply said, "We have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now. We have lots of bases. We have an awful lot of equipment that's there. And so we would have to look at all of that tied to, obviously, the conditions that are there, literally the security conditions... Clearly, we'd want to be able to do it safely." Getting it all out safely, he estimated, would take at least "two to three years."

For those who needed further clarification, the Wall Street Journal's Yochi J. Dreazen spelled it out: "In recent interviews, two high-ranking officers stated flatly that it would be logistically impossible to dismantle dozens of large U.S. bases there and withdraw the 150,000 troops now in Iraq so quickly. The officers said it would take close to three years for a full withdrawal and could take longer if the fighting resumed as American forces left the country."

As for the Obama plan, if the military top brass have anything to say about it, sayonara. It's "physically impossible," says "a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq," according to Time magazine. The Washington Post reports that, should Obama continue to push for his two brigades a month draw-down, a civilian-military "conflict is inevitable," and might, as the Nation's Robert Dreyfuss suggests, even lead to an Obama "showdown" with the military high command in his first weeks in office.

In a nutshell, the Pentagon's argument couldn't be simpler or more red-bloodedly American: We have too much stuff to leave Iraq any time soon. In war, as in peace, we're trapped by our own profligacy. We are the Neiman Marcus and the Wal-Mart of combat. Where we go, our "stuff" goes with us -- in such prodigious quantities that removing it is going to prove more daunting than invading in the first place. After all, it took less than a year to put in place the 130,000-plus invasion force, and all its equipment and support outfits from bases all around the world, as well as the air power and naval power to match.

Some have estimated, however, that simply getting each of the 14 combat brigades still stationed in Iraq on January 20, 2009, out with all their equipment might take up to 75 days per brigade. (If you do the math, that's 36 months, and even that wouldn't suffice if you wanted to remove everything else we now have in that California-sized country.)

Getting out? Don't dream of it.

Going to War with the Society You Have

Back in December 2004, when a soldier at a base in Kuwait asked about the lack of armor on his unit's Humvees, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have..."

Rumsfeld was then still focused on his much-ballyhooed "transformation" in warfare. He was intent on creating a Military Lite -- the most pared down, totally agile, completely networked, highest of all high-tech forces that was going to make the U.S. the dominant power on the planet for eons. As it turned out, that force was a mirage. In reality, the U.S. military in Iraq proved to be a Military Heavy. In retrospect, Rumsfeld might have more accurately responded: You have to go to war with the society you have.

In fact, the Bush administration did just that -- with a passion. After the attacks of 9/11, the President famously pleaded with the American public to return to normal life by shopping, flying, and visiting Disney World. ("Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.") The administration and the Pentagon led the way. As the Pentagon's budget soared, its civilians and the high command went on an imperial spending spree the likes of which may never have been seen on this planet.

For them, Iraq has been war as cornucopia, war as a consumer's paradise. Arguably, on a per-soldier basis, no military has ever occupied a country with a bigger baggage train. On taking Iraq, they promptly began constructing a series of gigantic military bases, American ziggurats meant to outlast them. These were full-scale "American towns," well guarded, 15-20 miles around, with multiple PXes, fitness clubs, brand fast-food outlets, traffic lights, the works (this, in a country where, for years after the invasion, nothing worked.)

To the tune of multi-billions of dollars, they continued to build these bases up, and then, in Baghdad, put the icing on the Iraqi cake by constructing an almost three-quarter-billion dollar embassy of embassies, a veritable citadel in the heart of the capital's American-controlled Green Zone, meant for 1,000 "diplomats" with its own pool, tennis courts, recreation center, post exchange/community center, commissary, retail and shopping areas, and restaurants -- again, the works.

In other words, abroad, we weren't the Spartans, we were the Athenians on steroids. And then, of course, there was the "equipment" that Mullen referred to, the most expensive and extensive collection you could find. As the Washington Times's Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote back in October 2007: "Watching them drive by at 30 miles per hour, would take 75 days. Bumper-to-bumper, they would stretch from New York City to Denver. That's how U.S. Air Force logistical expert Lenny Richoux described the number of vehicles that would have to be shipped back from Iraq when the current deployment is over. These include, among others, 10,000 flatbed trucks, 1,000 tanks and 20,000 Humvees." And don't forget "the 300,000 'heavy' items that would have to be shipped back, such as ice-cream machines that churn out different flavors upon request at a dozen bases..."

As Dr. Seuss might have put it: and that is not all, oh no, that is not all. In July 2007, for instance, the Associated Press's Charles Hanley described U.S. bases holding "more than the thousands of tanks, other armored vehicles, artillery pieces and Humvees assigned to combat units. They're also home to airfields laden with high-tech gear, complexes of offices filled with computers, furniture and air conditioners, systems of generators and water plants, PXs full of merchandise, gyms packed with equipment, big prefab latrines and ranks of small portable toilets, even Burger Kings and Subway sandwich shops."

And it doesn't stop there. In mid-2007, when the issue of our "stuff" first became part of the withdrawal news, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out: "You're talking about not just U.S. soldiers, but millions of tons of contractor equipment that belongs to the United States government, and a variety of other things... This is a massive logistical undertaking whenever it takes place." So, one might ask, what about those many tens of thousands of private contractors in Iraq and all their material? Presumably, some of them, too, would have to withdraw, mainly through the bottleneck of Kuwait and its overburdened ports. This would, as the military now portrays it, be an American Dunkirk stretching on for years.

The Argument of Last Resort

Now, back in the days when we had less experience fighting losing wars, Americans in retreat simply shoved those extra helicopters off the decks of aircraft carriers in chaos, burned free-floating cash in tin drums, and left tons of expensive equipment and massive bases behind for the enemy to turn into future industrial parks. At the U.S. Embassy in Saigon in April 1975, while everything in sight was being burned or destroyed including precious advanced electronic equipment, money actually rained down from the Embassy incinerator on the roof upon amazed Vietnamese allies huddled below, waiting for a promised airlift to safety that, for most, never came.

Withdrawal then was unsightly, unseemly, and environmentally unsound. But, as we know, the lessons of Vietnam were subsequently learned.

Today, the Pentagon and the military top command plan to be far more responsible consumers and far better environmentalists, however long it takes, and the Department of Agriculture's "stringent requirements" for the "power-washing" -- this, in the desert, of course -- of every object to be returned to the U.S. will help ensure that this is so. "Ever since U.S. authorities found plague-infected rats in cargo returning from the Vietnam War," the AP's Hanley has written, "the decontamination process has been demanding: water blasting of equipment, treatment with insecticide and rodenticide, inspections, certifications."

And don't forget the shrink-wrapping of those helicopters -- who knows how many -- for that long, salt-free sea voyage home.

Think of this as a version of the Pottery Barn Rule that Secretary of State Colin Powell supposedly cited in warning President Bush on the dangers of invading Iraq: "You break it, you own it." For the departure from Iraq, this might be rewritten as: You bring it, you own it.

You might say that, in the end, Bush's secret plan for never withdrawing from Iraq was but an extension of his shop-till-you-drop response to 9/11. The idea was to put so much stuff in the country that we'd have to stay.

And now, as the mission threatens to wind down, the top brass are evidently claiming that an Obama timeline for withdrawal would violate our property rights and squander a vast array of expensive equipment. You'll hear no apologies from the military for traveling heavy, despite the fact that they are now arguing against a reasonable withdrawal timetable based on the need to enact a kind of 12-step program for armed consumer sobriety.

Ever since the President's surge strategy was launched in January 2007, this argument has been a background hum in the withdrawal debate. Now, it's evidently about to come front and center.

A new president will be taking office. His withdrawal plan -- he spoke of it more accurately on CBS's 60 Minutes as "a plan that draws down our troops" -- is a modest one. After those American "combat brigades" are out, it's still possible, as one of his key security advisers, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, told National Public Radio last summer, that as many as 55,000 U.S. troops might remain in an advisory capacity or as residual forces. And yet, with the Iraqis urging us on, so many of the arguments against withdrawal have fallen away, which is why, when Barack Obama sits down in the Oval Office with his top commanders, he's going to hear about all that "stuff." For those who want to drag their feet on leaving Iraq, this is the argument of last resort.

As Donald Rumsfeld so classically said, in reference to the looting of Baghdad in April 2003 after American troops entered the city, "stuff happens." How true that turns out to be. When it comes to withdrawal, the most militarily profligate administration in memory has seemingly ensured that the highest military priority in 2009 will be frugality -- that is, saving all American "stuff" in Iraq.

Irony hardly covers this one. The Bush administration may have succeeded in little else, but it did embed the U.S. so deeply in that country that leaving can now be portrayed as the profligate thing to do.

By the way, in case anyone thinks that the soon-to-be-Bush-less Pentagon has drawn the obvious lessons from its experience in Iraq, think again. It still seems eager to visit Disney World.

According to Wired magazine's reliable Danger Room blog, military officials are now suggesting to the Obama transition team that the next Pentagon budget should come in at $581 billion, a staggering $67 billion more than the previous one (and that's without almost all the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars being included).

But like Rumsfeld's Military Lite, the Pentagon's Military Heavy plans are likely to prove a mirage in the economic future that awaits us. Perhaps the U.S. should indeed salvage every bit of its equipment in Iraq. After all, one thing seems certain: Washington may continue in some fashion to garrison an economically desperate world, but it will never again have the money to occupy a country in the style of Iraq -- largely because the Bush administration managed to squander the American imperial legacy in eight short years.

Someday, Iraq and all those massive bases, all that high-tech equipment, all those ice-cream machines and portajohns, will seem like part of an American dream life. Money may never again rain from the sky.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the American Age of Denial. The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best pieces from his site and an alternative history of the mad Bush years, has recently been published. To listen to a podcast of Engelhardt discussing how and why he decided to write this essay on military resistance to withdrawal from Iraq, click here.

Comments

[bbbtmenw]

Part 3:
The whole world wants us out. MAKE THEM HELP.

U.N. Forces should join our soldiers for several months and secure the withdrawal, help us fly out equipment with extra aircraft and pilots, and we help pay them with equipment.

It saves our guys, moves what we need to clean up Afghanistan, and the whole world is a team again.

Most fighters would want to stop until we are gone. Tell them, the longer you fight the longer we are here, just let us get out of your way. Iran would understand, most Iraqis too.

[bbbtmenw]

Part 2:
I suggest that we make a few deals:

-We work with Kuwait and even Pakistan and get a large amount of the equipment moved to Afghanistan. We pay them by giving them deals on military equipment.

-We make a deal with Jordan and give them equipment so that we can take a large amount of it through Jordan and to Israel. We work with Jordan and Israel and get Israel to agree to give up disputed land (they are already considering) in order to have better equipment to secure the closer border.

-Left over stuff we can sell, deal or work with Syria.

Now you not only have eliminated bringing out all of the equipment, but you made each country, except Iran, more secure. We will have our men out safe because we moved quicker and can fly them from Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, Possibly Syria, and Afghanistan.

The money is lost, the equipment too cumbersome, But the lives can be saved. Get the soldiers out now and let Iraq hire Blackwater to help train their military.

[bbbtmenw]

PArt 1:
LEAVE IT.

We take the Military men and woman, the best computer equipment, the helicopters and what and who they can carry. WE get the Hell out. Taking years to bring out equipment, we will have another Saigon or worse.

We work with the Iraqis and supply them with a well tooled military, give them the bases to set up safe government zones. We have supplied other countries before, and we can't leave them with handguns and tents and hope they can govern.

[CitizenE]

The gift that keeps on giving--th 21st century's initial emblematic oxymoron: Bush Administration planning.

[brodon]

Actually it really doesn't matter.

Don't forget that PE Obama promised that getting the troops out of Iraq was his FIRST priority after taking office.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

[JoeSausage]

I thought I'd heard every insane reason for staying in Iraq. I was wrong! So it doesn't matter that America is there under false pretenses. Those lies that George Bush and his Administration told, in order to sell the war? Whatever. The WMDs, the yellow cake uranium, the mobile gas labs? Whatever. The trillions of dollars spent there while the economy here craters? Whatever. The 100,000+ dead civilians? Whatever. What's important is our "stuff"! We can't leave without our "stuff"! Could it possibly get more pathetic?

[fittovote]

So certain elements of the military brass think we cannot leave because we have too much equipment in Iraq? It is a disingenuous argument, at best. When I was Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, it was amazing how much equipment and how many hundreds and hundreds of vehicles sat abandoned in fields around the base. Our Status of Forces agreement with Turkey says that any equipment brought into that country for a certain period of time becomes their property and cannot be removed from Turkey. So I'm sure the same game goes on elsewhere.

Why don't we just auction off all of the non-military related ancillary equipment to ordinary Iraqis? Combined with some sensible nation building and small business building policies, the auctioning off of this equipment could actually be a huge economic and business development boost for Iraq. Imagine every "Hassan the Plumber" in Iraq being able to buy, at a reasonable price, top notch equipment to start or boost his business! Imagine any common Kamil (aka a "common Joe") in Iraq being able to start a simple ice cream shop by buying one of those ice cream machines! Imagine the positive legacy that would leave behind if we helped thousands of Iraqis start a business using our old equipment! So I hope Obama turns their argument on its head!

Oh, and one more thing: we’re already drawing up plans for leaving via Jordan & Turkey as well as Kuwait.

[COPerez]

I would imagine that given enough pressure, the Saudis might allow us to use their port facilities - avoid ing the bottleneck of pushing everything through Kuwait. Also, one of the Navy's prime missions (SeeBees) is to be able to set up improvised/combat ports anwhere there's enough water to float ship-to-shore transports; many of which are either shallow draft or GEMs (Ground Effect Machines).

Bases - as in buildings, roads and other infrastructure - would not have to be "dismantled." Just abandoned. I'm sure the Iraqis could find a use for whole towns where the water and electricity actually works 24/7. Any thing that can't really be moved that we don't want used again, perhaps against us, can be thermited in-place.

If you tell a brigade of soldiers that their returning home depends on them getting their base/post/outpost "policed up," you can bet they will do it faster than any REMF planner would bet.

[zepfan81]

Do any of you REALLY think we're completely leaving Iraq? Do you really think after all the blood and treasure we've spent over 6 years we're just going to up and a country that's right in the middle of the worlds oil supply? I'm not saying we'll have 130,000 there, but I'm sure 5,000-25,000 will be there for years to come. We never leave any place we invade...except Vietnam. Still in the Phillipines, still in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Japan, Germany, South Korea, not to much the hundreds of small bases around the world.

[zepfan81]

mention, not much.

[tompoe]

Of course, we could move our troops out, arrange with the government of Iraq to please pack up our hardware and ship it to us, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Iraqis. You know, helping them rebuild their nation that has been occupied by us for no good reason these last five years.

[mgloraine]

Not all of that "stuff" is of military use or strategic importance. Pull the military people and equipment out first, in time for the official deadline. Then let the 150000 contractors dismantle and remove the electrocuting showers, the toxic water dispensers, the $100-a-bag laundry facility, the Burger King, the Pizza Hut, and the rest of the debris which the Iraqis will demand we clean up.

[jmpurser]

We can get our troops out in 16 months.

We can destroy any equipment of military value that we cannot move in 16 months.

The rest is a loss. We may have to spend decades replacing the equipment used up in Iraq anyway. We're NEVER going to move those bases back here so they're not an issue. These are "sunk costs" and we shouldn't make decisions about new spending (either in blood or dollars) in order to "save" them.

I say we "may" have to spend decades replacing the equipment because at some point we "may" decide to take a long hard look at what we spend on our military and decide that it's a pretty bad deal in the current "market" and with the current "vendors".

[pahpah25]

GOOD GRIEF....WHATS SO COMPLICATED ABOUT ALL THIS/ SINCE WE DESTROYED IRAQ; IT ONLY SEEMS RIGHT TO GIVE THEM THE STUFF......LET THE IRAQIS USE, SELL OR WHATEVER WITH THE JUNK WE HAVE MOVED THERE...I'M SURE IRAQI FAMILIES CAN PUT TO GOOD USE THE NICE BIULDINGS WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED..POSSIBLY TO USE AS HOMES SINCE WE DESTROYED SO MANY OF THEIRS...THE IRAQIS NOW LIVING IN TENTS COULD MOVE INTO THE GREEN ZONE AND THE IMPERIAL EMBASSEY....ITS A 'WIN -WIN' SITUATION FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED....WE COULD EVEN POSSIBLY GET THE IRAQIS TO AGREE NOT TO SUE US FOR WAR CRIMES IF WE GIVE THEM THESE GOODIES...........AND WE WON'T HAVE TO [AY THE COSTS OF MOVING/STORING THE STUFF......THE AMERICAN MILITARY CAN SIMPLY PACK THEIR DITTY BAGS AND GO HOME........

[Hadok]

Looking over the current Obama website at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ we read

"Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be ... directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 ...

...a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.."

This is a bit different wording than that which was on his website as of 7 months ago, which flatly stated "..."Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

There is a difference between "immediately begin to remove" and "Immediately ... give ... military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war."

And there is still wiggle room for an indefinite presence in Iraq.

Not trying to be critical, but the fact is, it is difficult to know what our involvement in Iraq is liable to be a few months or years down the road.

[Elderlady]

Get our people out.

Inventory the stuff.

The Iraq government is sitting on about an $80+ billion surplus.

Sell them the "military stuff."
Or do like the Russins did in Afghanistan. Let it sit and rust.

Make Halliburton/KBR be responsible for getting out their own "stuff". Or just leave the damned ice cream makers.

Put an end to Bush's Folly. Sooner rather than later.

[morgan1]

I agree. We went in with no intention of leaving. Bush said we would leave when were asked, that was done and we are still there. It is clear now we must leave and have to leave. In Vietnam what was not destroyed was abandoned. Everything we took there should given to the Iraqi's as our parting gift: Just leave it all and bring the troops home--ALL OF THEM! No Advisors, no residual support. When they eventually get electricity back full-time (Which it seems will only occur when we are gone as well as uncontaminated water) they will love the ice cream, soda and Burger King. We can be out of there in six months. Leaving all that crap behind is our own blowback for our arrogance and slaughter on the Iraqi people.

[zaz33]

Well put Elderlady & morgani - Maybe we should just leave our sand infested equipment. It will cost billions to transport and refurbish it.