[Aussie Dasher]

What's the view on this one?

[Shermy]

No.

[Jet Jaguar]

We will be there long time.

Just not as big a footprint.

[EagleUSA]

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.

[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.

[telebob]

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...

[yldstrk]

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.

[Jim Noble]

US looking to long-term presence in Iraq

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

It's over.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[bilhosty]

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.

[Cecily]

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.).

[goldstategop]

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