Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US looking to long-term presence in Iraq
Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 1 June 2007

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; longterm; us
What's the view on this one?
1 posted on 05/31/2007 6:43:14 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

No.


2 posted on 05/31/2007 6:44:10 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

We will be there long time.

Just not as big a footprint.


3 posted on 05/31/2007 6:46:56 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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.


4 posted on 05/31/2007 6:47:51 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
Here's a YES! from Aussie land. I don't want our troops to leave EVER!

Iraq is perfectly located in the ME for a permanent military base. The muzzies can like it or lump it.

5 posted on 05/31/2007 6:55:36 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Exactly right.


6 posted on 05/31/2007 6:56:48 PM PDT by plymaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

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.


7 posted on 05/31/2007 7:00:52 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

“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.


8 posted on 05/31/2007 7:04:03 PM PDT by padre35 (GWB choose Amnesty as his hill to die on, not Social Security reform.....that speaks much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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...


9 posted on 05/31/2007 7:05:06 PM PDT by telebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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.


10 posted on 05/31/2007 7:08:21 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
US looking to long-term presence in Iraq

All US forces will be out of Iraq in one year, or less.

It's over.

11 posted on 05/31/2007 7:11:27 PM PDT by Jim Noble (We don't need to know what Cho thought. We need to know what Librescu thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
I have been harping for three years that we must do this. The US and by default UK/Australia/Europe/Canada/Japan etc., will all benefit by such an arrangement. We cannot afford to allow the russkies even a slight chance of gaining any foothold in this region. Obviously Iran would be totally surrounded in the future, where we can have fully operational airbases, so if the US fleet has to do Iran in, it will have many full support airforce facilities available. If we remember. There where announcement last year about slowly pulling out US troops from Korea and restationing them in the US, and similiar plans for withdrawing from European countries such as Germany.
Some of these units could readily be repositioned in Iraq.
We short after the Iraqi war to neutralize it's military started to build up the AFB in Balad and Assad in in al Anbar with the intentions of fully occupying these bases for a long time to come.
Hopefully the Iraqi government shall see the need to allow us to stay put at some of these military bases.
If they want NATO admittance such as Talibanni voiced a year back, they will have to allow us to operate on their land.
Besides. If we do not take out Iran. Then it is imperative to fully build up the Iraqi airforce,army, and navy to protect itself from the Persians. And what better way then to keep key US and perhaps Brit/Aussie forces in situ to continue to train them in new weapon systems, as well as all the sundry neccessities such as military supplies depots etc..
We cannot just pull out once things quiet down. It would be very foolish IMHO.
12 posted on 05/31/2007 7:12:25 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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.


13 posted on 05/31/2007 7:15:34 PM PDT by bilhosty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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.).


14 posted on 05/31/2007 7:20:08 PM PDT by Cecily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“It’s over.”

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2006/april/0411_powell_iraqp.shtml

Powell:

“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.


15 posted on 05/31/2007 7:21:10 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“It’s over”

Harry Reid concurs.


16 posted on 05/31/2007 8:19:50 PM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: death2tyrants
Harry Reid concurs.

So what?

17 posted on 05/31/2007 8:26:16 PM PDT by Jim Noble (We don't need to know what Cho thought. We need to know what Librescu thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Here's a YES! from Aussie land. I don't want our troops to leave EVER! Iraq is perfectly located in the ME for a permanent military base. The muzzies can like it or lump it.

Smart post.

18 posted on 05/31/2007 8:29:12 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: padre35
coup de tat=coup d'Etat
19 posted on 05/31/2007 8:42:49 PM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
Yes. I'd like our troops based in Kurdistan. The area is just too important for us to pull out. We've been in the Balkans a decade and we're still there. We're still in Germany nearly 60 years after the end of the Second World War and 18 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Democrats may talk of redeploying to Okinawa but they're going to keep the troops in Iraq if a Democrat gets elected President.

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

20 posted on 05/31/2007 8:47:07 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Iraq is perfectly located in the ME for a permanent military base.

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

21 posted on 05/31/2007 8:51:15 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
We just cannot seem to quit trying to run the world, all at taxpayer expense.

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.

22 posted on 05/31/2007 9:05:43 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Democrat Happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

L Paul Bremer was one of the problems.


23 posted on 05/31/2007 9:07:50 PM PDT by padre35 (GWB choose Amnesty as his hill to die on, not Social Security reform.....that speaks much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Contrary to Fox News, the majority of the population would not support an extended stay of American forces.

and you have the gift of prophecy?

24 posted on 05/31/2007 9:09:25 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

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.


25 posted on 06/01/2007 1:30:27 AM PDT by TancredoLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

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.


26 posted on 06/01/2007 7:25:29 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (kill em all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TancredoLvr

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.


27 posted on 06/01/2007 7:28:33 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (kill em all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg

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?!?


28 posted on 06/01/2007 4:01:18 PM PDT by TancredoLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson