Sorry it's late! Going out with a bang ;-) (This may be my last briefing). I think you'll agree it was worth the wait.

Nice briefing. Just one correction. Secretary Rumsfeld visited Paraguay and Peru, not Bolivia.

If this is your last call, thanks for all of your work in putting together these briefings over the months...it has been appreciated. Will be sure to check in at Discarded Lies.

Meanwhile, China is sizing up Russia's forces in preparation for stripping Siberia from Russia for lebensraum. Putin will be remembered as the man who lost Siberia.

Great briefing, Ev.

"It looks like 50-60,000 US troops will remain in Iraq near-permanently, in four mega-bases. Currently, US troops are housed in over a hundred bases, which is being reduced to 14, then four. "

This is madness. One of the major sticking points with breaking the Sunni insurgents away from the foriegners is Sunni fears that the US is never leaving. Now this is just Robert Higgs interpretation of why we're spending half a billion on bases, but whether its true or not isnt really material. Perceptions count. We have done a lousy job of making our intention of leaving Iraq clear. It is costing lives, and it may cost us a great deal more. We need to provide a roadmap for full American withdrawal. Not based on a an arbitrary calender, but based on events and metrics. IE, elections, Iraqi army units reaching a certain number, attacks falling to certain levels, etc. This is a critical component to our success, and honestly im suspicious of the administrations intentions in this area.

Mark,

I'm pretty sure that the administration plans to leave some troops in Iraq, for the foreseeable future.

50K troops for -

a. Border security - so that other nations don't think they can sieze part of Iraq.
b. Nice forward deployment area.
c. Backup - when needed - for the nascent Iraqi government.
d. 50K can be sustained long-term, with other troops commitments, without damaging Army readiness.

Now you are completely right about the effect this has on Sunni and other insurgents. I think the goal is (and history bears this out to a degree) that if the US military leaves "civil affairs" alone - doesn't threaten the resident government power, the same government gets money for having troops there, and can count on the troops in a pinch, that the resentment for troops simply simmers below the surface, because the government is accepting of the situation.

That's the theory at least - don't know if also works in the Middle East.

b,c, and d can all be accomplished from Kuwait. A can be accomplished by the Iraqi Army, and since the Americans wont leave until the insurgency is manageable by the IA it wont be an issue.

Mark, JC,

Anti-war analysts always make this silly presumption that bases the US build can only be manned by Americans. Like they're built in some special 'US size' that doesn't fit Iraqis. Believe me, Iraqis can make use of any facility we leave behind just like we Americans can, and they will, of course, take them over when we pull out. Any army base we build, no matter how 'perminent', is ZERO evidence that we plan to stay one minute longer than we have to. What would be absurd would be for us to deny our troops decent facilities, and keep them in temporary shelters when we don't have to, and leave the Iraqis the bag of having construct such bases themselves after we leave. This 'perminent base = intent to stay' stuff is more rationalisation by war opposers to support their anti-imperialist belief system ('Bush's real plan must be colonization like we thought! Look! He's building housing that won't blow over in a sandstorm!' - rubbish). That it gives a bad impression is evidence of our side's lack of communication skills, which is the real problem we have across the board.

Seth, thats a fair point, but again perception is important. Why hasnt Bush made it a point to make it abundantly clear we arent keeping troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary? And more importantly to describe how that eventuality will play out in general terms? Either Bush and his advisors are complete morons (which they arent despite what their enemies think), or there is a very real desire to have Iraq as a forward base in the ME. There are good reasons for wanting this, but the cost is too high at the moment. Permanent bases are a bridge too far and I dont know that the administration has accepted that.

"Why hasnt Bush made it a point to make it abundantly clear we arent keeping troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary? And more importantly to describe how that eventuality will play out in general terms?"

Yea, like I said: "That it gives a bad impression is evidence of our side's lack of communication skills, which is the real problem we have across the board."

In 'Plan of Attack' there's a description of Bush giving advice to (I think) the Italian prime minister regarding domestic opposition, telling him 'leaders lead, they aren't lead', or words to that effect, with the idea being he should just do what he needs to do and not worry about what the critics say. I remeber him acting similarly as Govenor of Texas during a controversy about executing a murderer who'd had a jailhouse conversion. In every case his style has always seemed to be 'don't explain yourself, don't heed the critics, just do what you know is right. Walk decisivly and the people will follow you'. As though explaining yourself is a sign of weakness... Which could also be part of the reason why when he is pressed to explain his policies he tends to do it with this smile or smirk at the end of the sentence, which comes off patronising, like it should be obvious what he's explaining.

Fundementally, I think it could be as simple as just a flawed leadership strategy: He doesn't explain himself because he doesn't think a strong leader should have to.