Democrats Announce New Iraq Strategy, Keeping US Troops in Country for Another 50 Years
Yes you read that right, the answer to Iraq is to follow the Korean War model:
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
…
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?†asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell Senator Webb the US still has nearly 30,000 US soldiers in South Korea and that the Korean War has not ended. Did Senator Webb go to the Uri Party school of history? Let me get this right the Democratic "exit strategy" from Iraq involves keeping at least 30,000 US soldiers in Iraq 50 years from now and signing an armistice with who? Iran? Al Qaida? I wonder if Senator Webb will be willing to be the US representative to the signing of the GWOT Armistice Agreement with Bin Laden, Assad, and Ahmadinejad sitting on the other side of the table from him? Then the Democrats can rely on the UN to enforce the armistice as well as it does with Hezbollah.Â
Plus when Eisenhower became President he did not immediately end the actual official combat of the Korean War as the senator claims. The war raged on for months before the armistice was signed and the armistice was finally signed due to Eisenhower threatening to use nuclear weapons. So using the Democratic model for success the US should threaten to nuke Iran in order to get the GWOT armistice that hopefully Senator Webb will be willing to preside over and sign. After the signing the US should then sign a defense treaty with Iraq like the US did with South Korea after the Korean War armistice. Then to top of the great Democratic "exit strategy" the US should then be expected to have troops in Iraq 50 years from now. Should the US call this force USFI, United States Forces Iraq?Â
Another reason why as bad as the Republicans are I could never support the Democrats, what a bunch of demagogues more interested in expanding their own political power than supporting the troops in Iraq.Â
Well Iraq and Iran are certainly following the North and South Korean model of keeping us there as long as possible.
Iran and Iraq are afraid of Israel, and North and South Korea are afraid of Japan.
I hope we don't get duped there like we have here.
GI,
I am not sure how you felt about Sen Webb, but I rather listened and support the someone like Webb than bunch of Republican "Chicken Hawks" who started war in Iraq by ignoring advise from experts like Colin Powell or Eric Shinseki.
It no use debating if we should have gone to war or not when we are in a war right now and everyone should be united in winning it instead of playing politics with it while more of our soldiers die from an enemy emboldened by our internal politcal infighting. They should leave fighting over the merits of the war after the war is won not while you are fighting it.
The Bush Administration may have made plenty of mistakes but at least they are committed to victory. The Democrats have no plan and all they do is demagouge the war to political advantage. Until they offer some kind of plan I'll keep supporting those who do have a plan. No the Murtha plan isn't a plan, it's a surrender and retreat. Could you imagine how discouraging it would be to the terrorists and how encouraging to our soldiers it would be if the Democrats all came out and supported the surge plan?
"experts like Colin Powell"
Yeah. Great advice there. From the guy who was one of the key's in not finishing the first war with Iraq, leaving Hussien in power, and a decade-long "no fly zone" strategy —– where we still had a military committment to keeping the slaughter of the Shiites and oppression of the Kurds to a minimum – but gave Hussien both the hope and means to prepare for future aggression (like invading Iran or Kuwait or perhaps the Saudi oil fields the next time) as well as have some fun internationally by paying thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel —— wonderful expert advice that was…..
"The Bush Administration may have made plenty of mistakes but at least they are committed to victory"
That is a hoot.
The "war" was over in 30 days. Now we're just an occupation force praying to God that they are too busy killing themselves to notice us.
The "war" may have been over for 30 days for everyone sitting at home watching CNN. Just because CNN didn't have live embed coverage anymore doesn't mean the war was over. My unit lost 6 guys after what you claim that the war was over. All of us on the ground knew it wasn't, OIF was just the first battle of what was going to be a long war.
Your buddies the Democrats control congress and could cut funding thus ending the war, but they don't and why is that? They understand as well as the Republicans that the US cannot lose this war but don't want Bush to be the one to win it. Could it also be because they rather keep the war a muddle until next year's Presidential election for political advantage? How else do explain them for the last two years demanding a troop increase and throwing Gen. Shinseki's name out there and then when Bush agrees to a troop increase they don't want it? I can guarantee you that if Hillary gets elected suddenly troop surge plans and anything else advocated by Hillary will be championed by the Democrats in order to gain victory.
I don't pay enough attention to the news – I can't take it – to say this with much confidence, but….
"They understand as well as the Republicans that the US cannot lose this war but don’t want Bush to be the one to win it."
I don't believe that is really true…
Since there has not been another major attack on the US since 9/11, I think their attention has simply shifted to a point they really don't care about Iraq or the Middle East – include Iran with its soon-to-be nukes.
I believe their focus is elsewhere and that other stuff is just a distraction when they have power – and a tool to use against the rep party.
I think the quiet disdain for the military and the type of people who serve in it that Kerry and others let out here and there from time to time is real and ingrained. That kind of lifestyle is just something they can't really understand and something they have a natural inclination to piss on.
I think if the Pelosis of the world had their choice, they simply wouldn't mention those guys and those institutions at all —- but they can't because they are out there and half the nation or better cares about them.
I don't believe the dems want to be in Iraq. I do not believe they even view it as "winning" or "losing"..
again, I think they see it as a distraction to what they really care about which is not what is going on in that part of the world….
I think if they could do it without pissing of a huge section of the voting population ——– they would yank the troops out in a heart beat and not give much of a damn about what happens in Iraq or the region.
I believe they would cut funding for troops tomorrow if they thought it wasn't political suicide….
I think your logic about the Dems applies well to the far left like the Pelosi's of the party but the more pragmatic part of the party like Hillary knows the Dems cannot be viewed as being the reason why the US lost the war. Remember Pelosi tried to get Murtha elected by the Dems as her right hand man and he was quickly and decisively defeated by the Dems because most of the Dems are pragmatic and not left wing loons like Pelosi. Pelosi is the speaker simply because she brings in money for the Dems the real king makers of the Democratic Party will not allow the Dems to cut funding for the war. So to appease the left wing loons they pass non-binding resolutions. These non-binding resolutions are a political parking space for the left wing loons.
It's all Theodore Roosevelt's fault. "Speak softly and carry a big stick," has become worse than its original form, and is now more along the lines of, "Flap your yapper and flex your muscles in their faces." But, "ours is the best way," right?
My stance? Yossarian lives!
"but the more pragmatic part of the party like Hillary knows the Dems cannot be viewed as being the reason why the US lost the war"
But, that still fits into my points. It isn't about wanting to be sucessful in Iraq. It is about not wanting to lose voter support. The dems don't want to be in Iraq and if they could get out tomorrow without having to pay a political price back in the US, they would do it – regardless of what happened in Iraq afterward or what such a pullout could mean for the US long term.
Next
"“Flap your yapper and flex your muscles in their faces.†But, “ours is the best way,†right?"
This is the type of thing that has me fascinated these days.
The media and higher edcuation and the segment of the dem party GI Korea mentioned are winning the day – slowly but surely.
It has taken a few years of complete, daily pummeling for the media to gain significant sucess in their program to use each and every death of a GI in Iraq to turn the public significantly against the US being there. — But they were more than up to the task of giving the viewing public such a pummelling.
It has also taken a couple of decades for higher education to reverse the trend away from the pseudo-politics of the 60s and 70s that the Reagan Era started. In the late 1970s and into the early 1990s, the society – even in the hallowed halls of higher education (not the profs – for sure – but the student body) the pseudo-politics trended strong toward the conservative (compared to what was seen in the 60s and early 70s). Now — we might be seeing the first clear signs that the media and profs are going to catch a 2nd wind with Iraq War II and the "threat" of global terrorism.
As long as another 9/11 doesn't kill another 3,000 people on US territory – I think they have a chance of wiping away some of the Reagan Era popular sucess.
What I mean is —– look at this line again — "But, “ours is the best way,†right?"
Well, even if it might make most professors I've every met in the humanities roll their eyes and secretly wish to tape your mouth shut …
….. has history not proven "our way" is better????
Come on……point out how it isn't?
You might start by —- instead of listing a long series of things that are not great about "our way" ——–
……you might start by pointing out the better, realistic alternatives….
In the 1930s through early 1980s, the groups that wanted people to think like Alex, like those profs in higher education, told us the Soviets and Cuba and so on were the viable, better alternatives.
Then, we found out that was a huge pile of shit.
And having to recognize just how smelly that pile of shit happened to be — led to a surge in the belief in a more conservative way as led by Reagan and crew.
Now, with the Cold War over, and no threat of mutally assured destruction confronting us, and with a difficult task facing the nation —–
the profs and intelligencia can regain the high ground.
They have been trying to do so for some time. Constantly preaching the idea that thoughts like "ours is the best way" is satanic, unholy talk (if they believed in religion)….
Despite having to fly in the face of actual historical reality —- they have never given up the fight in saying our way is not best – even if they had to drop all that stuff about North Korea actually being better off than the South (and the US too — universal health care and education and all that) — because the stink of the death camps managed to escape the confines of the North….or in Russia or the way in Cuba and so on….
I'll cut this short after letting it go too long by mentioning one of my favorite scenes from higher education…
A Korean grad student in this class heard somebody mention something about China eventually democratizing, and the one Chinese grad student who always got hot under the collar anytime anyone came remotely close to criticizing China went off on one of his speeches about power and propaganda……and the Korean did as usual – decided to help him out by echoing his thoughts…….
….and he said……."China might democratize in the future. But it won't be "American" democracy…."
And for about the 1,000th time, I wanted to grab him by the hairs on the back of his head and pound his face into the table…..
What the fuck does that mean?
Does France have an "American" democracy? The UK? SK? Japan? Germany? Australia? How about just Canada – that nation that sits right there beside the big ole US of A?
So, Alex…..Yes……..in point of historical fact………Ours is the better way….
Democracy, industrialization, capitalism – whatever its flaws – whatever changes for the better it can still make —–
——has proven itself to be better than anything else we've seen so far.
But, I know…….the people in higher education who have been pummelling each new generation with the idea that 'ours is the best way" is unholy talk only used by the neo-conservative, neo-nazi-like brain dead people (like Reagan, maybe)……..have done their best to convince those who go to college that our way is, if not the worst, damn close to it…..and certainly nothing to be proud about.
And I'll add one more thing that I often think about when starting to rant about pseudo-thoughts like "ours it he best way," right?" —
I was watching a documentary about the tribe in Africa that herds cattle and does the circle jumping dance.
At one part of the show, the narrator mentioned how the beef from the herds was starting to give the members of the tribe a different standard of living, and they had started to use pickup trucks – which would allow them to control larger herds.
But, the problem was —- seeing the trucks and stuff started to disappoint the tourists (from Europe and so on) — who wanted to see one of those "other ways" of living Alex might get around to thinking about as a viable alternative.
So, the national government made a deal with the tribal leaders —- they would set aside certain tracks of land where they would not use modern tools to do their ranch farming in exchange for government subsides while they used the trucks and other such modern tools to increase profitability elsewhere in their territory.
So, everybody came away happy. The Europeans and other tourists could hop on the passenger jets, sip cappachino and talk about the adventure they were going to have, take trains and buses out to the wilderness, and see the natives living one of those "other ways" of living —- while the natives hiding away from the tourists could use the pickup trucks produced by an industrialized society to make more money to raise the standard of living (as they saw it themselves) of the tribal community….
That little segment in that documentary —- I believe —- sums up a good bit of the reality of Western higher education today…..
I'm going to jump back on my soapbox for a minute…
As I logged off, I remembered something from the past week that was irritating along the same lines —
in the middle school class I'm observing but not teaching, the discussion was about Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream speech" and how far we have come/how far away we remain from achieving some of those dreams….
….and a few of the students blurted out things like, "Bush is a racist" and talk about "Katrina".
They get this from what they hear at home, and the parents and other adults in the home get it from the media —— the Republican party is too full of white males who couldn't stomach seeing a black man as president. Sure, several years ago, the party really hoped Powell would join the ticket, but that was just for vice president, and who gives a crap about vice president? — unless it is Cheney, and then he secretly runs the government…..
…..now….also…..never mind that Bush put two black people in two of the most powerful positions in the world — Powell as Sec of State and Rice as National Security Advisor and then replacing Powell.
What was the most powerful position Clinton put a black person in?
Carter?
Sec of State and National Security Advisor ——– HUGE positions in the most powerful nation on earth —– but Bush and the Republican party is dominated by racist tendancies…….yeah………
Your comments about Africa are interesting because I have heard the same thing from people who come to Korea for the first time. They are surprised that the farmers aren't using water buffaloes to till the fields with and instead rely on modern machines. They were actually dissapointed to not see the "romantic" notion of what they thought Asia is supposed to be.
I have seen the same thing from foreign friends I have who come to America for the first time, they are surprised the native-americans don't live in teepees.
I checked out the google news feed today….
You can probably still get the picture…
Read the headlines…..
When I went over, one of the first that grabbed my attention was about 250 terrorists in Iraq getting killed —- (my definition of terrorist here being someone without military uniform using methods like road side bombs and morter shells used to terrorize rather than as a tactical weapon).
That report was from some paper in Malaysia……(not particularly a country who loves the US).
But, the other headlines under the same topic from the BBC and Western-known outlets read something different —– rather than talking about 250 road-side-bomber types being killed —-
—- they focused either on the US helicopter being shot down
—– or they focused on a couple of shells that hit a middle school and the other a high schoool – killing a handful of kids.
If you read one or two of those stories, you will notice something interesting – perhaps —–
——- that the shells seem to be just an act of God or something — you would have to ask yourself, "Who shot that morter round?" yourself —– because these kinds of civilian deaths don't seem to be ——-
—- attributed to the groups the 250 belong too.
This made me attempt to think back to the number of stories I happened to run across that simply talk about "sectarian violence" —- in what I would guess is an attempt to avoid putting a face to blame on the violence – unless it is a US unit.
Picking sides is wrong, remember, unless it is used to convince Americans we should leave.
It is in the same ballpark as the reporter for some big US newspaper wrote about —— hold on for this one ——–
—– looking around the place of a Sunni milita group and not finding caches of weapons from Iran…………..to dispell the idea the White House has been putting out that Iran is heavily involved in supporting the insurgents…..
—you know how well those Shiia Iranians get along with the Sunnis in Iraq. Makes perfect sense, at least to this reporter, how the Iranians would be funnelling weapons to the Sunni militias —- so they can kill the Shiia militias formed around Sadar who is also getting arms from Iran….