Friday, June 01, 2007

Korea As The Model For The Future Of Iraq

We've heard before from various members of the wingnuttia how the U.S. has had to keep troops in Korea for the past 60+ years, so we should all expect the U.S. to try the same strategy in Iraq and keep bases there for the long-term.

We learned on Wednesday that Preznut Bush "envisions" a long-term presence in Iraq similar to the one we have in South Korea. White House spokesperson Tony Snow clarified the preznut's vision with this statement:

"I think the point he's 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," Snow said. "But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence."

Instead, he said, U.S. troops would provide "the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of the Iraqis. But you do not want the United States forever in the front."

Interesting that Snow's description of the long-term plan for an American presence in Iraq is similar to what Congressman Jack Murtha has been calling for, only Murtha thinks the "so-called over-the-horizon support" ought to be out of Iraq and ready to redeploy back in if needed.

The problem with the administration's plan, of course, is where exactly do you put the "over-the-horizon support" so that it's not an "up-front combat presence"?

In Korea, U.S. troops are stationed at the parallel that divides North Korea from South Korea.

When U.S. troops were stationed in West Germany during the Cold War, again they stared over the border at the "enemy" on the other side - in that case, the East Germans.

Of course, in Iraq no one is really sure who the enemy is and since the country is in the midst of a Sunni on Shiite, Shiite on Shiite and Sunni on Sunni civil war, the parallels between Iraq and Korea are negligible at best.

Nonetheless, the administration is pushing the comparison heavily. Today we learn that that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Lt. General Raymond Odierno, a senior commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, have backed the long-term presence plan "in order to reassure allies".

Now I get the reason why they're issuing such statements. They want to let Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other regional allies know that we're not going to pull completely out and leave the mess to them. Yet doesn't admitting to a long-term presence in Iraq play right into the jihadis hands? Wasn't it our long-term presence in Saudi Arabia that first ignited Osama's anger toward the United States? I know Bushie and some in the wingnuttia like to tell us Osama and Company hate us "for our freedoms," but most experts say it was our policies and presence in the Middle East that brought on enmity of the Islamic crazies. Here's Pat Buchanan on that:

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Frankly a long-term presence in Iraq seems like it will mean that war will continue to go on and on and on with future generations of Islamic youth joining the cause.

One wonders, watching the way this administration operates in the WoT, whether they are really trying to win the war or just replace the generation Cold War with a new generational war that means fun and profits for their buddies and themselves.

And so, we get the Korean model for our future policy in Iraq.

Comments:
reality, you wrote:

"The problem with the administration's plan, of course, is where exactly do you put the "over-the-horizon support" so that it's not an "up-front combat presence"?"

The plan is a warm-up for partitioning the country. The troops would be placed -- as in Korea -- on the borders between the new states within Iraq.

As for the old anti-Semite Pat Buchanan, he said:

"Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us."

In case you din't know, Buchanan would gladly witness the collapse of Israel. He's pretty much with osama on this one.

That aside, osama, himself, has been neutralized. His band of islamic gangsters may still exist, but their ability to act is limited. It is the widespread anti-western education of muslims in the middle east that is the problem.

You veered into lunacy with your following rumination:

"One wonders...whether they are really trying to win the war or just replace the generation Cold War with a new generational war that means fun and profits for their buddies and themselves."

Fun and profit?! You're nuts. Where's the fun? Where's the profit?

A free Iraq with a fully functioning democratic, pluralistic capitalist economy would create serious wealth for millions and millions, and probably lead to the establishment of a similar state throughout the middle east, thereby multiplying the wealth a thousand times.

But spending US taxpayer funds to safeguard the Iraqi oil industry so that it can bring in some hard currency to a country with little else to offer the world is not an investment opportunity for anyone or any company.

See South Korea for understanding. Before the Korean War, North Korea was the industrial half of the nation and South Korea was the agricultural half. Today, South Korea is an economic powerhouse and North Korea is a nation of subsistence farmers and a land of starvation and deprivation.

Iraq is a country that would easily divide into three parts. In this case, the sum of the parts would have more value than the whole.

A fully developed oil industry, operating free of attacks from moronic muslims, would provide huge revenue to the country. At current prices -- easily over $350 million A DAY. Or over $125 billion A YEAR. Enough to pay the bills and stimulate economic growth.

There is no true barrier to revenue sharing among the three likely Iraqi regions. Only islamic idiots stand in the way of massive prosperity in the middle east, which would extend its benefits to the entire world. That's real wealth.
 
Juan Cole took the Iraq/Korea analogy apart pretty well the other day, and summed it up nicely by calling it "frankly ridiculous."

The only reason for the admin's making the analogy in the first place was to make it clear that we're going to be in Iraq a long, long time. As if that wasn't clear already. ;-)
 
Buchanan is Osama?

Huh, who knew. Maybe Bush should go after him dead or alive. I think Pat lives over in Maryland, so it shouldn't be too hard. And his sister, Bay, is running Tancredo's campaign and doing p.r. for her anti-Hillary book, so if Bushie is too inept to get Pat, he can alway just kill or capture Bay.

And then we'd have another Mission Accomplished!
 
no_slapzz makes a great deal of sense except in one salient regard when he spoke of "a free Iraq with a fully functioning democratic pluralistic capitalist economy..."

Democracy has no chance of succeeeding in Iraq. Zero; zilch; bupkus.

Democracy is possible in nations such as ours, the U.S. b/c the loyalty of the people of this counrty is to our governmental institutions. Iraq is basically a tribal society. The loyalties of its peoples are to family, tribe, and sect.

Remember that we had more than a century and a half of various types of representative government b/f the Constitution was ratified.

Iraq isn't an organic nation but one slapped together (sorry no_slapzz, I couldn't resist) by the Brits and the French after WW I. This is why partition may be the ultimate solution.

Is there one fully functional Arab democracy? Egypt? I don't think so. Arab societies seem to gravitate toward kings or other royalty and in their absence, some type of strong man, like Mubarak or Saddam Hussein.

Partition the country and attempt to get the economy moving. Capitalism by all means, but the Neocon's idea of instituting democracy in Iraq made about as much sense as teaching irregular German verbs to Hogzilla.
 
I wish I could get people fired up here over this moronic situation. But then we only have a small toe in the water.
The fact is, the US led campaign never really had anywhere to go, except to buttress support from the equally aggressive opposition.
Obviously thee are too many experts who know dick shit! As for extracting, I wish you all luck.
So far the failed actions have only managed to dig a far deeper hole.

slappz
"That aside, osama, himself, has been neutralized."
I'd love to be sleeping where you are sleeping. I expect the aggression has managed to create some far more dangerous opponents.
No more gung ho, but some really well considered threats. Bloody good one!
 
no_slappz,

You asked: "...where are the profits?"

I personally know many people profiting from this war. Mostly security companies, so I'll spare you the list that starts with Haliburton, Blackwater, and continues from there: your an investor, you already know.

But the real profits come from the defense and aerospace industries that have had to bump up production to meet the demand that this war has provided.

Where are the profits? They are myriad. You just have to look under some rocks.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?