Given the now understood reason for to war was to start the neo-con takeover of the Middle East using Iraq as the base of operations, this pronouncement should be no surprise.
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea
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.
At the same time there’s this:
Lieberman talks to troops in Baghdad
Spc. David Williams, 22, of Boston, Mass., had two note cards in his pocket Wednesday afternoon as he waited for Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Williams serves in the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., the first of the five “surge” brigades to arrive in Iraq, and he was chosen to join the Independent from Connecticut for lunch at a U.S. field base in Baghdad.
[…] At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:
“When are we going to get out of here?”
And this (actually, this is a good idea, but it’s also happening because of a shortage of troops):
Amputee Soldiers Return to Active Duty
In the blur of smoke and blood after a bomb blew up under his Humvee in Iraq, Sgt. Tawan Williamson looked down at his shredded leg and knew it couldn’t be saved. His military career, though, pulled through. Less than a year after the attack, Williamson is running again with a high-tech prosthetic leg and plans to take up a new assignment, probably by the fall, as an Army job counselor and affirmative action officer in Okinawa, Japan.
In an about-face by the Pentagon, the military is putting many more amputees back on active duty _ even back into combat, in some cases.
I’m certain there was plenty of lapdog TV coverage of Lieberman’s visit to Iraq (speaking of lapdogs). Did anyone see coverage of him trying to deal with David Williams question?
clearly these troops don’t support our troops and want nothing more than for evildoers to attack the homefront
Due to lack of bandwidth, I haven’t seen any videos of our troops in Iraq shacked up with hot Korean chicks.
“In an about-face by the Pentagon, the military is putting many more amputees back on active duty _ even back into combat, in some cases.”
About-face? There have been many soldiers who lost limbs over the history of our Armed Forces who remained on active duty. This is nothing new. Get your facts straight.
The comparison to Korea is flawed on many levels, but in terms of the “long haul” the analogy it fits. I would be extremely surprised if there would be less than 15,000 troops in Iraq around 2013. A complete withdraw would be in the range of 30-40 years, and that figure is based upon the assumption that we get some bases in Kurdistan. The emphasis shouldn’t be placed on just how many troops are present, instead on the type of missions they are carrying out. A litmus test for this type of mission will be the upcoming battle in Diyala, more specifically how the combat burden is shared between the U.S. and the ISF.
“…war was to start the neo-con takeover of the Middle East using Iraq as the base of operations” – Ummm ok? A base of operations to do what? Setup covert ops to attack Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen, Oman, or Syria? The best way to win those countries over is ensuring that “Globalization III” spreads to their neighborhoods, something the neo-conservative ideology supports.
Oh and another Awaking Movement was formed today this one “Awakening in Babil” bringing the total to four (@ http://tinyurl.com/24lvfp) I’m surprised that this news didn’t make the ticker to the right for the International Herald, albeit it is far easier to report on bombings than internal Iraqi politics. I just can’t believe AQI is letting this happen, they must be slipping.
The difference between Iraq with Korea is the politics of religion.
For very many Muslims it is completely unacceptable to have “infidel” troops on “Muslim” soil.
Remember, “infidel” troops in Saudi Arabia was the main motivation behind 911. (And, to my surprise, Bush caved-in on that one. )
I seriously doubt that attacks will every stop until America leaves. That’s a huge difference than our presence in South Korea.
The troops in Korea are there to help discourage another attack from North Korea. Will the troops we leave in Iraq be there to discourage an attack from North Iraq?
#5 & 6, what are you babbling about? If you have a point then make it, but please stop with just dropping a link and suggesting it must be read. Cites are to enforce an argument, not make it.
You know, I’ve talked something similar to the #2 article, and I’ve been flamed and called a troll over it. Problem is, it’s my own son who’s telling me this, so I know the real veracity of it. And from what he tells me, it’s not just him! Meanwhile, the idiots keep trying to claim that 100% of the troops are in it (no matter the cost?). It’s nice to see that I’m not the only one that’s hearing it.
8. They’ll be there to discourage an attack from North Sunnis.
RBG
#8 – The point in #6 was to highlight the formation of another Awaking Movement, if you’re interested there’s a link giving more info.
#12. Actually, the latest political development in Iraq that is in the news is the US Military aggressively seeking cease-fires from insurgent groups:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4851952.html
If setting a deadline for withdrawal ’emboldens the terrorists,’ what does negotiating with them do?
And I can see the US maintaining a troop presence in Iraqi Kurdistan for some time, since the Kurds are the only ones who actually don’t hate us. They are also, at the moment, one of the few rational actors in Iraq – if they were behaving like the Shiite or Sunni Arabs, they would have seceded already.
#11, you didn’t answer the question. What the “eff” does your post have to do with Bush thinking troops will be in Iraq for years, Lieberman being asked when can the troops come home, or amputees being kept on in the Army?
You link to some right wing “Iraqi watch dog” site as if that is an unbiased, objective site. Please, is there any relevancy to what your linked to?