We're Going to Be in Iraq for 50+ Years?

Say it ain't so ...

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support model."

"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.

So our bases will be more or less permanent?

Snow 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."

"I think the point he's (Bush) trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence," Snow said.

Oh, my aching head ...

I know we're going to be in Iraq, in some capacity or another, for a long time. But modeling it on Korea? Hrm, I'm curious what the Orgahs think of this new development in Presidential rhetoric.

I bet its a lot longer than that :help:

Did you expect otherwise ? Not me.

Yeah, gotta have a force to secure those oil and construction contracts. And thus the empire grows! Hail, Caesar.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...can_empire.PNG

Hm this map's a little off though I think we should throw in most of Western Europe and Japan too.

The model works in South Korea because the troops are there to deter a hostile nation-state from attacking. An attack hits the politic tripwire that pulls in full support in defence. Apples and oranges. It doesn't apply here because the threats are internal* not external.


* I am aware of the external actors in Iraq, but Iran, Syria, et al. are not likely to overtly attack "Iraq" across the border. Yet.

Quote:

---

Yeah, gotta have a force to secure those oil and construction contracts. And thus the empire grows! Hail, Caesar.

---

Someones been playing too much RTW

IT's basically how Britain and Rome before her aquired an Empire.

Bush isn't Augustus though, he's a plonker.

If we truely want to impose a functioning stable government in Iraq, then the answer is yes. Personly thou I see 90% of U.S. forces out of Iraq by 2010. The american public's geting tierd of the war and the causillities.

Its just like Vietnam except people arent in the streets yet because there's no draft.

Quote:

---

Its just like Vietnam except people arent in the streets yet because there's no draft.

---

No its not. Certainly there are comparisons to be made

50 years, wonderful. Want to keep an air base and a spec forces brigade fine, but to hell with the korean model. As an astute backroomer pointed out to me in another thread Korea is the last place that the cold war actually exsists.

Its largely due to our troops there, well the south koreans have been able to defend themselves for some time, certainly they have the economic prowess to fund the needed military expense.

This smells of legacy to me, Bush is probably trying to find a palatable way to project the future of our involvement there to save his library funding down the line.

A minimal troop deployment should be kept in Iraq, maybe larger then a normal embassy detail thats it, the rest should be brought home and redeployed first to thier homes, second to U.S. infrastructure and crucial economic assets.

This korean example reference is killing me....

Bad news from Texas:

But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Propaganda. No successor will want out of Iraq, all the money is there.

Ah, the Imperial President...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_presidency

wow, Lemur, that is a really good article by the way. Spot-on analysis.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...can_empire.PNG

Actually I think Venezuela should be next. Add some western African countries for the diamonds too, Easter Europe wont give us musch value.

We'll need bases from which we can attack/defended from China in our upcoming war. Control of Syria (which will be difficult) but will help because Syria is the key to Mesopotamia.

Lemur, you seem to have a knack for digging up hard to find stuff. Try this one out for size.

I recall several years back listening to the local college radio station on my way home from work. It was a talk show, and they had a guy on, think he was a poly. sci. prof., and they were talking about the invasion of Iraq and the pretenses that it was based on at the time. This prof. mentioned that there was a publically available paper published by a think tank that basically outlined a strategy for US subjugation of the Middle East, Iraq was the lynchpin. Further, he rattled off a large list of the major authors of this paper that were part of this think tank, and lo and behold the only two I remembered were Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Sorry, that's all I can offer, it's been ages and I was more or less not paying too much attention until he said those names. I am pretty sure my other rather highly ambiguous statements based on my memory are correct. Perhaps you or someone else on this board can dig this up, I've always been a bit curious to see that.

At any rate, based the above, I'm not the least bit surprised. Further, I am fully expecting Bush and his adminstration to do something just like you posted earlier, about setting it up so his successor 'won't be able to exit anytime soon'.

What a huge and costly mistake this has all been. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Yeah, gotta have a force to secure those oil and construction contracts. And thus the empire grows! Hail, Caesar.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...can_empire.PNG

Hm this map's a little off though I think we should throw in most of Western Europe and Japan too.

---

How has Scotland managed to conquer that much of the map already? Looks like they must be going up against Egypt and Hungary right now. /M2TW humor :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

This prof. mentioned that there was a publically available paper published by a think tank that basically outlined a strategy for US subjugation of the Middle East, Iraq was the lynchpin. Further, he rattled off a large list of the major authors of this paper that were part of this think tank, and lo and behold the only two I remembered were Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

---

Project for the New American Century. Basically these guys think it's best for the world (and the US) if the US achieves global domination. It's common knowledge as far as I know.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The article you heard discussed is probably this one:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Yep. PNAC is insane..the list of members includes just about every major neo-con war hawk too. These guys seriously believe it is the US' destiny to control the entire world in a military-economic empire. Its sort of like the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute, two other whacko groups (by the way, Fred Thompson is a member of both).


"The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire"
--Robert Kagan, co-founder, PNAC.

Manifest Destiny isn't exactly a new thing, is it ?

Although one is also reminded of that phrase, whatwasitnow, Tacitus put in Calgacus' mouth before Mons Graupius, "if Rome wishes to rle the world, does it follow all others will be slaves ?" Bet you the PNAC guys wouldn't get the point though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Yeah, gotta have a force to secure those oil and construction contracts. And thus the empire grows! Hail, Caesar.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...can_empire.PNG

Hm this map's a little off though I think we should throw in most of Western Europe and Japan too.

---

If this was a map of the "empire", a lot is missing here, the European Union, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa. All these nations are under the thumb, whether they like it or not. How about all the Arab states. Oh and Pakistan, of course.

I totally agree. That map just shows US military intervention in the past 50 years. If you wanted to show the empire western europe, japan, australia, etc would all be on there too. Client states, if you like.

More like allies of convenience really these days. They don't actually need the US to counterbalance the defunct USSR anymore, remember ?

yeah, but would anyone really oppose the US imperator if he was forceful on the issue? If they were independent they'd kick out all the US military bases on their soil, which are neo-colonies.

They have no reason to do that as long as those are useful to greater or lesser degree. The Koreans and Japanese for example have entirely practical strategic reasons to let the bases stay, and the Europeans don't have any particular reason to start a row over those still left (I'm under the impression most were severely downgraded as largely superfluous following the ignomious collapse of the Soviet Block) - and the Central and Eastern European former Soviet satellistes are only too happy to have them, just in case the Russians decide to have a collective attack of jingoist idiocy.

And the US clout on various third-world el presidentes that have calculated it profits them to side with the somewhat decaying superpower is, ultimately, limited to mutually beneficial compromises. Few of them would listen to whatever Washington might have to say unless they derived some real benefit from it.

thats where the economic hitmen come in, saddle a country with billions in debt (i.e. foreign aid) which they'll never be able to repay. Ensures cooperation on things like military bases, UN votes, contracts, etc. If the EHM's don't work, the jackals remove the leadership from power (like in Panama, Ecuador, etc).

But that doesn't exactly work on everyone now does it ? "Developing countries" mostly - and even then the US hold on the actual actors involved is anything but perfect. It's not the only shareholder in those clubs after all, and moreover such pressure tactics more often than not seems to pursue the interests of the private sector, not those of the US of A, even if the two partially overlap at times.

Agreed, but its the new form of imperialism. They realized long ago that economic domination is far more profitable than military action. When things like Iraq happen, its because the economic conquistadors failed (such as in Iran, when the Ayatollahs took over and basically told the west to **** off we're not repaying your loans).

Defaulting on your debts is a venerable enough tradition. The Spanish crown did it semi-regularly in the 1500s for example. Tends to do nasty things to your credit rating tho'.

Anyway, the word you're looking for is AFAIK "neo-colonialism" - and these days it's really more a private sector business that makes use of state-level institutions than a "national" project. The US is IMO so deeply involved more because it is the single biggest mover and shaker around at the moment and because its political decision-making is to a considerable degree subordinate to private interests, not really because of imperial aspirations. Not that it didn't have those, but they seem to be playing a second fiddle in to the private-sector interests in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Anyway, the word you're looking for is AFAIK "neo-colonialism" - and these days it's really more a private sector business that makes use of state-level institutions than a "national" project. The US is IMO so deeply involved more because it is the single biggest mover and shaker around at the moment and because its political decision-making is to a considerable degree subordinate to private interests, not really because of imperial aspirations. Not that it didn't have those, but they seem to be playing a second fiddle in to the private-sector interests in this regard.

---

~:thumb:

I tip my hat too you watchman, nice post.

US companies definetly have world wide asperations and would love to take over the world if thats what you mean :laugh4:

Hey, anything for the almighty Bottom Line. That's what businesses are all about really, isn't it ?

At least these days they (usually) don't have their private states and armies in the fashion of the old British East India Company.

Heh. not true. Just look at Blackwater. Hell, they have a fleet of attack helicopters for chrissakes.

Not to mention their private armies in Iraq.

Note the caveat "usually". Still the main burden of "policing" the place is on the regular national forces isn't it ? But I'll give you these modern condottieri firms are a little peculiar.

actualy Blackwater accounts for the second-largest contingent of forces in Iraq after the U.S. Thats right, more troops than Britain.

Given how many troops the US has, and how few the Brits in comparision, that's not terribly informative by itself. And aren't the Blackwater guys more "paramilitary security" than "proper" combat troops anyway ?

Quote:

---

And aren't the Blackwater guys more "paramilitary security" than "proper" combat troops anyway ?

---

Of course. Their there to protect the companies interests . But it still resembles an army :laugh4:

False. Blackwater are actively engaged in offensive combat and cannot be classified as paramilitary security only.
Google or youtube. There's a HUGELY famous video of Blackwater operators, which I already posted here some months ago.

Yep. blackwater conducts its own operations aside from "security". Plus, the DOD doesn't count Blackwater (or other mercenary) injuries or deaths in its KIA/WIA counts. The numbers are significantly higher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJUEULWEP9c

Those videos fall into the purview of our current staff discussion on what is allowable in depictions of death on a gaming site.

Consequently, I'm temporarily locking the thread pending the outcome of our deliberations.

Thank you for your patience.

:closed: