President Bush this week likened the U.S. commitment in Iraq to America’s almost six-decade military presence in South Korea.
Which raises a question: Did the American people know they were signing on to permanent bases in Iraq and decades of occupation and conflict?
As Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter points out, the analogies between Iraq and South Korea are mostly spurious, as far as protecting democracy.
“The only two reasons to station troops in the Middle East for half a century,” says Alter, “are protecting oil supplies (reflecting a pessimistic view of energy independence) outside the normal channels of trade and diplomacy, and projecting raw military power. These are the imperial aims of an empire. During the cold war, charges of U.S. imperialism in Korea and Vietnam were false. Those wars were about superpower struggles. This time, the ‘I word’ is not a left-wing epithet but a straightforward description of policy aims — yet another difference from those two older wars in Asia.”
Were the cynics right that this war is mainly about oil?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Phinatic on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
132 Comments
I thought it was supposed to last “weeks, not decades”!
Surprise, Surprise!!!
I certainly hope Iraq is another South Korea. South Korea is one of the world’s more powerful ocean-going Ship builders, construction builders, electronic engineering and software writers in the world.
The Koreans are a kind and generous people from whom Americans could learn a few lessons about life.
Guess what? The South Koreans run their own government, sit on many World Councils and now have a representative as the head of the U.N.
The American people are a little thick-headed sometimes and don’t realize that being allies with Iraq that would become a major player in the Middle East would be a good thing.
Or as President Clinton said, “We can take some ambiguous third route.”
Years? Really? What happened to two thumbs up and ‘Mission Accomplished’. Well, I guess it might take fifty years to find those weapons of mass destruction.
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that this was what Bush/Cheney had in mind all along. I also understand that the President considers himself some sort of “Crusader” of Democracy, what a joke. His days are numbered and so are the Republicans who support him because judgement day is coming in ‘08. This War will stop, oil or no oil.
2-6 weeks.
Trust us, we’re the governments – compassionate conservatives, remember?
Thinkfirst another of the “bumper sticker” thinkers.
Republican,Teach him a lesson and get his IP.
Republican – on this we agree; if it turned out like S Korea. The SK army does its job. But, where is the ARI? Why are they not taking over?
I would not be saying the things I am about the occupation if our forces were doing an advisory/logistics role. However, they are not.
The several hundred thousand US-trained ARI should be able to handle a few thousand dead-enders in their last throes. Why are they not doing so?
“The American people are a little thick-headed sometimes and don’t realize that being allies with Iraq that would become a major player in the Middle East would be a good thing.” – Republican
Who said anything about not being Iraq’s ally? They want us as friends? Sure thing. However, they want us to act as their national police force for fifty years? They’ve got another thing coming.
I imagine the Iraqi army has learned basic infantry techniques, but have yet to learn Tactical and Strategic operations. This takes quite a bit of time. There are very few natural military leaders.
Knowing when to attack, how, what forces, what supplies and equipment, intelligence gathering and etc. takes a sophisticated army.
Our military is the best and still gets caught occasionally with their pants down.
One thing I will predict is that when the Iraqi gets on its feet, they may decide to be a bit more brutal to the foreign invaders and that approach may shorten the stay of Al Qaeda and Iranian influence.
It’s been over four years Republican. Care to predict how long “when the Iraqi gets on its feet”?
Seems to be those british who were abducted may be getting some of your “more brutal to the foreign invaders” right now.
This guy knows his stuff! Way to go Republican!
Ben,
The Iraqi Army is in control of many parts of the country.
Our forces do provide training and logistics to the Iraqi army.
We do still provide security and run missions too.
You act like nothing is being done when alot has been and alot is still in being completed.
Rumsfeld said the occupation wouldn’t last more than six months. Cheney said the insurgents were in their last throws. Bush said when Iraq asks America to leave we’ll leave.
It’s been over six months, and Iraq has asked us to leave, yet we’re still there. Are you guys glad you voted for a never ending occupation in Iraq?
Personally I don’t see the comparison to Korea. Do over 100 Americans die every month in Korea?
Doug,
Iraq has not asked us to leave to my knowledge.
Did the Parliment or President formally ask us to leave when I wasn’t paying attention?
Catch-22. We have our approved government who depends upon our presense to keep them in power. Of course THEY won’t ask us to leave! However, polls show the Iraqi PEOPLE want us out.
Nathan – what % of the country is under ARI control?
We got nobody applauding a republican. Rite-on, dude.
This should be required reading:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060107E.shtml
In December 1941, did Roosevelt(a Democrat) tell us we would be in Europe for 66 more years and counting?
In 1950, did Truman (another Democrat)tell use we would be in Korea for 57 years and counting?
In 1962 did Kennedy (another Democrat) tell us we would be in Vietnam for 10 more years and that 50,000 American troops would be killed and 200,000 American troops would be wounded?
War is not a fixed term contract. You cannot expect the fight for freedom and the fight to defend America is ever going to end, unless of course you want America to surrender to the rest of the world.
“Max” –
The issue you raised is addressed in your required reading:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060107E.shtml
Max: Thanks for bringing us up to date on the party affiliations of Roosevelt, Truman and JFK. It’s just a huge relief to get hit with the, “Oh, really? Roosevelt was a Democrat? I mean, all this time I thought he was a Whig,” revelation on Saturday afternoon. Clearly, I have to flip back through my American history coloring book and shade the Roosevelt page in with blue. Keep us posted if you unearth something else on this scale, though I don’t believe I can handle anything as monumental as an announcement of Nixon’s political party. That kind of research takes years.
Nathan, I’m glad you asked. A majority of the Iraqi parliament has signed a draft bill demanding a time table for the U.S. to withdraw.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html
It’s essentially a good hint they want us out of there. I wouldn’t be surprised that Bush would refuse their order if it does come up for a full vote and passes.
In other news a terrorist attack was just thwarted at JFK International Airport. It appears Bush’s efforts have, once again, motivated people to take terroristic actions in America. No, it wasn’t an Vietnamese or Rwandans who came to attack us here because we withdrew from their countries, one was a Guyanese man.
Mission accomplished Bush. It used to be only Christian terrorists in America would blow things up, now people from all over the world want to join in.
As originally posted:”One thing I will predict is that when the Iraqi gets on its feet, they may decide to be a bit more brutal to the foreign invaders and that approach may shorten the stay of Al Qaeda and Iranian influence”
BULLSHIT.
And the rest of us know it.
Very interesting.
ABC News has apparently pulled a story alleging that they had discovered US plans to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2009.
The story, posted around 8 pm Friday, was gone by Saturday morning. The link listed in Google News now takes a user to a default page not found.
“You’ve requested an ABCNews.com page that does not exist,” the page says.
According to the article, officials said 50,000 troops could remain for ‘5 to 10 years’ beyond 2009.
“ABC News Learns of Plans to Keep Troops in Iraq Beyond 2009,” however, remains listed in Google News.
ABC could not immediately be reached for comment.
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
It’s still listed at Google news,
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=iraq+2009&btnG=Search+News“ABC News Learns of Plans to Keep Troops in Iraq Beyond 2009http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/IraqCoverage/story?id=3236822&page=1ABC News – 19 hours agoA senior official said one long-term plan would have 30-50000 US forces in Iraq for 5-10 years beyond 2009. During that period, the bulk of the troops would …”
Hat tip to rawstory.com
Max – Dec 1941 to VE Day was less than four years. After VE Day our troops were not getting kiled. And, on Dec 1941 Roosevelt did NOT tell us it would be “weeks, maybe months, not years” like the Bush administration did before the Iraq invasion.
As for JFK and ‘Nam I am in full agreement with you.
To correct a historical misconception, it was actually Eisenhower that sent the first “advisers” to South Viet Nam.
Good point WSC. Interestingly enough, Nixon held a lot of power with Ike’s health issues. So Nixon was at BOTH ends of that ill-fated adventure.
Long time posters to this blog will remember that I have been saying from the very beginning that a permanent US presence in Iraq was this administrations goal all along.Word to the administration and any that may continue to pursue this course: You can’t have my kid for your pepetually profit seeking military industrial complex!
Yes, let’s all become appeasers, lay down and do nothing in the world outside of own borders.
I’ll watch when something happens and the cowardly Democratic appeasers plead for help from those who served or are serving in the military. I do hope they tell them to take a hike.
I noticed the ones that screamed the loudest on this blog have never served day 1 in the military.
….. and we just all walk on by….
Poor ol predictable JM. Same old mantra.
Spare me any notions of this nation or its citizens being protected from scary terrorists by means of the occupation of Iraq. Come on back when some concern is given to who is crossing our wide open border or how many boxcar size ccntainers go uninspected everyday. Then I MIGHT give you some credence. Hell this is the same administration that is fighting AGAINST testing of beef for mad cow disease! Protecting us? My ass.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/041207.html“A date certain for American withdrawal also would put non-Iraqi al-Qaeda operatives – who number only an estimated five percent of the armed insurgency – in a tighter fix.Without the United States to point to, al-Qaeda would find it tougher to recruit jihadists and would likely face military pressure from Iraqi nationalists fed up with foreign interference.
That is why al-Qaeda leaders view Bush’s open-ended war in Iraq as crucial to their long-range plans for spreading their radical ideology throughout the Muslim world. As “Atiyah,” one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants, explained in a Dec. 11, 2005, letter, “prolonging the war is in our interest.” ”
Read Atiyah’s letter, page 16, top of 17 at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center,http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf
Let’s see 50 yrs. times 130bil. per yr., could add up to some serious money, with compounding!
So Cosmos, you’re saying 95% of Al Queda is in Iraq?
Where else should we go to attack the terrorist group that attacked America?
Max,
Read again. “an estimated FIVE percent”.
Pakistan.
Only five percent of the insurgency in Iraq is associated with al Qaeda. The rest are Sunni and Shia fighters at war with one another in a civil war.
Al Qaeda wants us in Iraq, as the country has proven to be a great training ground and the resources we are spending in Iraq detract from actually addressing al Qaeda worldwide.
In other words, Bush has played right into the hands of al Qaeda.
If Bush was a poker player, he would have gone bust years ago. The man has no capability of recognizing a bluff, even when it is so obvious.
(emphasis added)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Statements_by_Al-Qaeda_members” “In the video, bin Laden also claims that he wants to … “punish the aggressor in kind,” and to inflict ECONOMIC damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to “bleed America to the point of BANKRUPTCY.” “
“A date certain for American withdrawal also would put non-Iraqi al-Qaeda operatives – who number only an estimated five percent of the armed insurgency – in a tighter fix.”
Ok, I re-read this and of the al-Qaeda in Iraq, only 5% are non-Iraqi.
Sort of an awkward sentence there.
It doesn’t say that only 5% of the insurgency in Iraq is al-Qaeda.
If Bush was a poker player, he would have gone bust years ago. The man has no capability of recognizing a bluff, even when it is so obvious.Posted by: WSClark | June 02, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Exactly.
This may be the fulcrum of the “GWOT” as waged in the Iraq theatre.
Thinking Americans, aka about 78% of Americans now, see that Augustus Stupidus is the world’s worst possible high-stakes global poker player.
And of course his “base” being the straight-moral-shooters we all know among us here in Red State Central they tend to get a tad confused when others mention that GW Bush is more accurately named Augustus Stupidus. They confuse rudeness for a bug, but when it comes to high-stakes poker it’s totally a feature.
I just wish more Americans could see WSClark’s point for the Big Truth it is.
Great post.
When I say “fulcrum,” I mean that the total of all American who see that Augustus Stupidus has misplayed his poker hand – he’s failed to see a totally, glaringly obvious Al Qaida bluff – has reached 78%.
Think about it: 20 guys (a group that should have been 21 guys but was “robbed” of its 21st member by utterly inept American security–that’s a good measure of how f’d up AQ ops is in the real world) from the Middle East manage, with box cutters and knowledge of avionics, to leverage the finest fightest force in the modern world into mid-widfing a civil war above all other deployments.
What’s worse (or better, if you’re OBL) is that at minimal cost AQ fighters get to learn each and every weakness of this finest fighting force…and it’s leader wants to improve its knowledge but convince Americans to call this “winning.”
Augustus Stupidus and his decisions will require an entirely new Army than we had at the end of 2002. And he’ll insist on “paying” for it by borrowing from our grandchildren yet give zero concessions to “smart war” in doing so.
Is this guy an Augustus Stupidus or what?!?
Finally, someone articulates so clearly how retreat is not surrender, retreat is Victory!
And al-Qaeda will stop attacking America after they see we have left their backyard.
Thanks Clark! Great Post!
I can see the Alqaeda ads now:
Last Chance to kill Americans in Iraq! You won’t have to spend your money on airefare to Boston or New York, just come to Iraq!
Later on, you’ll have to fly to Mexico City and cross the southern American border, and that will be much more expensive.
So, hop on your camel now and trott on in to Baghdad for this last opportunity to kill Americans so close to our home!
If you absolutely can’t make it now, there will be ships leaving from Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iran and other ports later on. Stay tuned for more specials on these cruises which will be posted at a later date.
LOL
If you’re laboring under the impression that Augustus Stupidus is going to delivery a “victory” in Iraq — by any definition commonly used in the USA — then you’re a second-order dipshit.
First order dipshit, ‘course, is lies at the feet (of clay) of Augustus Stupidus.
;) Yeah that’s you, “Pacifist.”
LOL
The American soldier is weak. If they cannot win a small fight in Mogadishu how can they possibly think they might win a war in Baghdad?
Get out of Iraq now or stay, either way you lose.
Let’s see, we need to fight them over there……
Now, Omar the Terrorist has a choice to make. He can “fight us” over there in Baghdad where we have 150,000 troops, artillery, tanks, armed Humvees, helicopters, planes, missiles and other equipment.
Or, Omar could come to Boston, Chicago, Detroit or Wichita where we are protected by police officers armed with 9mm handguns.
And Omar chooses to “fight us” over there?
What is wrong with this picture?
Why would Omar choose to “fight us” over there when he could come here where we are comparatively unprotected?
Why? Because Omar ISN’T coming over here.
If Omar the Terrorist had the intention of coming over here, he would have been here by now. Why would Omar choose to fight over there where we are armed and well equipped?
To say that we need to fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here is completely illogical.
If it was their intention, Omar would have been here by now.
What we need to concern ourselves with, as we found out today, is the homegrown terrorists and those that are here legally.
And that is a law enforcement job, not one for our military.
Surrender is Victory!
You dumbshit, Omar was already here.
Surrender is Victory!Posted by: Orwell | June 02, 2007 at 08:01 PM
LOL, you of course may by choice lay claim to being a first-order dipshit.
You dumbshit, Omar was already here.Posted by: Max | June 02, 2007 at 08:02 PM
You, too, Max!
Let’s revisit some recent GOP wisdom, ’cause I’m pretty sure you dipshits have forgotten this…if you ever knew it, that is!…What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom–a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don’t need hacks.
That’s yer boy, Augustus Stupidus: hack boy.
LOL
This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
If the US and George W Bush were serious about defeating terrorism, we would have 80,000 troops on the Afghani-Paki border, shooting flamethrowers into every cave, nook and cranny until we flushed out every last member of al Qaeda. Instead of holding hands and playing kissyface with Prince Bandar, Bush would have had him by the balls and demanded that he turn over every last member of the Saudi Royal Family that supported terrorism.
If we were serious about dealing with terrorism, we would have known that Saddam Hussein was a mortal enemy of fundamentalist Islamic groups. We would have left him in place, since there was no al Qaeda or terrorist presence in Iraq pre-invasion. Since we controlled the Kurdish sector of Iraq prior to the war, we would have destroyed the al Qaeda training camp that was protected by the no-fly zone.
Instead, we wasted 3,400 American lives, 20,000 wounded and $675 billion on a War of Choice that cannot be won.
And we became the greatest recruiting tool that radical Islamists have ever had.
Other than that, we are doing great.
Omar has much more to worry about then cops with 9mm handguns.
There’s 100 million gun owners, many of whom have something a little more than 9mm.
Anyway, they can’t conceive of a mass invasion. Not possible for them. But, they can engage in multiple and sustained terrorist attacks like they’ve done in Iraq for 4 years. They can’t wait to hit the streets of America to do that.
Blowing themselves up here or there, doesn’t really matter to them.
They know they can’t win with a mass attack, but they know they can break down the will of America to fight, they see us as weak infidels already, and some posters here and most of the press sees America as weak and incabable as well.
They think they can win the war on terror in America, and as long as their are enough wimps like WSC around, they are right.
Fortunately, there’s still several million American’s here who can and will take these guys out, when they chose to attack us here.
It’s not a question of if, it’s only a question of when, if we let them roam freely through this world without any attacks on them in their own backyard.
Don’t worry Clark, you won’t have to fight them here or there. But, you will be begging for others to protect you, when your time comes.
Sorry, that was courtesy of Peggy Noonan, aka Major Deliveror of Reagan “Democrats.”
You know, a CONVERTED second-order dipshit.
Join the club boys!
LOL
“But, you will be begging for others to protect you, when your time comes.”
Actually, Dumbass, I know how to use a gun and I can more than take care of myself. The fact that you think I can’t just makes you look foolish.
But you missed the point, Oh Ignorant One.
Why are they waiting to come over here, if that is their intention? Why fight where we are heavily armed? If they were coming over here, they would have been here by now by the boatload – not just a couple of wannabes in New Jersey.
Do you honestly think that they are afraid of folks like you?
Jeez, you are really full of yourself!
Now that is funny!!!!!
God, that comedy act that LHG is trying out is hilarious!!!!!
Yeah, funny like laughin’ through the tears is funny.
You and me have to laugh at such stupidity, what other choice is there.
Jesus Jumpin Christ, these Bush guys are idiots.
I wonder how WSClark is going to shoot a bomb or a poisoned water supply?
“Fortunately, there’s still several million American’s here who can and will take these guys out, when they chose to attack us here.”
I am kind of curious here, L, you and your friends are armed with more firepower than the police force so that you can deal with the terrorists, being that you are so tough and all that.
How are you going to know who the terrorists are?
Since the usually don’t have “TERRORIST” tattooed on their foreheads and they tend to blend into society in general, how are you going to know who to shoot and who to let go?
Now, Atta and his cohorts blended in well enough to get visas from the American government and to function in society without causing an alarm. They were able to board aircraft without a problem.
Is your game plan just to shoot anyone that LOOKS Arab? Damn, there are plenty of Semite-Americans that would be targets.
Are you okay with just shooting first and asking questions later?
Sorry, bad question. You are obviously a Republican and shooting first is a GOP tradition.
My bad.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, we just walk on by…………
I think that LGH has a John Wayne complex, Pedant. Any moment now, he is going to start calling us Pilgrims……
“Stand back, Pilgrim, I see a TERRORIST and I aim to shoot him dead!”
Christ……………
That’ll be the day, WS.
That’ll be the day.
Words of waggle from a person who never served 1 day in the military – WSClark.
They should put him on a recruiting poster for all the support he gives the military – not.
…….walk…on…by…
Just walk on by…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Odom
Ok, sorry (and I ain’t apologizing here to the sad wheelchair ninja “warrior” who shall remain as nameless as his honor here is bankrupt): “that’ll be the day” is a famous line from one of Wayne’s most famout movies, Red River.
I was being over-cute.
WS has a point that ain’t nobody going to overcome here: why should we feel secure fightin’ “them” over there when we have our entire military deployed in Osama bin Laden’s favorite fashion?
Jesus, nothin’ like Augustus Stupidus makin’ a major military geneyus out of an over-tall kidney-transplant recepient, Arabian, rich, nihilist instead of just doin’ whatever it takes to kill him dead.
You know, as a message to dictators worldwide that hiding such anarchists might not be in your best interest. Which to thinking Americans might seem, unpatriotically of course, as the wisest course. To those who aren’t dipshits, anyway.
Good link, Cos, very good. It isn’t just the Leftist Peaceniks that want us out of Iraq.
Of course, LGH has the solution – just let him and his friends at ‘em! They’ll show those nasty terrorists who’s boss!
Just as soon as they figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys……
In addition to the “identity” problem, we’re making MORE new bad guys, faster than we can kill the old ones.
You know, it kills me, just KILLS me, that some of our Augustus Stupidus Defenders would DIE if Americans would compare GW Bush to Winston Churchill (who to this day, btw, is considered a sub-par Minister, at BEST, in England).
They’d LOVE it if a valid comparison could be made, largely because they worship at Churchill’s feet for his leadership in England in WWII (and rightly so, too).
But that comparison falls flat as day old cowshit when we compare the sinking of the Bismarck to the capture AND TRIAL of Osama bin Laden. And don’t kid yourself: the trial of OBL would have been the crowning achievement of the administration of GW Bush: calling him Augustus Stupidus would have been the words of a bomb-thrower if OBL had been killled or tried.
Churchill had the cajones to bet a million-to-one shot on sinking the Bismarck…and succeeded in one of the greatest human stories ever told.
Augustus Stupidus, otoh, “really hasn’t thought much about” OBL since 9/11 yet WISHES LIKE HELL to marshall Americans in support of whatever it is that’s currently passing as American foreign policy in Iraq.
Believe me: thinking Americans realize Bush is clueless, but Britons and Europeans everywhere hold it against us because we RE-ELECTED Augustus Stupidus.
Churchill:Bush is about as valid a comparison as Genius:Dipshit.
WS, you racist little pig, if it weren’t for true warriors like Nathan over ‘there’, you would be fighting, or reeling in horror of the atrocities that al-Qaida wreaked here on US soil. You’re old ass sits in your well protected house (by heroes like Nathan) and feel oh so confident to slander. But let the day come when someone important in your life falls victim to one of the rag head cult members detonates an explosive device. When you are called in to identify a piece of a corpse of someone you cared about are you still going to hold to your surrender monkey politics?
Yawn.
What EXACTLY did Narthan to to earn your “hero” label?
Wasn’t John Kerry a hero?
LOL
If only you bozos were as full of useful ideas as you are of bullshit, we as Americans would have a starting point.
Nathan. sorry.
yeah, WSClark wouldn’t know a hero if it smacked him in the face. His only status is on this blog as a foul-mouth know-it-all. What a claim to fame…
Kills me, KILLS me, that these idiots can’t understand that military heroes, of the American variety, are kaput in the year of our spaghetti monster 2007.
Don’t you guys realize that any given persons’ merit, in fact the entire quality of their military service, is totally negotiable these days??
Jesus. What kind of dollars are you offering for your side?!? What is the GOP paying for military heroes now?
LOL
Somebody told me that Republank was an old goat. I said I don’t care what he does, I just walk on by….
Heh! Fifty years in Iraq? No way; we’ll get our asses kicked out of there long before that. Iraq isn’t South Korea, and never will be. We’re ALLIED with SK, we’re OCCUPYING Iraq. Wanna bet on whether the money or the soldiers runs out first?
Well, I am going to have to leave my friends and the old goats and their friends on this blog for a while. I will be back tomorrow to have a bit more fun at the expense of the bigots and fools that reside on the other side of the aisle.
Nighty, night boys and girls!!!!
Heh! Fifty years in Iraq? No way; we’ll get our asses kicked out of there long before that. It’s not about winning or losing this war, we lost it the minute Bush decided to trump up whatever phoney evidence he needed to to invade.Iraq isn’t South Korea, and never will be. We’re ALLIED with SK, we’re OCCUPYING Iraq with a puppet government that will fall the minute we leave. Why do you think all the money we’ve paid to rebuild the country is now residing in Swiss bank retirement accounts for the leaders?
There is no “winning” in Iraq for the simple reason there is nothing to win. This is a country buried in turmoil for centuries, and all of it governed by religious fanatics and/or tinpot dictators.
For Bush to even suggest this may continue down the same road South Korea is on shows just how out of touch this man is with plain reason.
The current government, while “duly” elected, is a sham. They have no real power, and the country continues down the dark road of civil war. We have created a nightmare for the average citizen of Iraq by invading the country, and I’m afraid that nightmare will continue for a long time.
I just hope we get out before the whole country explodes.
Just walk on by…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Odom“William Eldridge Odom (born June 23, 1932) is a former U.S. Army 3-star general, and was Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31 year career in military intelligence……After his retirement from the military he became… known for his outspoken criticism of the Iraq War…”
It’s asinine to compare Iraq to SK or to Europe. If we had been in a contious state of war for the time that we’ve been in those countries, killing and losing lives,than the comparison with Iraq would be valid.Vietnam is a more rational comparison, since we were fighting for the majority of the time we were there.
It’s asinine to compare Iraq to SK or to Europe. If we had been in a contious state of war for the time that we’ve been in those countries, killing and losing lives,than the comparison with Iraq would be valid.Vietnam is a more rational comparison, since we were fighting for the majority of the time we were there.
What nation have we brought Democracy to, freed from oppression or conquered that we have not been stationed in on a permanent basis?Why would you expect different this time? Especially with the national importance of this regions only natural resource?Whine all you want but it makes perfect sense to me.
Jeez, I don’t remember the Bush Administration telling us that we would be Iraq for 50-60 years, Mr. KIA. It seems to me that they said it would be over quickly and the whole operation would be paid for by Iraqi oil.
Four years, 3,500 American lives, 25,000 wounded and $675 billion later, we are no closer to the end than we were in March of 2003.
Hell of a plan, Bushie!!!
Clark, we get the point, you just want to surrender. Fine, surrender, get it over with, then YOU take responsibility for the consequences. Your Dems are in power now, they can defund the war immediately. Why don’t they just get it done?
Even your Dems in Congress, don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences.
So we bring home the troops from Germany, France, England, Japan and South Korea as well and close all bases on foreign soil and operate in a national bubble?I don’t recall Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower telling the American people of axing the American people for “permission” to keep bases in these lands for what has been 50-60 years.That seems to be the argument here.
So we bring home the troops from Germany, France, England, Japan and South Korea as well and close all bases on foreign soil and operate in a national bubble?I don’t recall Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower telling the American people of axing the American people for “permission” to keep bases in these lands for what has been 50-60 years.That seems to be the argument here.
General Odom probably pissed because he didn’t get recommended for a fourth star. Most all generals with those credentials would have. I guess Odom got caught with his Liberals showing.
“So we bring home the troops from Germany, France, England, Japan and South Korea as well and close all bases on foreign soil and operate in a national bubble?”
Why do we have bases in those countries? Which of those countries need our protection and which ones are actually paying for it?
Do the British have bases in the US? Japan? Korea? Germany? France?
Why do we need bases in their countries? Who is paying for those bases?
I know – the AMERICAN taxpayer is paying for those. And for what reason?
None.
You have to forgive WSClark, he hasn’t delved into the past 70 years of history. This is why he is clueless about military bases and their locations.
He’s just now beginning to learn. Give him another 50 years and he’ll have it down pat.
Clark’s ignorance is not surprising given the dumbed down state of our public educaton system today.
Amazing though, the level of stupidity that some have attained.
His 7:45 PM comment today goes far in explaining most of his posts here.
OK close all the bases and operate our Democracy in a bubble.Is it that you hate the freedoms you have in this country and Democracy or is it you are just naive that there are enemy’s of that freedom?
Republican, if I’m not mistaken, US troops have been in Guantanamo Cuba since 1898, you know, the Spanish American war? Also, still in the Philliphines from the same war.
And don’t forget Kosovo!
Here’s a report from the Cato Institute expressing concerns about why 200,000 US troops were deployed overseas back in 1998.
Blame Bush for this too?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-24-98.html
Jeez, you right wingers are setting new records for stupid today…..
Let’s see – countries with thriving economies that rival that of the USA – can you name one or two?
“Germany, France, England, Japan and South Korea”
Tell me again why the American taxpayer is funding the bases in these countries?
Hmmmmmmm……….
In the “perfect” military world, transport of troop and supplies would be near instantaneous. Troops could then be based at home and deployed where needed in virtually no time. The “perfect” military world doesn’t exist, so other military strategies must be adopted. Troop deployment takes time. In order to lessen the impact of deployment time, one strategy is to forward deploy troops and supplies to areas where the possibility of conflict is high. The reason for doing this is obvious – to fight any future war on someone else’s land…not here. In short, the lands of one’s “allies” provide a buffer zone where the real fighting will take place.
Since WWII it seems to be US policy not to be “caught with our pants down again”. We now routinely position troops in forward positions in the world’s hot spots.
What I find so interesting about this is the fact that we would never allow such forward deployments from countries we consider near term potential adversaries. We don’t even seem to be too keen on letting allies do it. We, however, seem to think that we’re entitled.
Iraq…just one of many forward deployment of indeterminant length meant to protect the homeland. Unfortunately, this is conventional thinking that has been rendered somewhat obsolete in light of the increasing number of “nonconventional” engagements we’ve been in. maybe it’s time to rethink America’s ntire defensive strategy.
“Clark’s ignorance is not surprising given the dumbed down state of our public educaton system today.”
Education.
I learned to spell in the first grade.
I learned to use spell check 15 years ago.
I learned to avoid idiots like you fifty years ago.
To those who want to constantly bash Bush and blame Bush and hate Bush, instead of looking at that facts and having a serious intellectual debate, you lose ALL credibility anyone might have for you.
To not know basic facts from history and present day, is not only sad, but it gives you Zero basis to form any opinion you might offer to help educate others.
To go through life ignorantly, filled with pure hate and emotional responses is exactly what leads to constant wars in this world, the very wars you complain about constantly.
I feel sorry for you and for this country, if there are many out there like you, only God can help us.
You realize that bases are techincally United State soil in these countries right?
Overseas as of 2005 per a source favorite of some here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States
As of 2005, the United States occupied over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:
Germany 569,395Japan (United States Forces Japan) 47,000South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744Italy 12,258United Kingdom 11,093
According to United States Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno (lead commander of day-to-day operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom), as of May 5, 2007 there are approximately 160,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq.[9] Approximately 15,000 U.S. troops are engaged elsewhere throughout the Middle East, with most forces currently deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Where ever US troops are stationed, legally or otherwise, yup, it’s US soil.
What is your point, Max? What is your point, Mr. KIA?
Max, I can debate your socks off. I know history inside and out and can handle anything you can dish out.
And Mr. KIA, who cares regarding a technicality concerning the bases in foreign countries?
Who is paying for them and to what purpose do they serve?
After more than fifty years, shouldn’t the South Koreans pay for their own protection?
After more than sixty years, are we still concerned about a Hitler or Hirohito arising in Germany or Japan?
After sixty years, do the English need our protection?
Give me a flippin’ break – this is all about the US military-industrial complex (a term originated by Eisenhower)and the Pentagon’s desire to spend more money.
Christ………..
You are obviously completely anti-military in general WS.That really takes the validity out of any statements you have regarding war and peace.Sounds like alot of anti-US we’ve brought all the problems we face on ourselves hogwash.
BFAH answered your question Clark, IF you can read.
“And Mr. KIA, who cares regarding a technicality concerning the bases in foreign countries?”
A technicality Clark? Not knowing about the deployment of 500,000 US troops overseas?
And you dare comment about foreign policy? Or war? Or anything else?
It must be sad being in your world – like Helen Keller before she found a way to communicate AND to comprehend.
Clark just got knocked on his ass (again) and is so groggy he doesn’t even know it yet. Still seeing a few stars I bet, which is an improvement of the view he had when his head was up his ass.
What i actually said was that forward deployment is a reasonable position for fighting conventional wars…terrorists don’t abide by the conventional war thinking or tactics, so forward deployment is kinda useless against them.
As I said, maybe it’s time for the US to rethink it’s entire defensive strategy.
Come on guys! Be fair! Don’t use accurate historical facts and logic on WSClark! That’s inhuman! :D
“You are obviously completely anti-military in general WS.”
And point out my anti-military comment, please.
“A technicality Clark? Not knowing about the deployment of 500,000 US troops overseas?”
The technicality I was referring to was the ownership of the land, not the actual forces. My question was who is paying for these operations?
“And you dare comment about foreign policy?”
Yes, I have forgotten more about foreign policy than you will ever know.
Want to try me?
“Yes, I have forgotten more about foreign policy than you will ever know.”
Go ahead ask him a foreign policy question. I’ll time him to see how long it takes him to “Google” the answer. :D
Give me a flippin’ break – this is all about the US military-industrial complex (a term originated by Eisenhower)and the Pentagon’s desire to spend more money.
Christ………..
Posted by: WSClark | June 03, 2007 at 08:32 PM
I support the troops not the mission.I support the military but none of it’s operations.
“I support the troops not the mission. I support the military but none of it’s operations.”
Huh?
Translation for the clueless Clark.
He’s supports the men and women of the Armed Forces.
He doesn’t support their missions (i.e. Iraq nor their operations-covert or overt.)
Say BFAH, even without large scale forces, terrorists will be striking all over the world.
Prepositioning of US forces will still be required, though perhaps on a smaller, more rapidly deployable scale.
It may be that several 101st Airborne groups need to be based regionally, in order to deploy rapidly to where ever they are needed.
And I’d like to see some forces agressively defending the perimeter of US soil, to stop:
1)Terrorists from getting close to the US.2)Stop 99.99% of illegal immigration.3)Stop +90% of drugs entering the US.
How much of our crime is related to drugs? How many billions are funneled to the crime world from the drug trade? How much $$ is paid in bribes to politicians, border patrol, cops, etc… to keep the drug trade going? Lotsa incentive there to keep our borders open.
Those statements are oxymorons WS and part of the liberal lie regarding the war in Iraq and the Military in general.Liberal statements such as “I support the troops, not the mission” is akin to “I support the military, but none of it’s operations” (such as foreign bases.)
Of course you may not have said these things personally but I think your opinions support such statements.
Max,
I’m not advocating getting rid of all forward deployment; I’m just advocating a look at how our trrops are dispersed and why they were put where they were. Troops were foward deployed in Germany because of the Soviet Union…Germany is kinda close to the Middle east, but not all that close. We deployed in S. Korea because of the North…that’s probably still OK.
As you said, I think the “mix” needs to be reconsidered. I’m not sure I advocate having the military performing police actions, like defending the border against aliens and drug smugglers…those are jobs, well, for the proper police authorities.
My general feeling is that we do what we must to defend the country, but that we not take on the role of world policeman, or “army of last resort” for anything wrong anyplace on the globe.
So, what you are saying Mr. KIA, is that to support the troops I have to support the mission and the CIC?
Jeez, and all this time I thought that as an American I was entitled to my opinion. Who knew that was false?
And again, why are WE paying for bases to protect other countries? Shouldn’t they pay for their own protection?
But back to the original point, I support our troops so much that I want them home and out of Iraq.
How’s that?
It’s not just the bases-there is more to it than that. Of which I’m not a liberty to discuss.
Let’s just say to abandon it would be disastrous and extremely bad policy, not only for investment’s sake but for strategic and tactical purposes.
“Of which I’m not a liberty to discuss.”
Jeez, put on the wading boots, the shit is really getting deep.
Agree with you BFAH, we should not be the policemen of the world, yet we do need to be able to defend America, protect our interests overseas, and as part of NATO to protect our allies.
Not advocating pulling out of all of the overseas locations, but we should look at troop levels in Europe for example, and see if some of these might be transferred to S Korea/Japan area as China continues to rapidly build it’s forces.
With the US providing defense protection to Europe since WWII, we have been at an economic disadvantage as Europeans spend proportionally less on Defense. Thus the US taxpayer in effect, subsidizes the European economy.
Europe can now pull more of their own weight Europe, which should allow us to maintain a reduced presence there.
Republican, can’t guess what you cannot reveal, but the world should be aware that Putin is leading Russia in a threatening direction. Since it’s clear the US is not threatening Russia I’m not sure what Russia’s future interest is, and why they are pressing on with a military buildup of cold war era weapons. (New generation ICBM’s for eg.)
We likely will be in Iraq/Afghanistan/Qatar/Kuwait for many years. Need to finish the job there, and keep some troops prepositioned for Iran and any other threats there. (One warning flag is that Putin has been warming relations with several Arab states recently)
Maybe the whole showdown is over oil (and oil was a large factor in WWII as well), and that’s all the more reason for some expedited alternative energy programs in the US. The less dependent we are on the mideast, the fewer military resources we’ll need to deploy over there.
Rogue nations gaining nucleur arms and global proliferation, even if we become energy dependent, will continue to be a problem, and so some regional deployments will continue to be required – again prepositioning.
In any scenario, the US military must remain strong. We had the luxury of time in WWII which allowed us to build up forces when we needed them. In modern warfare, I’m not sure we’ll have the luxury of time to do this again.
I think hindsight shows we shrunk our military too severely, in the name of gaining some political cold war ending peace dividend. With 500,000 more troops for example, we could have brought Iraq under control much quicker, sealing their borders with Syria and Iran, stopping imported insurgents and imported arms for insurgents.
The lessons of history continue to be, a nation that lasts is a nation that remains strong.
WSClark doesn’t understand Non Disclosure Agreements that the military makes you sign.
I could blab something I knew or talk around it. Then I would simply disappear and suddenly have a number on my shirt in some prison.
Clarkie, why to strings defy spacetime?
WS,
It’s going to take more than wading boots. That 10:16 post is the signal to break out the scuba gear. And if it gets any deeper, we’ll need ALVIN just to survive.
“Clarkie, why to strings defy spacetime?”
Holy CRAP, My Bluetooth is going NUTS. OK OK Ok. I soooo posted in the wrong trhead…. Rebooting…. Back in a few…..
“Then I would simply disappear and suddenly have a number on my shirt in some prison.”
My God, there is hope after all.
Of course Tom and WSClark are authorities on the Military. Neither of which have served day one in the service of their country.
The blank thinks I’ve claimed to be an authority on the military? It should find some post where I’ve stated that, and paste it in.
But bullshit – I can see that a mile away.
That’s ok Republican, I understand, though many idiots here cannot. Please keep your mouth shut! :)
It’s bad enough that newspapers across the country print whatever they hear. I would hope at some point the leakers and the reporters get caught and thrown behind the bars.
Max,
If the blank truly had military contracts, it wouldn’t post about them here. It would be smart enough never to mention them in a place as public as this or any other blog.
Tom, NDA’s are not contracts.
It’s a legal agreement for non disclosure.
Of course you wouldn’t know that as you probably never had to sign one.
Military members in highly sensitive areas have to sign NDA’s frequently. They also get special attention from OSI or CIA on their comings and goings.
Sometimes even the name of a project or location is classified. You can’t even refer to them in a closed door authorized session. At least if your not high enough in rank you can’t. That’s General officer discretion only.
Time for ARVIN. The bullshit depth in here has just passed the limit for safe scuba.
Judge Pilshaw recently compared jury duty to military service or serving in Iraq. The Governor compared driving in Missouri to the 9/11 tragedy. What is it with these women that they cannot understand their insensitive comments are not appreciated?
Jury duty is nothing like serving in the military or being shot at in Iraq.
THE GOOD BOOK SAYS AN UNJUST BALANCE IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD & MAN…I look forward to the bright light of day when the wrongful acts of Judge Pilshaw are examined by an appellate where falsely sworn oaths of malice are NOT ACCEPTED.
She will learn that the poor,the veteran,the child,the pro se litigant,the disabled,are not the whipping post for her Court.
She had to be reprimanded and ordered to cease and desist unlawful practices in her Court room which she relished as her “power” over the citizenry…the power to break the law because of position,not Statute.
I am glad on the day of judgement I will not be standing next to this person,her fate is sealed by her continuing knowingly wrongful acts!
“We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability.”
“I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the QUAGMIRE inside Iraq.”
–Dick Cheney, Speech at the Washington Institute for Near East PolicyApril 29, 1991