US troops in Iraq for next 2 decades.

[diamond geezer]

http://www.militaryweek.com/withoutreservation.shtml

Commander, USFI?


Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is fielding all kinds of questions these days. He is asked about the need for a draft ("No, of course not."). He gets asked about rifts ñ past, present and future ñ with the State Department ("What rifts?"). He is asked about the progress in Iraq after "liberation" and says things are better, even that "the electricity is starting to come back on," albeit almost a year after we arrived to save the day.


One topic he will soon be asked about is the new command he is proposing to ensure continued military control over Iraq after a so-called sovereign government takes the reins in July of this year. In the mode of United States Forces Korea (USFK), centered in Seoul since the mid-fifties and formalized just over 25 years ago, we may well see the permanent establishment of a United States Force Iraq, complete with a four-star general in Baghdad to run the place.

The Washington Times reports this plan, and with their connections into the Pentagon hierarchy, it bears a reading. The new command set for Baghdad would be modeled on USFK, the four-star command within Pacific Command that controls US and South Korean Forces.

When this information is combined with the words of other senior personnel, it becomes more believable. Chairman of the JCS Dick Meyers says that while the length of time U.S. troops will be deployed in Iraq is unknowable, it will be for some time. Retired Lt General Jay Garner is far more forthright, recently telling the Government Executive magazine that our troops will be in Iraq for the next few decades.

Jay Garner has a lot to say. He honestly reveals one of the primary reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and no, it wasn't WMD, it wasn't because of a grave and growing threat, and sadly, it wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator. Noting how establishing U.S. naval bases in the Philippines in the early 1900s allowed the United States to maintain a "great presence in the Pacific," Garner said, "To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary." So that's what Iraq is for! The Spanish America War redux! Who knew? By the way, USFK Backgrounder Number 3 states: "The United States is also a partner in the operations of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command, an integrated headquarters that was established by the two governments in 1978, and is responsible for planning the defense of the ROK (Republic of Korea) and, if necessary, directing the ROK/US combat forces to defeat the enemy aggression."

An integrated headquarters, to plan for the defense of Iraq, in order to defeat enemy aggression. No doubt, some of that aggression will be from within. Perhaps some sort of controlled fracturing of Iraq can be managed, dividing an oil producing "friend of the U.S." from a terroristic no man's land that can be defended against. With over 130,000 troops already installed on U.S.-run Iraqi bases, we will now write the status of forces agreement and the charter for US Forces Iraq. Iraqi appointed politicians beholden to the United States for life, limb and cash flow will happily sign wherever we tell them. And as usual, we'll worry about the details later.

A key American lackey and Iraqi Governing Council representative, Dick Cheney's good friend Ahmad Chalabi, proudly proclaimed this week that his lies and stories, while lies and stories to be sure, were actually all worthwhile. His version of the "truth" shared directly with the Office of Special Plans and the Vice President's staff served as the propaganda foundation for the occupation of Iraq.

In Chalabi's own words, "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

I wonder what the US Forces Iraq Backgrounder Numbers 1, 2 and 3 will say? On the other hand, does it really matter?

Two Decades!! Why not just say "until the oil runs out".

How sovereign is a country controlled by another countries military forces?

[zimv20]

more examples of the ends justifying the means

[superbovine]

there is still 50k troops in germany, and i am not sure about if people are in japan and korea.

japan in their constitution only has a military for defense. i.e. the american 's protect japan from north korean nuclear strike considering their constitution will not all them to strike the nukes first before they launch. i believe they are working on this situation in japan. anyways japan is a soverign country and it is clearly not controled by america. using what many american called "japanese management techniques" in the 80's which were will just american professor teaching management to the japanese after world war II; (incidently they were adopted by US companies) japan became a economonically strong and independent country.

south korea is another good example. there is 30k american troops (i think) on the border between north and south korea. americans train side by side with south korean troops ready to hold of a north korean invasion. ironically dmz in korea is why the US never banned land mines, because it is the best defense against a north korean invasion. again south korea is a soverign nation, with american troops in the country for decades.

germany a little different story, i think was 4 (i think) countries militaries in germany throughout the cold war. there is still 50k american troops in germany. germany is a sorviegn nation.

both germany and japan where both controled by a foriegn military force. (west germany was by the allies and east by ussr). japan of course was controled by the american military.

[wwworry]

so you're saying it's good to occupy countries for decades.

[superbovine]

so you're saying it's good to occupy countries for decades.

oh no, i just responding to the fact that the geezer said:
How sovereign is a country controlled by another countries military forces?

i just wanted to show examples of how a military power can occupy a sovereign nation and the nation be independent. i just wanted to show the model can work, and both countries reap benefits from sometimes uncomfortable relationship.

to respond to your question. us troops in germany where there all those years to fight back a soviet invasion of western europe. so yeah it probably was a good thing the troops where to stop a soviet invasion of western europe. the us military keeps north korea in the game of brinkmanship in order to avoid a nuke war and try and stop the nuclear proliferation. so it does serve US interest, but maybe not entirely for the host country interest but usually its a faustian bargain. south korea is a good example. there is many young people in south korea that do not like the fact that US troops are station there (noted by protest), but many of the older generation remembers the war. the politician in SK, i would think would prefer that south korea's military be able to ward of a north korean invasion, but the reality of the situation is that they cannot. US interest does not want communism to spread, our allie and trading partner be hurt, and the fact the asia's economy would probably tank if it happened. most people in the US would rather our troops be home and safe. so yeah, its a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. your have to make a deal with the devil in order to your agenda. i wouldn't want the soviets invading western europe and i do not want north korea to even think about invading south korea. north korea has large guns pointed a seoul which basically scares the crap out of anyone living there. the best plan to get rid of the guns in a situation of war would be the US military bomb all the guns before they get to fire. that would save millions of south korean lives. sorry i am ranting.

[Thanatoast]

Two decades? Wasn't the origianl plan (way back in May, last year) six weeks? 90 days if things went poorly? I'll try looking for a link.

Found this:

Speaking at a press conference yesterday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the New York Times report, declaring that any impression that the US plans “some sort of a permanent presence” was “inaccurate and unfortunate because we don’t plan to function as an occupier”. In response to a question, however, he refused to rule out the possibility of US bases in Iraq.
link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/iraq-a22.shtml) Not exactly mainstream, but it's a quote.

[zimv20]

Two decades? Wasn't the origianl plan (way back in May, last year) six weeks? 90 days if things went poorly?

i remember early claims of having the boys back by xmas (2003).

[Desertrat]

zim, other than little deals like Panama and Grenada, the boys have never been home by Christmas.

I dunno. I agree that a nation can have a great deal of sovereignty when there are occupying troops there, but that doesn't mean I like the idea of our troops being there. For all the yowling against Bush/Iraq, though, the history of US policy in this sort of thing is to minimize interference in the internal or daily affairs where we have taken power. I don't see that changing.

We got into the NATO deal on account of the USSR. The USSR is gone, and I don't see Russia as any sort of re-emergent threat to Europe. So, why are we still in NATO? Or, why is there still a NATO?

South Korea became a power house, both economically and militarily, back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Why are we still there?

I can see keeping a wary eye on China, but I'm not sure we need to be the military stud-hoss of that part of the Pacific.

IMO, decades of short-term decision-making led to the situation in the middle east, all in the name of oil. Okay, fine, now we're stuck with it. I can see working a deal with Iraq for us to be there as a less-expensive way to extend power in an area in which we have a vital national interest. But where we don't seem to have a vital national interest, we oughta get our military out and "bring the boys home".

'Rat

[zimv20]

zim, other than little deals like Panama and Grenada, the boys have never been home by Christmas.

well of course *I* didn't believe it. but i was told that dozens of times by posters on these very boards. they don't seem to be around much anymore.

[skunk]

I can see working a deal with Iraq for us to be there as a less-expensive way to extend power in an area in which we have a vital national interest.

'Rat
At the risk of sounding liberal, I would say that oil is a vital global interest. If the US worked as hard at reducing its conspicuous over-consumption of oil as it works at grabbing the world's resources, the few years of reserves left would maybe last until someone found an alternative energy source. As it is, oil production per capita has been in decline since 1979, and I doubt we've got more than ten years' worth of steady supply left anyway. And when that goes, we're back to the stone age.

[miloblithe]

Desertrat,

We're still in NATO because NATO expansion provides us with an excellent carrot to offer all those Eastern European countries and bring them into the fold. We get strong allies who are willing to bed over backwards to lend us some scraps of legitimacy in international forums (how many non-eastern European countries supported the current invasion of Iraq). We can also transfer our European military bases eastward, saving money and moving them closer to places where we want to expand our influence: Caucasus, Middle East (oil!!), while keeping Russia from any hopes of reasserting significant regional influence.

NATO also can be used (like in Kosovo) as an alternative structure for non-unilateral action to the UN.

US troops will either be in Iraq for our remaining lifetimes or this endeavor will be a huge failure (which it well might be).