Defense Secretary, Top General Endorse 50-Year U.S. Presence In Iraq
Defense Secretary, Top General Endorse 50-Year U.S. Presence In Iraq
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno both declared yesterday that they support the “Korea model” vision of maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq for decades.
Gates told reporters in Hawaii that he is thinking of “a mutual agreement” with Iraq in which “some force of Americans…is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government.” Gates said such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, “lock, stock and barrel.”
Later, Odierno, who oversees daily military operations in Iraq, said that having “a South Korean-style force there for years to come” is a “great idea.” “I think it would be very helpful to have a force here for a period of time.” Watch it:
Modeling our Iraq strategy off the U.S. experience in Korea relies on a grossly inaccurate historical comparison, and runs directly opposite Americans’ view that the U.S. should disengage from Iraq. As Fred Kaplan writes today:
To sum up, we intervened in South Korea as a response to an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to contain Communist aggression. We intervened in Iraq as the instigator of an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to expand unilateral American power. We remained in South Korea to protect a solid (if, for many years, authoritarian) government from another border incursion. We are remaining in Iraq to bolster a flimsy government and stave off a violent social implosion.
In other words, in no meaningful way are these two wars, or these two countries, remotely similar. In no way does one experience, or set of lessons, shed light on the other. In Iraq, no border divides friend from foe; no clear concept defines who is friend and foe. To say that Iraq might follow “a Korean model”–if the word model means anything–is absurd.
In Newsweek, Jonathan Alter adds:
The only two reasons to station troops in the Middle East for half a century 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.
Transcript:
Q: Do you agree that we will likely have a South Korean-style force there for years to come?
GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I think that’s a strategic decision, and I think that’s between us and — the government of the United States and the government of Iraq. I think it’s a great idea. I think it would be very helpful to have a force here for a period of time to continue to help the Iraqis train and continue to build their capabilities, but that would be based on them asking us to stay.
If that occurs, we would definitely take a look at what we believe the size of the force would be and what they might ask us to do. If they want us to continue, stay here and fight al Qaeda for a period of time, we certainly will do that and develop our force accordingly. I think that would be nothing but helping the Iraqi security forces and the government, to continue to stabilize itself and continue to set itself up for success for years to come, if we were able to do that.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
86 Responses to “Defense Secretary, Top General Endorse 50-Year U.S. Presence In Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush has lead us to a stalemate.
"Mission accomplished."
June 1st, 2007 at 11:47 amBush never said it would be easy.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:47 amI have no problem with 50 years in Iraq. That country is certainly more important to us now than Korea ever was.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:48 amand the war goes on. It should be absolutely clear that they don't want it to end. ever.
But, aggressive war was once prosecuted as a war crime at Nuremburg. This aggressive war also holds some serious moral and legal implications for all those involved.
The time for this madness to end is now. not in 50 years, not next year, now.
Some further reading:
"Revealed: Why Your Sons and Daughters Died in Iraq"
June 1st, 2007 at 11:49 amhttp://www.populistamerica.com/revealed_why_your_sons_and_daughters_died_in_iraq
Quick there are trolls inhere - nasty ones roo - - you SF guys start talking Klingon or something!
June 1st, 2007 at 11:51 amfine, you want to stay in Iraq for 50 years, then it is time to pull out of other places so we can support this and not destroy our military. Take our troops from Germany and Korea for starters ... and if I'm correct we still have personnel in Japan.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:51 amsooooo 50 years is the estimate for the time needed to pump Iraqi oil dry, or is that for the whole middle-east?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:51 am"Gates said such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, “lock, stock and barrel.â€"
I'm sure every radical in the islamic world would see it just this way. IT's a good thing right.
Ron Paul was right. It's in the 9-11 commission's findings as well. The radical element in the middle east are furious with our presence. I'm sure Jake doesn't care though that staying there in this manner just makes the danger to Americans greater.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:51 amOh so they need 50 years to steal all of Iraq's OIL instead of just 30 years.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:51 am#
Bush never said it would be easy.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — June 1, 2007 @ 11:47 am
But so many of his underlings did, Cheney, Rumsfield, Kristol, etc. Please go peddle you snake oil elsewhere.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:52 amJake > will you go live in Iraq for the next 50 years or untill you get blown up?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:53 amJake,
"I have no problem with 50 years in Iraq. That country is certainly more important to us now than Korea ever was."
Then sign up to go my man!!! You don't even have to do military work. Your country needs you. If you really support this cause, then pick one of these jobs and go for it!!!
http://careers.state.gov/opportunities/iraq/details.html
June 1st, 2007 at 11:54 amJesus F*cking Christ.
Now we know what the September report will say.....
June 1st, 2007 at 11:54 amThe majority of Iraqis have let it be known that they want our military out of Iraq, and these people are thinking of staying another half century as unwelcome guests? They must be getting their advice from Patrick1.
Let's not forget things have not always been smooth in South Korea. The people there got tired on a couple of occasions with our puppet dictators and took to the streets. Probably the reason they didn't rise up against the US military was because they offered protection from North Korea. A similar circumstance doesn't apply in Iraq.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:56 amJake sez:
I have no problem with you spending 50 years in Iraq either, Shakey.
Finally, we agree on something! ^_^
June 1st, 2007 at 11:57 amI guess Iraq should be considered the world's largest prison and no longer a country.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:58 amAh, his true agenda is FINALLY exposed.
so much for the war "paying for itself" and being a "short term" commitment
not to mention the entire invasion was based on fabricated LIES
it must be a horrible feeling for the trolls to try to cling to supporting this criminal
June 1st, 2007 at 11:59 amI don't think I will be able to handle another person in the pentagon calling another one an idiot. it has become abundantly clear that these people are all idiots in their own special way.
please add to my likely categories making up a political military job;
1. yes man, toady
2. seeking private sector employment, doing things for the new company while working for the people
3. traitor, selling secrets and giving comfort to the enemy
4. career person that doesn't make waves, doesn't blow whistle. waiting for retirement.
5. gung ho neocon, enjoys war, profit, killing in general
6. serving the country, speaking out when laws are being broken, congressional whistleblower (percentage please?)
let's see a pie chart of the makeup of our various institutions. the results should be enough to disband the military and start fresh with congress in charge, only congress in charge. presidents clearly do not have the ability to make these judgments on their own. there has been no good from any decision like this in our history. they never have been able to before, and why did we suddenly let them start wars for no reason, with no attack on our soil. why do we allow them to make alliances with the same people they say are attacking us?
they are either all cretins with a PR wing of enormous magnitude, or their reasons are not what they are claiming. have noticed more and more people agreeing now it was about oil. duh.... oil, what a concept?
what morons in this shit for brains country didn't see this was a permanent war about oil from day one? these same people were responsible for this policy since reagan threatened to destroy Iran for holding citizens hostage. don't forget we stole and raped Iran for decades by keeping the shaw reza in power to do our military and police work for us so we could steal the oil.
it is though memory and history mean nothing to anyone. as a species we are retarded and regressing rapidly. but we will keep trying to teach that pig to sing, even though it annoys the pig greatly.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:59 amLOL you beat me too it TMM. I am more then happy with Bush and his crew to head over there, I will even go so far as to say we should splurge, and make sure each one has an M-16, and an extra ammo clip. Body Armor will cost them though.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pmOh so they need 50 years to steal all of Iraq’s OIL instead of just 30 years.
Comment by Jay Randal — June 1, 2007 @ 11:51 am
20 for neighbouring country ??
June 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pmZooey > in September the huge new American fortress Embassy opens, so Bush has to admit the damn thing was built to last for 50 years.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pmmust protect the oil
June 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pm50 years: The Bush Administration has officially declared that the resolution of the current Iraq crisis is now the responsibility of your grandchildren.
That's leadership!
(50 years ago Paul McCartney and John Lennon met for the first time... IBM releases FORTRAN... the USSR launches Sputnik)
June 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pmI'm gonna fly my giant American flag from my Hummer and sing the Star Spangled Banner all the way to the Country Club, yeeeehaaa! freeeeedom
June 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pmKrazny
they should ship Bush and everyone of his shitforbrains supporters over there and make sure they have lots of tanning oil for basking near the BULLSEYE pool
June 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pmOne important question: Since Bush is supposed to leave office in January 2009, then who has agreed to keep troops in Iraq for the next 50 years? Has Hillary Clinton agreed in advance to keep troops in Iraq for her 8 years term? Has Jeb Bush agreed to keep troops in Iraq for his 8 years after Hillary? Then I guess Chelsea Clinton for 8 years? That adds up to 24 years, so who after them for 26 more?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pmPresident Bush on "Freedom TV" broadcasting to Iraq in April 2003:
"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited."
"we will not stop until Saddam's corrupt gang is gone."
"Our only enemy is Saddam's brutal regime"
"We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world."
June 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pmFor the record, I already served in Korea. I doubt the Army is desperately taking 75 year olds (yet).
June 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pmjustice:
Who used the words "short term" commitment?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm-a little more insight into why Halliburton has changed it's address. much easier to suckle off the momma pig
June 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pmpete592:
We have "limited" forces in South Korea even today. And, our military WILL leave Iraq (technically, our bases and embassy are U.S. soil).
June 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pmJake:
Korean border: 151 miles.
Iraq border: 2,267 miles.
Good luck with that.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pmSeems to me that comments like these from our military leaders will inflame the radicals! Riled up radicals leads to more violence. More violence leads to more troop deaths.
Why do our military leaders hate the troops?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pmYeah right. What's the state of the planet and this country going to be like in 50 years. Heh.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pmInteresting, Joke. You claim to be a septagenarian and you are happy with 50 more years in Iraq? Have you consulted your grandchildren about the Empire you are happy to bequeath to them. Fathead.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm"pete592:
We have “limited†forces in South Korea even today. And, our military WILL leave Iraq (technically, our bases and embassy are U.S. soil).
Comment by Jake — June 1, 2007 @ 12:11 pm"
Empire Joke, Empire. Your hubris will be drowned in its own arrogance, just like the Spanish, French, British and Roman empires before them. You have no f***ing clue do you?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pmWell if we count this year and next year towards the 50 years, then that leaves 48 more, so that requires 6 future presidents having two 4 year terms each to cover the required 50 years in Iraq. That means at least 6 future presidents have to agree to crap on American citizenry. Or does Bush imply that he will remain as a dictator after January 2009? He is like 60 now, so not possible for him to live 50 more years.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pmJake: "technically, our bases and embassy are U.S. soil"
TECHNICALITIES??? Do Islamic terrorist care about such technicalities??? We have 14 "enduring" bases and a $600 million embassy being laid down WITHIN IRAQ'S BORDERS. That, TECHNICALLY, constitutes a significant US PRESENCE IN A MIDDLE EAST NATION!!!! What better reason and motivation will terrorists have to attack the US than this???
June 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pmSo, if it is like Korea, then would there be TWO 38th paralell lines to defend? One in the North for the Kurd/Sunni division, and then one in the south for the Sunni/Shia division and then what about protecting the Shia from their bretheren in Iran, would there need to be a third line between Shia and Iran? The whold it islike Korea so....Isn't.
As in the words of Borat...NOT!
I say the only line is the one that will hang in the Whitehouse portico for hanging.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pmNEXT!
Nylon or Hemp?
Jake, are you willing to sacrifice your children and grandchildren to safeguard Iraq for the next 50 years?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pmThere is no border to defend in Iraq. Unless you add up the borders around every U.S. base, encampment, outpost, and patrol.
This South Korea notion is simply unhinged.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pmJake sez:
Liar.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pmCall me crazy, I think i'd rather Iraqi's handle their own security. I don't want our kids getting shot at so that we can have easy access to the oil fields.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pmLet's not forget what al Maliki said about June 2007. He said his troops would be ready to take over security this month.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15946832/
So I see no reason why we need to stay for 50 more days let alone 50 years.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pmWhenever the OIL runs dry in Iraq, then the US will leave skidmarks in leaving that place. If it runs out earlier than expected, then US will leave or if it takes 100 years to extract it all, then US will remain for that length of time.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pmthou shalt not covet thy neighbors oil
June 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmIf we were leaving personnel there who could help the country rebuild into something liveable and undo some of the massive destructrion we've occasioned, I might be able to make somewhat of a case for a presence. However, a half century of occupation isn't an action I could support.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pmNot that my opinion, or that of any of my fellow citizens, means a damned thing...
US will be busy in iraq for 50 years. Iran will go nuclear for sure, It will not be a surprise if Egypt, Sudan, Bangladesh and other potential Islamic countries decide to develop nuclear technology.
What can USA do ? bargain by letting some war ships sail in Persian Gulf.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pmI guess from now on it will be just Bluffs and every one will call it one by one and go nuclear.
the fact that Bush even attempts to compare South Korea with Iraq shows what an utter idiot he is, the two have NOTHING in common.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pmTechnically, Jake will be buried under 6 feet of US soil soon enough.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pmjake, why do you always expect others to do your homework for you? You lemming.
Wolfie said "short term commitment"
June 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm50 year military occupation, ensuring a steady flow of resentful freedom fighters - i mean terrorists for us to kill and to perpetuate the military industrial complex vision of an endless war that's paid for by our taxes iraqi blood.
a very sick and murderous plan and if you endorse it you are probably sociopathic...
June 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmMore bullshit from the Bush Crime Family. These bastards can all move to Iraq and let us have our country back. Screw all you ignorant trolls who still support this worst administration ever. Iraq was a mistake, is a mistake and will always be the tipping point that the USA hit on it's way down.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pm"we are not in the business of nation building. we are in the business of building elite wealth "
June 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pmGoing against the American people...yes that is the best way to endear yourselves to them.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmTechnically, Jake will be buried under 6 feet of US soil soon enough.
Comment by ForTruth
Ohhhh, bicycle rack anyone....? :D
June 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pmWhy is it that when generals disagree with Bush the left says we should listen to them and when they agree with him they should be discounted?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmyep, give them what they want- perpetual war- and plenty of good, patriotic 'Merkins to kill-
In Robert Jordan's day, if you wanted to kill fascists you went to Spain, and today, if a jihadi wants to kill 'Merkins while honing his combat skills, they go to Iraq, the chimpy 'n' cheney 'turriss's training grounds (tm).
June 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pmthanks chimpy 'n' cheney, for making us so (un) safe.
#56 Why is is that Bush FIRED the generals who told him the TRUTH??
And replaced them with yes-men?
Oh, yes, the SAME reason Bush LIED about WMD.
And about a "short-term surge".
And exposed a COVERT spy and her company, which is TREASON.
Oh, right...
Because MURDERER Bush is a TRAITOR coxucker PUNK.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pmWhy is it that when generals disagree with Bush the left says we should listen to them and when they agree with him they should be discounted?
Comment by timmy — June 1, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Well, Patrick, since I know for a fact that you are deeply stupid, I will explain it to you. This is highly asymmetric situation. Criticism of the CIC by generals, even retired generals, is extremely rare. If it was just one person, it could be dismissed as quackery. But when numerous high ranking generals, including former field commanders in Iraq, start doing it, it sounds authentic. Those generals who support the CIC are in many cases simply following the chain of command, which they are trained to do. Also, it is obvious that all dissenters in high positions have been systematically replaced with yes man and sychophants, and in some cases nuts.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pm#56 Why is is that Bush FIRED the generals who told him the TRUTH??
And replaced them with yes-men?
Oh, yes, the SAME reason Bush LIED about WMD.
And about a “short-term surgeâ€.
And exposed a COVERT spy and her company, which is TREASON.
Oh, right…
Because MURDERER Bush is a TRAITOR coxucker PUNK.
Comment by Mr. Bush Goes To Hell
Are you saying that LT General does not deserve to be a general? Are you saying that he rose to such a high rank in the military because he is a yes man for Bush?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pmAre you saying that LT General does not deserve to be a general? Are you saying that he rose to such a high rank in the military because he is a yes man for Bush?
Comment by timmy — June 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Are you saying this sort of situation isn't possible? Because if you are, you don't know how the world works, especially at high levels in any profession. Of course you don't learn much about that at the car wash, do you?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm“I think it would be very helpful to have a force here for a period of time.â€
I totally agree with the Gentleman, except that the period of time should be until 20 September 2007.
A few posts back he claimed he couldn't complete an order by September, now he wants more troops and another FIFTY years?
George, Omar, Ike, Doug, and even "Stormin'" Norman would have done the job and gone to the Officer's Club by now.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pmTimmy, the Lut General is actually good at what he does. I've seen the guy in action. But at a certain point at moving up the ranks, the guy gets closer to Bush, and becomes a yes man to stay upwardly mobile. Get it.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pmAre you saying this sort of situation isn’t possible? Because if you are, you don’t know how the world works, especially at high levels in any profession. Of course you don’t learn much about that at the car wash, do you?
Comment by VerbalKint
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but to say he is without any proof is wrong.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmTimmy, the Lut General is actually good at what he does. I’ve seen the guy in action. But at a certain point at moving up the ranks, the guy gets closer to Bush, and becomes a yes man to stay upwardly mobile. Get it.
Comment by ForTruth
I don't get it. Libs say listen to the generals they know what they are doing, unless of course they disagree with them. Get it?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmOf course you don’t learn much about that at the car wash, do you?
Comment by VerbalKint
Very mature, you can't debate facts so you go to insults. No I don't work at a car wash.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmTry reading #59 if you can, timmy-stupid-as-patrick-is-patrick
June 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pmthese people are bat ship crazy. Who's going to join the military to spend every other year in sunny Iraq? I swear besides the control of oil, they are trying to ruin the all volunteer military and just hire mercenaries...friends of course.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmVery mature, you can’t debate facts so you go to insults.
Comment by timmy — June 1, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Timmy, let me tell you something about mature adults, because you don't know sh*t. Mature adults don't march in lockstep with an authoritarian leader. They don't engage in intellectual dishonesty to sell an ideology. They hold the moral high ground instead of yielding to their desires for revenge and violence. When they realize they have made a mistake, they admit it, rather than expend what little intellect they possess trying to rationalize or cover up their mistake. They don't lie about their core belief system or misrepresent who they are. They exhibit compassion but maintain strength.
Timmy, you do not possess a single one of these qualities. You are a bona fide loser.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmI hope every republican candidate focuses on this in every campaign speech. I can't wait till Romney, McCain, and Rudy G. start explaining to the American people that, if they are elected, we will stay in Iraq another 50 years.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmComment by VerbalKint — June 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
And that's what we in the trade call "pwnage". ^_^
Think he'll be back today, after that beating?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pmThink he’ll be back today, after that beating?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 1, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Sadly, yes. But maybe he won't by "timmy" for awhile.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pmTimmeh!!!!
I NEVER said a LT. General couldn't be a GENERAL.
I said Bush REPLACED the Generals who told him the TRUTH about Iraq.
With "yes-men".
He did the SAME to the CIA by appointing Porter Goss, who got RID of the non-Bushies.
And LIED about WMD's and short-term "surge".
And EXPOSED a COVERT CIA SPY who SPECIALIZED in WMD's.
I said NOTHING about the replacement generals, except that they are SYCOPHANTS.
The REST has to do with MURDERER Bush being a TRAITOR to the USA.
Obviously, YOU support such TRAITORS, which makes YOU one, also.
May you end up in hell with Bush and Cheney, cause that's where THEY are going....
June 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pmA monsterous, fortified embassy, and now an announcement that we will maintain a military presence on the order of several decades...let's face it, folks, we'er an occupying force propping up a puppet government.
Taxpayers will foot the billions of dollars per year bill for the occupation, oil companies and War Profiteers will continue to post record profits.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pmTimmy, let me tell you something about mature adults, because you don’t know sh*t. Mature adults don’t march in lockstep with an authoritarian leader. They don’t engage in intellectual dishonesty to sell an ideology. They hold the moral high ground instead of yielding to their desires for revenge and violence. When they realize they have made a mistake, they admit it, rather than expend what little intellect they possess trying to rationalize or cover up their mistake. They don’t lie about their core belief system or misrepresent who they are. They exhibit compassion but maintain strength.
Timmy, you do not possess a single one of these qualities. You are a bona fide loser.
Comment by VerbalKint
You are showing how mature you really are. You know nothing about me except for a few postings. To judge somebody in such a way is childish.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pmI'd like to christen (there's an apropos word) the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad -- Fort Apache!
June 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pmDon't forget, I said it first!
Korea? Nope, it's more like Vietnam every day. Even the 'body counts' are back: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070601/ts_csm/atoll;_ylt=AopMMcp5hxLT.woBx6vvOtCs0NUE
June 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pmHmmmm - don't seem to recall being told going into this fiasco that they were planning on setting up shop for 50 years. Why is that do you suppose?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm#78 - margaret,
June 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pmMemory lapse? Alzheimer's? Lies? Pick one!
The president should listen to the American people and set a deadline to withdraw all combat forces out of Iraq. A clear majority of 60 percent of Americans favor a deadline to get out of Iraq. Staying in Iraq for 50 years is a bad idea as it would strain our military even further than it already has. The administration regularly tries to compare the Iraqi civil war with other wars in our history to perhaps legitimize our presence there. There have been comparisons to WWII.
The Iraq war stands apart from other wars because we have placed our men and women in the middle of a civil war that we can't win much like the guerrilla war we placed our soldiers in, in the Vietnam War. Our presence continues to fuel the insurgency in Iraq which Vice President Cheney said was in its "last throes." He was wrong. The president must set a date to get our troops out in one year.
He must also push for enforceable benchmarks that the Iraqis must meet. We can no longer baby-sit the Iraqi military indefinitely in the middle of the Shiia-Sunni civil war. The president must also push for a strong and robust effort at diplomacy in Iraq. This war can no longer be won militarily. Even Gen. Petraeus has said that. We can only resolve this conflict via diplomatic and political means.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:41 pmhere's the difference: the south koreans WANTED us there, the iraqi's don't. here's a question for the few remaining bushzombies: when are you signing up for your stint?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:20 pm#20 Comment by Jay Randal — June 1, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Zooey > in September the huge new American fortress Embassy opens, so Bush has to admit the damn thing was built to last for 50 years.
Well noted Jay!
Little by little these neocon bastards reveal their plan in their own words. The PNAC neocons stated it might take a generation to set PLAN A in place. Now the actual timetable is revealed as one lasting 50 years.
This is not about oil, folks. This is about EMPIRE. Oil is the "means" to control the progress of the whole world. The neocon philosophy comes from Machiavelli. "The Ends Justifies the Means." The "ENDS" is Empire, the MEANS is the oil.
We need to talk about who is REALLY running the show here.
*Is it Cheney/Bush and the neocons?
*The oil companies banded together as an energy consortium? *A group of "extremely rich" people?
*A group of the "extremely powerful" behind the scenes people?
*Secretive groups like the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Bildebergers?
By now, there should be no doubt that this neocon/PNAC invasion is way bigger than IRAQ. This needs to be looked into.
What do you all think?
June 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pmMerlin > The BIG OIL companies are now one giant cartel conglomerate. The OIL CEOs seem to be the prime players behind the scenes manipulating the Bush Regime in Iraq. They would also like to control Iran's OIL reserves, so they are pushing Cheney to force Bush to bomb Iran soon.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:21 pmMichalen, thank you so much for such an appealing and well thought out post. You are to be commended for your thought fullness. May God bless you too.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:42 pmand I hope we have 50 yrs of Iraqi resistance to american scummy imperialism & the sending back of body bags containing imperialist thugs
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 am