Iraq long-term? Think Korea

Post #286,503 by Ashton 6/8/07 5:00:08 AM Reply	Iraq long-term? Think Korea [link\|http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/06/crocker-iraq-end-game/\| thinkprogress.org] Even extrapolating from the kaleidoscope of lamest rationales invented after WMDs fizzled, seems kinda hard to believe that: <This> is the planned stragedy from On High -??- calculated next to keep the masses mesmerized through 1/09? THIS is our next: A man a plan a canal Panama ??? Say it isn't so! U.S. Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker: \ufffdI Don\ufffdt See An End Game In Sight\ufffd In recent days, the White House has begun a public campaign to rally the American public around \ufffda lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq [link\|http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/30/bush-envisions-korea-like-long-term-precense-in-iraq/\| like the one in South Korea],\ufffd where U.S. troops have been stationed for 50 years. President Bush offered the Iraq-South Korea comparison [link\|http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq_9;_ylt=AmxWiR03vqOWaHW9n.cSF.oE1vAI\| late last month], and Press Secretary Tony Snow confirmed soon afterwards that the administration envisioned a long-term occupation of Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates [link\|http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/01/korea-model/\|endorsed] the Korea model last week, and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who oversees daily operations in Iraq, called it a \ufffdgreat idea.\ufffd Comparing the Iraq war to a \ufffdfive-reel movie,\ufffd U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker this morning announced his support for the concept of a long-term U.S. occupation. [link\|http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10749835\| He told NPR] that he doesn\ufffdt \ufffdsee an end game in sight\ufffd in Iraq: Sometimes I think that in the U.S. we\ufffdre looking at Iraq right now as though it were the last half of a three-reel movie. For Iraqis, it\ufffds a five-reel movie and they\ufffdre still in the first half of it. I don\ufffdt see an end game, as it were, in sight. [More ...and some audio] 'Course this potpourri comes from a bunch o'WDYHASM ComSymps hooked on 'social and economic justice'(!!) and 'healthy communities', not to mention "fighting against [a] 'Corrupt Establishment'" - so.. well, you know.
Post #286,509 by Simon_Jester 6/8/07 7:51:47 AM Reply	Well, the administration if finally admitting it that their plan involved an indefinite stay in Iraq. We're going to be there for a LONG time.
Post #286,511 by hnick 6/8/07 8:58:17 AM Reply	RE: We're going to be there for a LONG time. Maybe not. We may go the way of the old Soviet Union. Our economy is mostly smoke and mirrors at this point. Our infrastructure is not being properly maintained. Pretty soon we are going to have to start repairing equipment damaged in Iraq. We are currently running the war on credit. I find it more conceivable that this idiot war could destroy us than that we might see stability in the mid-east. It is possible that this is just morning low blood caffeine content gloominess, but I kinda doubt it.
Post #286,518 by mmoffitt 6/8/07 9:28:39 AM Reply	Re: Running the war on credit. It's not just the war, it's been the entire country since Ronnie Reagan inherited the world's leading creditor nation and turned it into the world's leading debtor nation. His fans (and they are legion) called that "Economic Revival." [link\|http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/\|http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/] bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #286,529 by JayMehaffey 6/8/07 10:42:36 AM Reply	Excellent point from AlterNet [link\|http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53469\|Alternet] But we noticed something fascinating when reading those articles: In story after story, U.S. reporters were quick to seek comment from White House officials and to "balance" those comments with quotes from congressional Democrats and from analysts at various D.C. think tanks who are critical of the administration. They talked to foreign policy and military experts, historians and even Korea experts. But here's the rub: None of the reporters we read bothered to pick up a phone and call Baghdad to get reactions from, well, actual Iraqis. Makes an excellent point, nobody asked the Iraqis if they think long term occupation is a good idea. And everything I have seen says they don't like the idea. And yet everybody casually accepts that what the Iraqis think doesn't matter. Jay
Post #286,536 by Another Scott 6/8/07 11:07:27 AM Reply	Is anyone really surprised by this? AFAIK, very few proposals to withdraw the troops intend that all the troops will come out - just the "combat" troops. I think that almost everyone realizes that we're going to be there for a long time, and that means we'll need bases. Whether the arragnement is more like the US presence in Korea, or more like the UK in [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar\|Gibraltar], or more like the US base in [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base\|Cuba], who can say.... Richard Perle imagined that we'd go in, topple Saddam, find the WMDs, install a new government, and have everyone out in [link\|http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm\|6 months]; Calabi said 2 years. Few others thought that was realistic - especially once the looting started and things clearly began to deteriorate. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!