[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: 50 More Years in Iraq? (GW Bush Proposal ) 50 More Years in Iraq? By Dan Froomkin Special to http://washingtonpost.com Thursday, May 31, 2007; 12:52 PM The White House, long irritated by the frequent use of Vietnam as a metaphor for Iraq, embraced its own analogy yesterday: South Korea. There's an undeniable attraction to holding up America's military presence in South Korea as a model for Iraq: Our soldiers stationed there aren't dying in large numbers every month. White House Watch 50 More Years in Iraq? (More see link) Bush Fears for Nation's Soul Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney Warnings of Chaos Ignored Failing to Reassure More News Michael Gerson: A Big Enough Stick for Sudan Robert J. Samuelson: A Full Tank of Hypocrisy Silvestre Reyes: Reality, Not Rhetoric, On FISA Ruth Marcus: The Attack Ads Will Come to Order Harold Meyerson: Dying for an Iraq That Isn't Today's Editorials Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal White House Watch Resources * Latest Bush Administration News * White House Staff List and Salaries * White House Correspondents * West Wing Floor Plan * E-mail Dan Froomkin: I may publish your e-mail unless you specify "not for publication." More White House Links Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. * Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass * Upper Left * AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth Full List of Blogs (7 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On http://washingtonpost.com | On the web Save & Share Article What's This? Digg Google del.icio.us Yahoo! Reddit Facebook But in other ways, the analogy is troubling. And flawed. And dangerous. And telling. It's troubling because American troops have been in South Korea for more than 50 years -- while polls show the American public wants them out of Iraq within a year. It's flawed because in South Korea, unlike Iraq, there's something concrete to defend (the border with North Korea); and because Iraq, unlike South Korea, happens to be in a state of violent civil war. It's dangerous because the specter of a permanent military presence in Iraq is widely considered to be one of the most inflammatory incitements to Iraq's ever-growing anti-American insurgency, and may even be destabilizing to the entire region. And it's telling because it gives credence to persistent suspicions that establishing a long-term strategic presence in the Middle East was a primary motivation for this misbegotten war in the first place. The Coverage Terence Hunt writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday. . . . "'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," [White House spokesman Tony] Snow said. "But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence." But, Hunt writes: "The comparison with South Korea paints a picture of a lengthy U.S. commitment at a time when Americans have grown weary of the Iraq war and want U.S. troops to start coming home. . . . "Asked if U.S. forces would be permanently stationed in Iraq, Snow said, 'No, not necessarily.' He said that the prospect of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq were 'not necessarily the case, either.' "Later, Snow said it was impossible to say if U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for some 50 years, as they have in South Korea. 'I don't know,' he said. 'It is an unanswerable question. But I'm not making that suggestion. . . . The war on terror is a long war.'"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
We still have bases in Germany and Japan 62 years after WWII ended. We'll be in Iraq for as long as there's a "United States of America".
Where is our bases in Vietnam?
#5. To: RickyJ (#4)
Good point. We lost in Vietnam, hence no bases. So, I guess if we lose Iraq, then there will be no bases. But that just seems to not be in the cards for Iraq.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||