A Permanent Military Empire

[Zaknafien]

well , aside from the fact that the "korea plan" is ludicrous for Iraq, what are the implications of permanent military occupation in iraq? will people finally see the reality of the american empire and oppose it? or business as usual.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well thats what I thought would happen from the start didnt you? The whole idea was to get a foothold in the ME one way or another.

[Zaknafien]

agreed; but back in my naive days I thought it was about liberty and freedom and those annoying ideas... lol

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Were growing closer all the time

[Del Arroyo]

The author overemphasizes the "permanency" of the bases here. First off, they are not so developed-- the PX's are small, "brand name fast food restaurants" consist of a handful of Subways and Green Beans run out of RV-sized trailers, and the "golf course" is a primitive driving range. If dismantling were ever a priority, anyone could get easily rid of all post-Sadaam structures with nothing more than cranes and trailer trucks.

That said, on its face this "Korean model" seems like a very poor idea; but we should understand that we are trying to avoid a Vietnam repeat here.

[Navaros]

USA can't win the War on Terror so instead their plan is to occupy Iraq forever. Wonder how that will work out for them. Not so good, I think.

[doc_bean]

Told ya.

[JR-]

agreed; but back in my naive days I thought it was about liberty and freedom and those annoying ideas... lol

it was, as a free and democratic iraq was intended to destabilise the more more authoritarian regimes out there.

[Duke Malcolm]

A permanent occupying force of 40,000 troops? Forgive me for being ignorant of current US Armed Forces statistics, but what sort of percentage of the US Army does this represent?
It would be a major precentage of the British Army, but that has never been very large (except in certain circumstances). We occupied the entire Indian Empire with only few tens of thousands more. Would such a large commitment in Iraq not hinder future possible conflicts?

[Rodion Romanovich]

A permanent occupying force of 40,000 troops? Forgive me for being ignorant of current US Armed Forces statistics, but what sort of percentage of the US Army does this represent?
It would be a major precentage of the British Army, but that has never been very large (except in certain circumstances). We occupied the entire Indian Empire with only few tens of thousands more. Would such a large commitment in Iraq not hinder future possible conflicts?

40,000 is not much. During the nazi occupation of France, around 300,000 troops were used, and they still faced massive problems with the French resistance. I doubt 40,000 American occupation forces can do much against the Iraqi resistance, especially if it comes to formal and official illegal occupation - that could unite sunnis, shias and kurds against the occupational forces, and they could link up with and cooperate with Afghani guerillas as well.

[lars573]

A permanent occupying force of 40,000 troops? Forgive me for being ignorant of current US Armed Forces statistics, but what sort of percentage of the US Army does this represent?
It would be a major precentage of the British Army, but that has never been very large (except in certain circumstances). We occupied the entire Indian Empire with only few tens of thousands more. Would such a large commitment in Iraq not hinder future possible conflicts?

And the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Sepoy units were what exactly?

[Bijo]

True: a number such as 40 000 isn't a big one. But do not forget other factors such as airpower and navies that could deploy fantastic technology (and let's not forget the experience of American militaries). As we speak, weapons technology advances in a constant unstoppable stream and equipping ground forces with newer true-and-tested weaponry -- in the future -- could possibly even reduce the amount of manpower necessary to effectively occupy land, sea, and air.

I've heard tell of a new kind of audio weapon tested by the American military to control masses via audio signals sent at them. Who knows what kind of technology they already possess...?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Sepoy units were what exactly?

Totally unreliable, they should have been posted to Africa, and Africans should have been posted to India. From a purely military standpoint, of course.

True: a number such as 40 000 isn't a big one. But do not forget other factors such as airpower and navies that could deploy fantastic technology (and let's not forget the experience of American militaries). As we speak, weapons technology advances in a constant unstoppable stream and equipping ground forces with newer true-and-tested weaponry -- in the future -- could possibly even reduce the amount of manpower necessary to effectively occupy land, sea, and air.

Such advances have been touted for over 60 years, they have proved to be a universal failure. Boots are the only effective occupying force because the only ground you control is the ground you're standing on.

[Redleg]

A permanent occupying force of 40,000 troops? Forgive me for being ignorant of current US Armed Forces statistics, but what sort of percentage of the US Army does this represent?
It would be a major precentage of the British Army, but that has never been very large (except in certain circumstances). We occupied the entire Indian Empire with only few tens of thousands more. Would such a large commitment in Iraq not hinder future possible conflicts?

Last I looked the Active Army consisted of just short of 400,000. Add the appoximately 300,000 National Guard and Reserve, and the Marines which is I believe short of 50,000. And the force structure represents 10% of the Active Army - or about 5% of the total force.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and the Marines which is I believe short of 50,000.

Closer to 200,000 active last I checked.

Your also leaving out the Airforce and Navy that would also be part of that force. I dont think their talking only grunts here.