50 More Years in Iraq?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Anyone still believes the US will ever get out of Iraq? Read the following piece on the White House’s analogy with South Korea. Excerpt from the Washington Post’s article:

[i]The White House, long irritated by the frequent use of Vietnam as a metaphor for Iraq, embraced its own analogy yesterday: South Korea.

There’s an undeniable attraction to holding up America’s military presence in South Korea as a model for Iraq: Our soldiers stationed there aren’t dying in large numbers every month.

But in other ways, the analogy is troubling. And flawed. And dangerous. And telling.

It’s troubling because American troops have been in South Korea for more than 50 years – while polls show the American public wants them out of Iraq within a year.

It’s flawed because in South Korea, unlike Iraq, there’s something concrete to defend (the border with North Korea); and because Iraq, unlike South Korea, happens to be in a state of violent civil war.

It’s dangerous because the specter of a permanent military presence in Iraq is widely considered to be one of the most inflammatory incitements to Iraq’s ever-growing anti-American insurgency, and may even be destabilizing to the entire region.

And it’s telling because it gives credence to persistent suspicions that establishing a long-term strategic presence in the Middle East was a primary motivation for this misbegotten war in the first place.[/i]

Will the US military ever get out of Iraq? I’m putting money on NO!

P.S: Check out the Baghdad embassy specs:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy-iraq/

2

All the countries that the U.S. has bases in allow the U.S. to have bases in them. Except maybe Cuba. But if we build a permanent base in Iraq it will be because their government wants us to. And that won’t be popular with the Iraqi people.

I think there will be a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. But not Iraq.

3

The goal of invading Iraq with insufficient personnel and without carpet bombing was to create a war of long duration, to make the American people war-weary. This was, of course, to get us to the point where we turn over all such issues to a global governing body, and eventually everyone’s sovereignty as well.

We all pretty much loathe our president and congress, so the strategy is working well and the invasion of Iraq, for the above purposes, is a complete success.

4

If there is to be an extremely long term commitment it’ll have to be approved by the Iraqi government. You forget, that while the above was stated, Bush has recently reiterated that if the Iraqi government officially asks US forces to withdraw, they shall.

In this Korean scenario, I think it’s more like this. At some point, Iraqis will have full responsibility for internal security. What may happen is that a number of US forces are stationed near the border(s) to deter Iranian and Syrian interference. I.e. smuggling terrorists and weapons in a proxy war against the Iraqi government.

As I said above, this will depend on the Iraqi Government’s stance. Until we see the Iraqi government officially request the withdraw of coalition forces, this discussion is rather speculative. Because, only then will we know if coalition forces do intend to stay against the will of the elected Iraqi government.

5

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
All the countries that the U.S. has bases in allow the U.S. to have bases in them. Except maybe Cuba. But if we build a permanent base in Iraq it will be because their government wants us to. And that won’t be popular with the Iraqi people. [/quote]

Your bases are extremely unpopular among the locals anywhere. If referendums about their existence were held, I doubt a single one would survive. The US has a lot of leverage over other countries (economic, military, veto power, etc…) and that’s what is used to pressure the governments into keeping the bases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4798086.stm
http://wpherald.com/articles/3553/1/Analysis-Italian-opposition-to-US-base-hurts-Prodi/Stands-by-Berlusconi-decision.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0219-02.htm

I have no doubt that you’re gonna stay in Iraq for a loooong time. Hell, Tony Snow said so. You’re clearly building bases for permanent use.

Meet me in ten years, so I can smash you with a “I told you so”!

6

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The goal of invading Iraq with insufficient personnel and without carpet bombing was to create a war of long duration, to make the American people war-weary. This was, of course, to get us to the point where we turn over all such issues to a global governing body, and eventually everyone’s sovereignty as well.

We all pretty much loathe our president and congress, so the strategy is working well and the invasion of Iraq, for the above purposes, is a complete success.[/quote]

Senility? Alzheimers? Why do you even post?

7

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bush has recently reiterated that if the Iraqi government officially asks US forces to withdraw, they shall.[/quote]
This of course,usually means the exact opposite.

8

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bush has recently reiterated that if the Iraqi government officially asks US forces to withdraw, they shall.
This of course,usually means the exact opposite.

[/quote]

Again, it’s all speculation. Until a request comes down from the Iraqi government to fully withraw…

Anyways, I think the idea is to try to move away from internally policing the Iraqis. And perhaps, move out to the borders with some portion of the present troop deployment. Will the Iraqi government ask for our help watching the borders, while they take on the full responsibility of domestic security?

I’m not sure. That’s speculation. And, what US action will be if asked to withdraw completely…Again, until it happens, speculation. I’m not going to try arguing as fact either way.

By the way, where is the 50 years coming from? Is that simply because of the Korea reference?

9

The 50 years reference could also be applied to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It’s a similar situation being fought in a similar way.

10

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, where is the 50 years coming from? Is that simply because of the Korea reference? [/quote]

I wouldn’t use the term “simply” to qualify such a revelation by the administration, but yes, it’s pretty much where the author got his title.

11

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The 50 years reference could also be applied to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It’s a similar situation being fought in a similar way. [/quote]

I don’t see the connection between both conflicts. Israel borbers the occupied territories. The US is a million miles away from Iraq.

Or are you just referring to million dollars tanks and F-16’s facing stone-throwers and improvised explosives?

12

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The goal of invading Iraq with insufficient personnel and without carpet bombing was to create a war of long duration, to make the American people war-weary. This was, of course, to get us to the point where we turn over all such issues to a global governing body, and eventually everyone’s sovereignty as well.

We all pretty much loathe our president and congress, so the strategy is working well and the invasion of Iraq, for the above purposes, is a complete success.

Senility? Alzheimers? Why do you even post?
[/quote]

Its all there in Dr. Quigley’s book, idiot. And you can’t dismiss him as a crackpot; look at his credentials: CFR, Dept of Defense advisor, and on and on — an insider who spoke up, not as a traitor, but as crowing about the elite’s achievements.

13

[quote]lixy wrote:

There’s an undeniable attraction to holding up America’s military presence in South Korea as a model for Iraq: Our soldiers stationed there aren’t dying in large numbers every month.[/quote]

Undeniable attraction? How about correcting overwhelming bias? The number of casualties suffered in Iraq doesn’t really resemble either war and if one had to draw parallels between the three wars, Gulf War II more closely resembles those of Korea.

14

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bush has recently reiterated that if the Iraqi government officially asks US forces to withdraw, they shall.
This of course,usually means the exact opposite.

Again, it’s all speculation. Until a request comes down from the Iraqi government to fully withraw…

Anyways, I think the idea is to try to move away from internally policing the Iraqis. And perhaps, move out to the borders with some portion of the present troop deployment. Will the Iraqi government ask for our help watching the borders, while they take on the full responsibility of domestic security?

I’m not sure. That’s speculation. And, what US action will be if asked to withdraw completely…Again, until it happens, speculation. I’m not going to try arguing as fact either way.

By the way, where is the 50 years coming from? Is that simply because of the Korea reference? [/quote]

Sloth,

Good. iran will think twice about flying over or attacking Iraq directly circa 2006.

Of course, some jagbag will use this as an excuse to whip up more murderous scum.

It’s what I’ve advocated for quite a while, regional bases. Be available for major combat if need be. Eventually withdraw off the street.

My guess: Iraq will ask us to stay on a limited basis.

JeffR

15

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The goal of invading Iraq with insufficient personnel and without carpet bombing was to create a war of long duration, to make the American people war-weary. This was, of course, to get us to the point where we turn over all such issues to a global governing body, and eventually everyone’s sovereignty as well.

We all pretty much loathe our president and congress, so the strategy is working well and the invasion of Iraq, for the above purposes, is a complete success.

vroom wrote:
Senility? Alzheimers? Why do you even post?

Its all there in Dr. Quigley’s book, idiot. And you can’t dismiss him as a crackpot; look at his credentials: CFR, Dept of Defense advisor, and on and on — an insider who spoke up, not as a traitor, but as crowing about the elite’s achievements.

[/quote]

How come Jerffy and Thunderbolt don’t agree with your statements?

They are under the impression that Iraq was important for other reasons… or so it would seem.

Jerffy, Thunder, you guys almost ready to cede American authority to a world government yet? You guys loathe GWB right?

16

[quote]vroom wrote:
How come Jerffy and Thunderbolt don’t agree with your statements? [/quote]

I’ll say HH cares about the US. JeffR and TB only care about defending the “rationale” of Bush.

17

[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:
How come Jerffy and Thunderbolt don’t agree with your statements?

I’ll say HH cares about the US. JeffR and TB only care about defending the “rationale” of Bush.

[/quote]

Ooh, ooh, I feel left out. What do I only care about? I won’t even fire back at ya, promise. I’m simply amused and curious in trying to predict what you’ll say.

18

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ooh, ooh, I feel left out. What do I only care about? I won’t even fire back at ya, promise. I’m simply amused and curious in trying to predict what you’ll say.[/quote]

Nah, I won’t put you in the JeffR bunch. That’s the “Rightwingoverse” as Pookie puts it.

TB and Zap are a bit less brainwashed, but in the event of someone criticizing the US on any account, they tend to join JeffR

You come closer to the center in my opinion. You clearly are less reticent to voice criticism at the administration when necessary. I’m certain you could benefit from diversifying your news sources. Try something European once in a while (not the US versions, they’re usually edulcorated not to shock your sensibilities). Might expand your horizons…

Since we’re at it, let’s see about the other regulars. we have a totally different category for guys like Tokoya who breathes to bash Muslims wherever they are. I’d say he’s the same as JustTheFact, but while the latter delight at accusing the Jews for every ill of this world, Tokoya replicates that for the Arabs/Muslims.

In the “objective” guys category, I’ll have to give the gold to etaco. An amazing poster who, despite our obvious differences of opinion, I respect so much for cool-headedness, insight and poise. I guess it’s easier to come off that way when you don’t voice your opinion on every single topic.

Then would come Varq and Pookie. Both are litterally living encyclopedias who are pretty objective.

Right after those, I’d put Dustin closely followed by Vroom.

Further to the left, we’d come across the Finish guy/gal Karva, Beowolf, 100meters in that order. Of course, after that, it’d be Brad, LifticusMaximus and myself.

Here you go: T-Nation political forum’s spectrum in a nutshell!

19

[quote]lixy wrote:
Then would come Varq and Pookie. Both are litterally living encyclopedias who are pretty objective.[/quote]

That’s either very flattering for me or rather insulting to Varq…

At any rate, your check is in the mail.

20

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

Or are you just referring to million dollars tanks and F-16’s facing stone-throwers and improvised explosives?[/quote]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of tactics. Yes, we have million dollar tanks and f-16’s but we are fighting the war more like a police force than a military force, while the other side fights with car and suicide bombers. Both conflicts are urban guerilla conflicts.

And I was thinking of the length of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the 50 years you mentioned and thought there might be a parallel.