WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday. The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years. Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea. "The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters. He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation." http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30416213.htm
It is hard not to take this as another example that the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq. Let's run through a few differences. First, Korea is an ethnically and culturally homogenous state. Iraq, not a culturally or ethnically homogenous state. And needless to say, that has been a point of some real difficulty. Second, Korea a democracy? Well, yes, for about fifteen years. Without going into all the details, South Korea was a military dictatorship for most of the Cold War. A deeper acquaintance with the last half century of Korean history would suggest that a) a fifty year occupation, b) lack of democracy and c) a hostile neighbor were deeply intertwined. Remove B or C and you probably don't have A, certainly no A if you lose both B and C. The more telling dissimilarity is the distinction between frontline troops and troops for stability. At least notionally (and largely this was true) US troops have been in South Korea to ward off an invasion from the North. US troops aren't in Iraq to ward off any invasion. Invasion from who? Saudi Arabia? Syria? No, US troops are in Iraq for domestic security, in so many words, to protect it from itself, or to ensure the continued existence of an elected, pro-US government. That tells you that the US military presence in Iraq will never be as relatively bloodless as the US military presence in Korea since it has no external threat it's counterbalancing against. In a sense that the US deployment in Korea has never quite been, it is a sustained foreign military occupation. -- Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
more from josh -- The president says so many stupid things about Iraq that it's sort of hard to know which ones to focus on. But in purely political terms if no others I would think the president's critics would want to focus in on what the White House said about how long the president thinks US troops should stay in Iraq. By saying that Korea is the model for the US military presence in Iraq, the president is saying that he envisions the US military presence in Iraq continuing for many decades into the future. Or let's put that in more stark terms, for most of you reading this post, the president envisions US troops remaining in Iraq long after you're dead. Talking about drawdowns in late 2007 or by the end of 2008 is basically a joke, in other words. Countries can really only think on forty or fifty year horizons. So what this means is that the US military presence in Iraq is permanent. As TPM Reader DS made clear in the email we posted earlier, there's only one goal that makes sense of that strategy. And that is to permanently dominate the cluster of oil fields in southern Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Nothing to do with democracy, as though that needed saying. But also nothing to do with terrorism. We're permanently occupying Iraq to lock down the world oil supply. But all that is commentary. The headline is clear enough to get the message out: the president wants US troops in Iraq for decades to come. -- Josh Marshall
I don't think anyone did not expect a permanent presence with debatable size in Iraq similar to when our troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. But Bush's cynical sell to this supposedly new plan gives me the impression that he thinks we're a nation of morons.
Of course the US presence in Iraq is permanent. Why else would the US military be building 14 permanent bases there. We are there for their oil, and we won't leave until the big oil companies have squeezed every last drop out of that country. Welcome to the American Empire.
One of these days we'll find out about Cheney's little energy policy powwow. Who was involved and why in 2001 (before 911) they were looking at maps of the middle east to plan US energy policy.
well i resist the urge to argue about this war being for oil. but as for a base in iraq...of course, why wouldnt you? It's a strategic location. Shouldnt be a surprise to anyone at all
They got the memo, that is why they are working overtime to build an atomic bomb. Do you blame them? How else are they going to hold onto their oil?
Of course we are, we don't pay attention- Who said it? "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." November 17, 2002 “I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." October 10, 2002 link
cute. not really effective, but cute. What was the strategic location of bases in germany for? s. korea? unlike our other friends, i dont think its just for oil and money.
Please elaborate then, instead of your usual arrogant posturing devoid of any relevant data or philosophical substance.
im not posturing. think about it for yourself. there could be a ton of reasons why to have a base in iraq. Its not that hard to think of some possible situations. but i throw out some ideas to get the ball rolling. 1) much like germany and s. korea bases, a base in iraq will be next to a potential threat, i.e. iran. 2) it puts less restriction on the US having any type of situation where a country, turkey for example, could deny air access. 3) another buffer between iran and syria
is it idea to get the oil or keep it off the market? so far, keeping it off the market has done well for bush and cheney's masters. of course we are never leaving - in addition to the 14 permanent bases we are building the largest embassy in the world. i believe it is something like 100 acres! why in the hell do we need the largest embassy in the world in iraq? al-ciaeda, i mean al-queda attacked us partly b/c of the presence of amercian bases in saudi arabia, so bush gives them what they want by leaving saudi and setting up in iraq instead.
Occam's razor would suggest otherwise. We aren't talking about one base (or an embassy larger than the Vatican) we're talking about 14 permanent bases. Now why would we need that many?
german bases where in accordance with the guidleines outlined after WW2 korean ones....explained above. what do these two places have in common? they were places where they needed some sort of american presence to help deter a possible invasion by a foreign power(once again, handled in OP) Why am I bothering with this? rhad has you pegged....like NYer in the past, you post just to get reactions...I dont think you have really posted what you *really* feel about anything. thats the impression I get.
