Kiev Is Burning

[ink]

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The point is, the US didnt foist its presence on the region. 

Haha!

[urbanoid]

36 minutes ago, ink said:

I don't think the pre-Gulf War and post-Gulf War presence are even comparable. And surely having a presence in the world's premier oil-producing region is a cornerstone of US geopolitical policy post-Cold War. Can't see anything that was more important than that (though I'll possibly concede that post-USSR involvement in Russian politics is a close second).

Some of the money certainly came from US taxpayers - just one of the fun elements of capitalism... But actual tens/hundreds of billions came from Iraqi oil and debt.

The contracts for Russian and French companies came later. And probably as part of broader backroom deals with those countries.

Yet it is still an ongoing presence that changes outcomes in that country and the region. 

 

The wrong kind of shot in the arm still keeps companies going and shareholders happy 😎

Geopolitically it was a setback in almost every way that really matters. Internally too.

The fact that some companies and people made a nice buck off this shitshow isn't a geopolitical gain. Money can be made off any war, doesn't mean if the war itself makes sense.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, ink said:

Haha!

It didnt. Thats completely misremembering how it happened. The US presence for the first 10 years was primarily naval, and wholly because of the Iran/Iraq war. Even post 1990 it was recluctant, and largely driven by Saddams inablity to live within United Nations sanctions. Between 1970 and 1979, it was either content to let the Brits handle it (rapidly dwindling), or arm Iran to deal with it. That was part of the 'Nixon doctrine'.

The only time the US military, outside Kuwait, had a significant ground presence in the middle east, on land, was post 2001.

You can check me up on this, but im almost certain im right. it certainly is indicaed that way by some of the accounts ive read of the 1980's naval standoff.  The narrative that the US was itching to get into the region is just not indicated by the facts.

[BansheeOne]

Well there was of course a considerable US presence, particularly Air Force, in Saudi Arabia. Post ODS, which saw half a million  American troops staged there, it remained at about 5,000. It was the main reason cited by Osama bin Laden for 9/11, and in fact following intervention in Iraq was largely relocated there. But House Saud had been quite happy to have them there with Iran and Iraq next door.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There was a number of Army troops in Kuwait. I remember they maintained some preopositioned equipment there, Abrams, Bradleys etc. But the only ones that I think can have been present in Saudi Arabia must have been groundcrew for the aircraft maintaining the no fly zones, and base defence thereof. Whom hardly would have been well placed to have mingled with the population.

None of this fits the narrative that the US was desperate to retain a presence. The Nixon doctrine of arming Iran argues the exact opposite.

 

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It didnt. Thats completely misremembering how it happened. The US presence for the first 10 years was primarily naval, and wholly because of the Iran/Iraq war. Even post 1990 it was recluctant, and largely driven by Saddams inablity to live within United Nations sanctions. Between 1970 and 1979, it was either content to let the Brits handle it (rapidly dwindling), or arm Iran to deal with it. That was part of the 'Nixon doctrine'.

The only time the US military, outside Kuwait, had a significant ground presence in the middle east, on land, was post 2001.

You can check me up on this, but im almost certain im right. it certainly is indicaed that way by some of the accounts ive read of the 1980's naval standoff.  The narrative that the US was itching to get into the region is just not indicated by the facts.

I don't have time to check but I think you might be wrong about the US presence pre-Gulf War I.

Anyway, what you most certainly are wrong about is US intentions to be involved in the region, which date back to the post-WWII period (Suez, Israel, Iran... etc.).

Also worth mentioning is the no-fly zones in Iraq, as well as the Clinton-era airstrikes, which everyone seems to forget about (partly because they were presented in the media as nothing more than 'self-defence' by brave US pilots being sneakily targeted by Iraqi air defences). 

Downplaying all this US involvement is, imo, counterproductive to understanding how US geopolitical policy functions.

[ink]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

None of this fits the narrative that the US was desperate to retain a presence. The Nixon doctrine of arming Iran argues the exact opposite.

 

How does it exactly? Iran was a US puppet state back then. Doesn't is confirm that the US was interested in maintaining a foothold in that part of the world?

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 minutes ago, ink said:

How does it exactly? Iran was a US puppet state back then. Doesn't is confirm that the US was interested in maintaining a foothold in that part of the world?

I was doing some research in some 1970's magazines of the period, and found a 1970's copy of playboy (I swear, THAT wasnt the reason I was looking at it, it was just an added bonus) and there was a story in there, set at the end of the 1970's. In it it proposed a world where the US has to sit idly by, because its armed Iran so much, the Shah decides he wants Iraq very much, and utilizing his F14's and Chieftain tanks and hovercraft, suddenly decides to invade it. He then takes over the bulk of the worlds oil supply, puts the price up, and the West suddenly finds itself going bankrupt. The US finds it cant do anything, because Iran has actually been better armed than its own military. The author describes taking over a farm in the American midwest and raising cows, with the principle form of transport becomes the horse again iirc.

Ok, it was clearly   a parody, but it illustrated real concerns in America at the time. That the Shah was NOT quite the solid us puppet that was believed, and would go and use its armaments in a manner that would not advantage US security. Or, as a cartoon of uncle sam screaming in the Presidents ear portrayed in the same issue, 'It could get us into a War!'

My point is, they were ultimately right, but for entirely the wrong reasons. Iran was not quite the solid us puppet that parts of the American beltway believed. Just in a different way from that which they envisaged.

The Nixon doctrine envisaged a US, increasingly unable to sustain its burgeoning cold war, armed countries in strategic regions to take up as much of the slack as it could. Japan is a good example of this. I imagine South Vietnam would have been another if it survived, but the Phillipines to an extent took over that role. Iran was supposed to be the one for the middle east. So clearly, if the US was arming Iran to be its proxy in the middle east, it was because it didnt expect, or hope, or plan, to be there conducting that role. There is really no other reason why they would be doing it. Or latterly, why they armed Saudi Arabia to the teeth to take over the role vacated by the Shah.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 minutes ago, ink said:

I don't have time to check but I think you might be wrong about the US presence pre-Gulf War I.

Anyway, what you most certainly are wrong about is US intentions to be involved in the region, which date back to the post-WWII period (Suez, Israel, Iran... etc.).

Also worth mentioning is the no-fly zones in Iraq, as well as the Clinton-era airstrikes, which everyone seems to forget about (partly because they were presented in the media as nothing more than 'self-defence' by brave US pilots being sneakily targeted by Iraqi air defences). 

Downplaying all this US involvement is, imo, counterproductive to understanding how US geopolitical policy functions.

There may have been a presence, I just dont believe it was anything like as large as you think it was. I think it was Kuwait that was the significant ground presence.

The US was involved in 1958 in Beirut, where they landed some marines and some tanks to help defend it against Syrians I guess. I forget who else. Now, try and think of another occasion when, between 1946 and 1979, they used military force in the middle east. I struggle to think of one. Im not saying there isnt one, im saying I flatter myself Im reasonably well informd, and im damned If I can think of one.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now, try and think of another occasion when, between 1946 and 1979, they used military force in the middle east. I struggle to think of one. Im not saying there isnt one, im saying I flatter myself Im reasonably well informd, and im damned If I can think of one.

The reason you can't think of one is that you've conveniently restricted the search terms from "involvement" (my term) to "used military force". Otherwise, your search might have picked up coups in Syria and Iran, the Suez Crisis, military support for Israel (and others), etc.

Also, why limit the search to 1979? What about US involvement in the region post-1979?

If you look at the whole post-WWII period, you see the story of a superpower increasingly involving itself in a key region of the world. An involvement that reached a crescendo once the competing superpower was out of the way.

[ink]

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Geopolitically it was a setback in almost every way that really matters. Internally too.

The fact that some companies and people made a nice buck off this shitshow isn't a geopolitical gain. Money can be made off any war, doesn't mean if the war itself makes sense.

But... A setback according to what criteria? Because I don't see it personally.

And "makes sense" according to whom? Because I can definitely see how it does make sense.

[Josh]

7 hours ago, ink said:

According to what criteria are you characterising Iraq as a mistake? The stated aims of the invasion? Surely we can all agree they couldn't possibly be more bogus.

In every possible way: justification, effects, costs, etc.

[Stuart Galbraith]

25 minutes ago, ink said:

The reason you can't think of one is that you've conveniently restricted the search terms from "involvement" (my term) to "used military force". Otherwise, your search might have picked up coups in Syria and Iran, the Suez Crisis, military support for Israel (and others), etc.

Also, why limit the search to 1979? What about US involvement in the region post-1979?

If you look at the whole post-WWII period, you see the story of a superpower increasingly involving itself in a key region of the world. An involvement that reached a crescendo once the competing superpower was out of the way.

Well Suez, unless Im completely forgotten the history of that episode, the US military didnt get involved at all. Politically, yes, it turned the screws on Britain. But that is a different matter from entering the war. In fact, and this is a significant fact you gloss over. They actually were acting on behalf of Egypt in the affair, a fact the Arabs, not surprisingly, were unwilling to credit them for, then or subsequently.

The truth is Ink, you are hard set on this idea the US was strongarming its way through the middle east from the start. For the vast majority of that time, it was perfectly happy to leave it to the British to police. In fact, it didnt even militarily join CENTO for the first 4 or 5 years, and even then its military support remained distinctly limited. Indeed its lack of involvement is perhaps one of the central reasons why it ultimately fell over.

If the US latterly became involved in the middle east, its because it recognised Britain was no longer willing or able to police it, and secondly it suited Israels interests (and the flow of oil) much better if it took the reins. I see a very limited involvement until after the signing of peace between Egypt and Israel with the Bright star exercises. But I dont see any evidence of any further willigness to get involved till the Shah was kicked out.

If you want to include acts of subversion, you are of course free to do so. But whilst they may well have had favoured puppets they wanted to install, rarely did they ever actually remain very long, and never did they use military force to retain them in their position. That to me is distinctly low involvement.

 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, ink said:

I don't know. On the back of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US has had bases and significant troop numbers in the ME for 30+ years. Since 2003, the Iraqis have handed US companies tens (or hundreds?) of billions of contracts. The US has had some strategic control of Iraqi oil (denying said control, for example, to the Chinese). The presence in Iraq has extended to a presence in Syria, which may not have been possible otherwise. New and closer relatioships with key allies have been forged. The US military industrial complex got a shot in the arm (that it wouldn't have got from Afghanistan alone... Or, going back further, that it desperately needed in a post Cold War world).

It hasn't all been for naught.

In a way, if there hadn't been an Iraq, you would have had to invent one 😉

The U.S. was already in the mid East during the Cold War; it didn’t need either Iraq war, and certainly not the second, for that.

[urbanoid]

13 minutes ago, ink said:

But... A setback according to what criteria? Because I don't see it personally.

And "makes sense" according to whom? Because I can definitely see how it does make sense.

Was the US geopolitical position (either regionally or globally) better due to its invasion and subsequent presence in Iraq? No, quite the contrary - the Gulfies (except Kuwait) were unhappy, some of the Western European countries were uhnappy, Iran's position in the ME got strengthened due to their influence in Iraq. Which was fucking obvious, since Iraq is majority Shia and such an effect was pretty much a given since the US decided to install a democracy there. 

Financially? A trillion dollars or so was wasted on this shitshow. Sure, a lot of it went into private pockets at the expense of US taxpayer that has to shoulder more debt with nothing to show for it.

Militarily? More of the US military was geared towards COIN bullshit and away from the preparations to fight peer enemy, which in turn required (and still does) even more money if they were to get back on track.

There's also an internal political problem, with isolationist tendencies being strengthened due to what is being called 'forever wars'. While not the majority, quite a lot of Americans are now against even measures that do strengthen the US global position and weakens their enemies. E.g. support for Ukraine is harder to push through than it could have been, where it's something that makes far more sense than Iraq ever had.

Clearly I'm talking about the thing making sense from the perspective of the country and its global position. Iraq didn't make sense and, unlike Afghanistan, the whole thing was perfectly avoidable.

[Strannik]

Arestovich, former Zelensky adviser: Telegram channels close to Zelensky reports that 4,500,000 men in Ukraine & abroad avoid registering for military service. This is half of adult male population. Military units have from 30% to 70% of draft dodgers.

 

[Josh]

Stuart, the U.S. has been in the Middle East all along, almost since WWII. One example:

 

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/RMC/FDRMC/Bahrain/WhyBahrain/OurMission/5thFleet.aspx

Edited November 30, 2023 by Josh

[ink]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 If the US latterly became involved in the middle east, its because it recognised Britain was no longer willing or able to police it, and secondly it suited Israels interests (and the flow of oil) much better if it took the reins. 

 

Yeah, bingo!

That's precisely the narrative I outlined above. Growing involvement while Britain was still on the scene and the USSR was in the mix, then rapidly growing involvement once both of those were not a factor.

What exactly is the disagreement here?

[ink]

13 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Was the US geopolitical position (either regionally or globally) better due to its invasion and subsequent presence in Iraq? No, quite the contrary - the Gulfies (except Kuwait) were unhappy, some of the Western European countries were uhnappy, Iran's position in the ME got strengthened due to their influence in Iraq. Which was fucking obvious, since Iraq is majority Shia and such an effect was pretty much a given since the US decided to install a democracy there. 

Financially? A trillion dollars or so was wasted on this shitshow. Sure, a lot of it went into private pockets at the expense of US taxpayer that has to shoulder more debt with nothing to show for it.

Militarily? More of the US military was geared towards COIN bullshit and away from the preparations to fight peer enemy, which in turn required (and still does) even more money if they were to get back on track.

There's also an internal political problem, with isolationist tendencies being strengthened due to what is being called 'forever wars'. While not the majority, quite a lot of Americans are now against even measures that do strengthen the US global position and weakens their enemies. E.g. support for Ukraine is harder to push through than it could have been, where it's something that makes far more sense than Iraq ever had.

Clearly I'm talking about the thing making sense from the perspective of the country and its global position. Iraq didn't make sense and, unlike Afghanistan, the whole thing was perfectly avoidable.

Can't cover everything but:

1. The US was in a much better geopolitical position than it would have been without Iraq (either in 1990 or 2003).

2. Financially doesn't matter much, since nobody cares about the money... But extracting billions from Iraq certainly covered some/all of that. Fact is, it's so much money nobody even knows how much.

3. Without foreign adventures, the danger is that investment in the military will go down. So, Iraq boosted overall spending. If the alternative was less spending - then that's a win.

4. All wars boomerang back to their instigators in various ways. So, yes, in terms of internal US politics, there is an argument to be made that Iraq was a mistake.

[Josh]

21 minutes ago, ink said:

Can't cover everything but:

1. The US was in a much better geopolitical position than it would have been without Iraq (either in 1990 or 2003).

the U.S. didn’t need either Iraq war to be in a commanding position in the mid east, certainly not the second.

 

21 minutes ago, ink said:

2. Financially doesn't matter much, since nobody cares about the money... But extracting billions from Iraq certainly covered some/all of that. Fact is, it's so much money nobody even knows how much.

The war On Terror definitely set the US military back vis-a-vis China in terms of military modernization, even if money is no object.

 

21 minutes ago, ink said:

3. Without foreign adventures, the danger is that investment in the military will go down. So, Iraq boosted overall spending. If the alternative was less spending - then that's a win.

There were plenty of other things the DoD wanted to spend money on.

 

21 minutes ago, ink said:

4. All wars boomerang back to their instigators in various ways. So, yes, in terms of internal US politics, there is an argument to be made that Iraq was a mistake.

I’d argue the first U.S. Iraq war was a resounding success with practically no blowback.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Stuart, the U.S. has been in the Middle East all along, almost since WWII. One example:

 

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/RMC/FDRMC/Bahrain/WhyBahrain/OurMission/5thFleet.aspx

Josh, I'm not saying they haven't. I'm saying their material presence, other than Turkey, was distinctly limited and usually has been.

Look, I've read that the USSR was peeved at Saddam because there was a distinct lack of us forces in the gulf till post 1979. That makes no sense if people try to portray the US presence as the same today as it was postwar. There are several turning points. 1977. 1979. 1990, and 2001. Incrementally the US was drawn in, yes. I'd argue its been positively reticent for good reasons, in the same way they reluctantly got dragged into africa..

For example, 1983, they put the Marines in Lebanon, reluctantly. A bomb kills 241 of the. And what happens? They almost immediately leave. Try as I might, I cannot perceive that as a bunch of guys itching to get into the region. And arguably many of the problems post 1991 were caused by trying to get out too quickly after Operation Desert Storm.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And the reward for most unexpected  and revered weapon, goes to...

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Josh, I'm not saying they haven't. I'm saying their material presence, other than Turkey, was distinctly limited and usually has been.

Look, I've read that the USSR was peeved at Saddam because there was a distinct lack of us forces in the gulf till post 1979. That makes no sense if people try to portray the US presence as the same today as it was postwar. There are several turning points. 1977. 1979. 1990, and 2001. Incrementally the US was drawn in, yes. I'd argue its been positively reticent for good reasons, in the same way they reluctantly got dragged into africa..

For example, 1983, they put the Marines in Lebanon, reluctantly. A bomb kills 241 of the. And what happens? They almost immediately leave. Try as I might, I cannot perceive that as a bunch of guys itching to get into the region. And arguably many of the problems post 1991 were caused by trying to get out too quickly after Operation Desert Storm.

You mean, other than the carrier group parked in the Gulf, and the Air Force flying Deny flight missions and such? or 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrein?

Not a USian in sight...

[Stuart Galbraith]

The US 5th fleet was disbanded between 1947 and 1995 Retac.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet

The nearest us presence would appear to be the 7th fleet, which covered a huge area in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, and the 6th Fleet, which covered the Med, and was based in Italy ( I forget where, Sigonella maybe?).

Isn't it odd that such a substantial US presence, didn't even warrant its own fleet till the mid 90s?

[ink]

Anyone fancy doing a Google images search for "US military bases in the Middle East"?