Chasing ghosts in Iraq, again

By Dave Anderson:

One of the neo-con maximalist goal sets for Iraq in 2002 and 2003, was to create a puppet state that was an unsinkable carrier with which to base American ground and air power in order to prepare for an invasion to go to Tehran and Damascus.  Oh yeah, by the way, that Iraqi state, after the Department of Public Works finished cleaning up the roses on the street, would be both democratic and pro-Israel as well.

Whoops, reality of an Iraqi insurgency and the long game that has been played by Sistani since October 2003 has made that dream seem less real than a hash-hish ride. 

But the dream still persists on the pages of the Wall Street Journal as a pair of war-bloggers argues that Iraq needs a real air force and a real air defense system to confront Iran:

The most attractive choice is the U.S. Patriot system, with Patriot
PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles. The Patriot PAC-2 can intercept hostile
aircraft. The PAC-3 defends against the ballistic missiles Iran's
mullahs possess. An Iraq with antimissile capability will help thwart
that rogue's nuclear threat. [my emphasis]

A Patriot battery can track and engage multiple targets. Ten
batteries�costing around $2 billion�would provide a robust contribution
to meet interim Iraqi air-defense needs.

Patriot systems could be leased, perhaps with instructor crews.....

Deploying the Patriot batteries means Iraq will ultimately require
fewer aircraft. With U.S. backup, the Patriots and F-16s will hold the
line until Baghdad can finance "full-up" squadrons.

Steve has long argued that the Iraqi military needs modern weapons to avoid being a satrapy force.  However this half thought proposal guarantees that Iraqi air defenses only work if either a uniformed US individual or a contractor agrees to turn the figurative key.  High end weapons require massive technical support for basic maintenance, and that support can only be provided by foreigners. 

And those foreigners will have their own agenda; indeed Austin Bay has decided to ignore the basic fact that a good deal of the current Iraqi government's top supporters are receiving Iranian government pensions for their support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, and that the primary diplomatic goal of Iraq's government is to manage and improve ties with Iran.  So if the theoretical missile batteries are being used to deter and constrain Iran by providing a greater missile defense depth for Israel, then Austin Bay is either implicitly assuming his readers are idiots, there is a new government in Baghdad or the Iraqi missile batteries really are not Iraqi missile batteries when the chips are down. 

The more likely scenario would be for Iraqi air defenses to provide strategic depth and early warning for Iranian air defenses against an Israeli strike package than to provide support for Israeli defenses.  Anything else is an attempt to chase a mostly dead parrot.