Skip to comments.US looking to long-term presence in Iraq
Posted on 05/31/2007 6:43:13 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says the United States is looking to a long-term military presence in Iraq under a mutually agreed arrangement similar to that it has long had with South Korea.
Gates said plans still called for an assessment of the US "surge" strategy in September but he was looking beyond that to the type of military presence the United States will have in Iraq over the long term.
"The idea is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions," he said.
"The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan is another," he said.
US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, with US generals in charge of combined US-South Korean forces in time of war.
We will be there long time.
Just not as big a footprint.
We just cannot seem to quit trying to run the world, all at taxpayer expense. But that is all our government seems to be concerned about — every other country but America and its REAL citizens...the very people they are supposed to be working for.
Iraq is perfectly located in the ME for a permanent military base. The muzzies can like it or lump it.
I figure we should pull out of Cuba first (been there since 1898) Germany (there since 1944), Japan (there since 1945) and Korea (been there since 1948).
After that, we can talk about getting out of Iraq.
“A mutually agreed upon framework”?
Dude, as soon as we pullback Al Maliki et al will be public enemy no #1, if a terrorist group doesn’t take him out, and if Iraq doesn’t fracture into 3 parts, a military coup de tat will happen.
I think a presence in Kurdistan is smart, and would serve both parties, but the Embassy in Baghdad will be a huge target for a very long time.
Of course. The ME is exactly where we need to have a capable military presence for the foreseeable future. Our strategic needs change with the times.
We need to keep Iran checkmated and be able to respond quickly to regional developments. Like it our not, we are the world’s sheriff. Have been for some time...
Fifty years. That’s how long it took in Europe. Probably could take as long over there. But obviously left to there own devices, nothing but trouble.
All US forces will be out of Iraq in one year, or less.
Why! I agreed to support it to get weapons of mass destruction. those troops are not needed to prop up the Iraq government. Only th people of Iraq can do that. and they are not doing a very good job. Jr needs to worry more about our borders instead of Iraq.
I am all for it. We will be perfectly situated to keep an eye on the Fraudi Arabians, Syrians, Iranians, and all the other lunatics in the vicinity, as well as continuing to look out for those who are more or less our friends (Qatar, Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Kurds, etc.).
“We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad,” Powell told the National School Board Association’s annual conference in Chicago. “We didn’t have enough troops on the ground. We didn’t impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and ... it got out of control.”
As I understand it, imposing our will meant for one imposing and equal oil revenue sharing plan. To date Bush still has not imposed one completely. Some say it is a defect in the personality of leadership-style of Bush. Bremer’s book gives few straight answers.
Harry Reid concurs.
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Tell you what. Get your bags packed then. One cannot make such a suggestion unless they're willing to follow through on it themselves.
BTW, I'm sure the British and the French felt that way themselves at some time in the past 300 years. Guess where they are now? Sitting at home in their own countries. An empire of this size simply cannot last.
The muzzies can like it or lump it.
Yes they've only been around 1200 years or so. They've seen empires come and seen them go. All of them stating they would have a presence in the ME for a long, long time. A nation cannot hold a territory over an extended period of time without support from the indigenous population. Contrary to Fox News, the majority of the population would not support an extended stay of American forces. It's been less than 4 years and the Parliament is already discussing asking the US to leave? Doesn't matter where the idea came from, the fact that it's even being discussed by the Iraqi government does not bode well for your hopes
It's so easy to forget 9/11/01. The US didn't go after Iraq for oil, Bush Sr. or WMD. Iraq is smack in the middle of where the enemy is. Think of Fort Apache. We've decided to fight them there and not here.
L Paul Bremer was one of the problems.
and you have the gift of prophecy?
if we fight them over there, they won’t come here. They will be too tied up fighting us there, and then we won’t have to worry about more attacks here. Heck, I think we should just annex the place and be done with it. Then we can keep an eye on all of those other ME counties like Iran and we will really put the fear of God in ‘em. Let’s bunker-bust ‘em into the last milennium.
the whole “fight them there instead of here” is utterly pointless when we haven’t even made an effort to secure our border (where any terrorist worth his salt can just walk across at his leisure.)
frankly, being in Iraq won’t do diddly squat to keep determined terrorists out of the United States. Keeping our border secure will.
nonsense. any terrorist who decides he wants to strike us at home merely has to fly to Mexico and walk across the border. they have no need to set foot in Iraq at all.
But if we fight them over there, we DON’T HAVE TO fight ‘em here! I thought that’s why we are over there, to protect us over here. Am I wrong??? Why else are we over there?!?