Bush envisions Korea-like long-term presence in Iraq.
By on May 30th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Bush envisions Korea-like long-term presence in Iraq.
“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.” Josh Marshall picks apart the differences between South Korea and Iraq.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
47 Responses to “Bush envisions Korea-like long-term presence in Iraq.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Josh Marshall picks apart the differences between South Korea and Iraq.”
Well, without reading Josh Marshall’s article, the first difference that comes to mind is that THERE ARE NO SUICIDE BOMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA.
The second, related difference is that OUR TROOPS ARE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A SECTARIAN CIVIL WAR IN SOUTH KOREA.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pmLOL Bush baby just admit that it will take 30 years to steal all the OIL in Iraq.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pmBush just cannot fathom that some people don’t want us hanging out in their country, land, or region. Jingoistic jerk.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:39 pmI would like Uncle George to have a long term presence. Parking in rear Uncle George!!
May 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pmif we wait for the politicians to end this war, it’s not going to happen. It seems to me that the Iraqis will continue to resist a foreign occupation.
I’m hopeful that Americans would resist an occupation by, say, the Chinese military too!
The time to end this war is now. Not when the Iraqi politicians say it’s time, not when the Republicans say it’s time and not when the Democrats say it’s time.
now.
Some further reading:
“Top-10 Reasons to Get out of Iraq Now”
May 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ top_ten_reasons_to_get_out_of_iraq_now
The region that we would occupy would be…let me guess…would be….wow, this is hard…….THE OIL FIELDS?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pmif you believe norman podhoretz in today’s wsj, bush wants iraq as a base from which to attack iran…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
May 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pmIt’s spelled “presence,” guys.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pmDemocrats want to surrender.
Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.
Terrorists threaten David Gregory’s children.
Oh yeah, and Clinton did it too.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pmKRank
Third difference:
SOUTH KOREA WANTS THE US THERE SO AS TO AVOID A INVASION FROM NORTH KOREA.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pmWill there be a five-o’clock Charlie?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pmHey, TP.
Linky no worky in the lede.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pmAnd again I called it years ago, we are not leaving Iraq, ever….it was about the oil, not to get more of it but to make sure Sadam did not make a deal with china and russia for it.
Our oil companys want to control the amount of oil coming out of there to insure that they can control the amount of gas on the market, keep it low and prices go up, there by creating higher profits.
We are getting screwed.
Hey Patti1″ & M12 you guys are just as stupid today as any other day, and yeah, everyone you know still hates you.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pmWell, I don’t see that comment going over well with the Iraqi parliament. They’ve been pushing for a timetable as well and this will only make them more insistent. And the UN mandate expires at the end of December. What will Bush do if the Iraqis don’t request an extension?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pmGee, i’m shocked once again. It’s not like anyone predicted in 2002 that the republicans planned on setting up a permanent presence in Iraq so they can loot the oil. totally unpredictable.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pmNOT!
It’s now five years later and maybe our country will believe that these trolls have no honor. It’s fascism and greed and ego wrapped in the flag, carrying a bible.
We’re doomed.
George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq […] but not in a frontline combat role.
Flipflop, much?
Chimpy 2.003: “Bring ‘em on”.
Chimpy 2.005: “We want to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”.
Chimpy 2.007: “We don’t want to fight”.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThis is exactly what we said the plan has been all along and the trolls have denied it up and down.
I wonder what it is like to be a troll and to realize that those you troll against have been right all along.
Slap!!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pmbush and his visions are a danger to us all.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:19 pmHilarious. Personally, I envision America’s military presence in Iraq as closer to the forces of Rohan fighting the orcs, or maybe the wooden soldiers in the Nutcracker Suite or the Alliance fighting the Empire in the first three Star Wars episodes. Definitely not like those flying monkeys.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:19 pmBush can see this any way he wants, but if we try to stay there for 30 years, it’s only going to resemble Custer’s five companies of cavalry at the Little Bighorn.
Funny, I thought we had troops in South Korea because they’re our friends and they don’t have normalized relations with the now armed-with-nukes neighbors to the North.
Follow this logic? If you want to see Iran with nukes, just leave the US military right next door so that they’ll all be a bit nervous and worried and more motivated than ever to get those nukes they need to ensure that we don’t have the guts to invade them. That’s what troops in Korea got us, that’s what troops in Iraq will get us.
If you actually don’t like Iran, then maybe we should pull out of Iraq and leave the failed state and safe haven for terrorists (that was at war with Iran for most of the 1980’s) right on their doorstep such that they have to start playing a better defensive game to prevent anarchists and terrorists and vagrants while we have a chance to focus our $450B military on keeping them from getting nukes. Seriously.
If the US is afraid of a failed state half a world away, why is it so difficult to think about how Iran would feel about having a failed state dropped on its doorstep? C’mon NeoCons, stop your war profiteering long enough to think about long term New World Order.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pmHeck, we’re still in Germany 62 years after WWII.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHaving our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our Navy in the Persian Gulf, puts us in a perfect position to blockade Iran and if necessary attack their nuclear facilities.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pmRingo: “Heck, we’re still in Germany 62 years after WWII.”
In the entire 62 years of military presence in Germany, the number of American soldiers killed by insurgents is zero. Nice comparison, Ringo. Just what I’ve come to expect from Bush cultists.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pmDavid, Bruce Gorton,
Would you support leaving some troops in Kurdistan?
The Kurds both want us there, and are in danger of being overrun by the Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites, Iranians, Turks, and (IIRC) the Moonites.
I’m all for getting out of the middle of Iraq’s civil war, and letting the Iraqis wipe out the foreign jihadis on their own, as they did before we took over the country. Using U.S. troops to try to bring stability to Arab Iraq is like putting out fire with gasoline.
But that’s not the way it is in Kurdistan. They have their own democracy - which was growing and getting better before Bush’s War, and would again - as opposed to a fake one we tried to install; they are our allies; and they both want and need our presence. In their particular case, though not in Iraq as a whole, the comparison to South Korea does make some sense.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pmSo if we interpret Bush as hinting it would take 30 years to steal the oil, doesn’t that refute the idea that Peak Oil is here now? Then there doesn’t seem to be an issue with the crude supply causing high pump prices. Why are the oil companies so greedy?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:54 pmRingo, when GW Bush ran for president in 2000, he claimed that he would run a “humble” foreign policy, one which would not involve risky ventures or “nation building.” I assume you voted for him and approved of that policy. Now, before you vomit out “9-11 changed all that” or some other jingoistic neocon drivel, keep in mind that no Iranians took part in the 9-11 attack and that according to recent polls, less than 5% of the Iranian public support Osama bin Laden. This is partly because Iranians are Shiites and bin Laden is a Sunni.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pmJoe, since you seem to be in favor of our soldiers dying for the purpose of occupying Kurdistan, I’m guessing you didn’t see the recent video of our wonderful Kurdish allies stoning and beating a young teenage girl to death.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:58 pmAh yeah! They want Iraq for themselves.Anything to get in now anything to stay.This is what our kids are being blownup for ?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pmBluedog49,
If Iran gets nuclear weapons they will use them to blackmail Europe and eventually to attack Israel.
If we do not destroy their nuclear facilities, then Israel will have no choice but to do so.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pmWill you idiots ever stop with the canard about stealing Iraq’s oil?
http://money.cnn.com/ 2007/ 04/ 05/ news/ international/ iraq_oil/ index.htm
May 30th, 2007 at 2:08 pmI wonder what it is like to be a troll and to realize that those you troll against have been right all along.
Slap!!!!
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Not one troll has the balls to admit it. Nor a memory long enuf to remember it, heh
May 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pmBluedog 49,
“Joe, since you seem to be in favor of our soldiers dying for the purpose of occupying Kurdistan,”
It’s not occupying if they invite you in, which they have.
There might be casualties if the military does this mission, but then again, there might not be. There have been zero casualties among our personnel in Kosovo and Bosnia. I can’t recall the last time an American was killed in Korea. There difference between occupying a hostile country whose population supports your enemies (ie, what we’re doing in Baghdad) and defending a country whose population supports your presence (ie, what we should be doing in Kurdistan, and what we’re doing in South Korea) shouldn’t be swept aside.
“…I’m guessing you didn’t see the recent video of our wonderful Kurdish allies stoning and beating a young teenage girl to death.” Sure I have. That sort of thing has become more common since Bush’s war. I also saw what happened to James Byrd. I also saw the video of what happened at Florence and Normandy. You shouldn’t condemn entire races or ethnicities because you saw some people doing something bad on teevee.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pmThe inconvenient truth is that no matter how you spin it, Korea is another example of the US not finishing the job. From 1950 -1953 the US suffered 54,000 KIA, that’s 18,000 a year, 1500 a month. I don’t care if “they want us here†or not, every President since Truman who started it all, until today has continued this occupation of a sovereign nation. Maybe it’s time to tell all of the 130 some nations, where we have a military presence, to stand up and take care of themselves!
May 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pmWill you idiots stop with the canard about the republican party doing anything in the best interest of America?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pmJoe: “It’s not occupying if they invite you in, which they have.”
Hmmm. Where have I heard that argument before. Oh, I know. LBJ and McNamara said the same thing about the Republic of Vietnam.
You’re comparing Kurdistan with Korea and Kosovo-Bosnia. In Korea, the American military has been there to deter the threat from North Korea, so of course the vast majority of Koreans agree. In Kosovo, we halted the genocide of Bosnian muslims, so they too are happy with our presence. Kurdistan is another story. First, one of our most important allies in the area, Turkey, doesn’t want us occupying Kurdistan. Second, there have been many terrorist attacks in Kurdistan. Many Americans have already been killed in Kurdistan and many more will be if we try to occupy the area.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm#30 - Ringo,
Read the headline of the link:
And Iraq’s big oil contracts go to …
Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts. But don’t write off Big Oil just yet.
If you read the whole article, you will find that only crumbs are being passed out at present.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWhat an idiotic statement by Bluedog (#23). So your logic states that as soon as people start dying, we need to cut and run? Thank God the faulty logic of these conspiracists are confined to this third rate web site and have zero influence over US policy. The most liberal Freshman Senators that were elected on the supposed “mandate” for change just gave these anti-US….er…..war whiners the bird. They aren’t as stupid to suggest a cut-and-run policy. Have you noticed no one here gives any suggestions on how to move from here? I’d like to see TP’s top 5 suggestions to fix the Iraq problem. Let’s put them up for public scrutiny and watch how there skewered with ridicule. Pelosi keeps these conspiracists at arms length.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#1 Get all you chicken hawks to sign up for the military. If you people are still too chicken to fight your own war, reinstate the draft.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pmbeefeater,
OK. If you don’t think we should have troops defending South Korea or Kosovo, then it doesn’t make sense to have them in Kurdistan or Darfur, either. I respectfully disagree.
Bluedog,
Anyway, there was never majority support for an American presence in South Vietnam among the people there. Like Arab Iraq, the crony government wanted us there to keep them in power, but the public opposed our presence. As polls demonstrate, however - the ones that also show 90%+ of Iraqi Arabs wanting us to leave - the Kurdish public supports our presence by a large margin. That’s why the overall figures for the country hover around 80%.
“In Korea, the American military has been there to deter the threat from North Korea, so of course the vast majority of Koreans agree. In Kosovo, we halted the genocide of Bosnian muslims, so they too are happy with our presence.” And in Kurdistan, we halted Saddam’s attempt to put down their rebellion after Gulf War 1, the same way he put down the rebellion in the south. Like Kosovo, the public is happy with our presence.
“First, one of our most important allies in the area, Turkey, doesn’t want us occupying Kurdistan. ” Screw them. They’ve been massacring Kurds for centuries.
“Second, there have been many terrorist attacks in Kurdistan.” Yes there have, since this war started and we allowed al Qaeda to flood into Iraq. Thanks, Bushie, you’re doing a heckuva job! I expect this to abate once we are no longer occupying the Sunni Arab areas, and the locals no longer have a reason to ally with the foreign jihadists.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:56 pmbeefeater,
“OK. If you don’t think we should have troops defending South Korea or Kosovo, then it doesn’t make sense to have them in Kurdistan or Darfur, either.â€
You’re right makes no sense. Bring all the troops home and let the rest of the world have at it. As I have posted here before, if the US engages in a military action finish the job and get out. Ever since FDR approved of and Truman dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan, every President has pissed down his leg when it comes to committing troops. Go in get the job done and get out!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:10 pm“Joe, since you seem to be in favor of our soldiers dying for the purpose of occupying Kurdistan,â€
You know, Bluedog, I could have started my response with, “Since you seem to be in favor of allowing the Kurds to be massacred…,” but I didn’t, because that’s a really lousy way to argue. It’s how the neocons operate, and our side should be above that. At least with each other.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pmbeefeater,
I hear what you’re saying, and there’s a lot of truth to it.
Still, I guess I’m more of an Eleanor Roosevelt type.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pmJoe, you make a good point. Sorry for the statement I made to you. I will say, however, that there is no chance of Kurds being massacred by Shias or Sunnis because those people are too busy killing eachother in a civil war. In my opinion, Kurds have more to fear from Turkey, our ally.
Eric, you wrote “What an idiotic statement by Bluedog (#23). So your logic states that as soon as people start dying, we need to cut and run?”
Evidently, I need to spell this out for you: the various comparisons conservatives make to WWII are almost always completely without merit. You can’t compare the occupation of Germany, with a population that wanted U.S. presence to counter the ambitions of Stalin, to the occupation of Iraq, with a population that wants us out of there and demonstrates it every day with new killings of American soldiers. What is the point? The point of the German occupation, whether or not you agreed, was to keep Stalin from annexing all of Germany. There was no civil war and no insurgency. American soldiers knew exactly why they were there. They knew who the enemy was. They could tell by the uniforms. As usual, Bush has distorted history for current political advantage. Too bad for him that nobody but his cult-members believe anything he says anymore.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pmbeefeater, you are oversimplifying the situation in Korea. Just exactly how are we supposed to “just get the job done” when the North Koreans have a million-man army ready to move and missles aimed at all of our allies in the area?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAmericans don’t know history so it is really not common knowledge outside the military community that we maintain a large military presence in Korea. Could Bush and Tony Snow get us thinking about how ridiculous it is that North Korea is still this crazy and dangerous all these years later? A nice expensive highlight to a very expensive US foreign policy failure.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pmWe’ve been in Korea since 1950, we being the United States.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:13 pmWe’ve occupied bases in most countries since forever.
Why???????????????
This story line was written long ago.They are only reading as they turn the pages.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:00 pmYa know when this septic mentality first started dropping bombs and sending our good people into IQ the gigantic amount of building materials being readied for shipment was already impacting the construction trade.In fact by late 03 there was a shortage of plywood because it ALL was being shipped to big IQ for military base construction,(7 bases is it?).
Why is anything about long term occupation getting any attention?Did anyone think there ever was a different plan??
Man,don’t get distracted.
Don’t just follow the money.Look at who has it in hand and what makes it.
Gold = $$ Weapons = $$ Oil/Energy = $$
They are not stopping until they have it all.
Why fool ourselves??
Ask the real questions.
Doesn’t really matter anymore.Truth is a stranger to them now.
Actually truth is their boogyman.Totally affraid of that guy.