[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 Years of War (Bush's Korean War) 50 Years of War THE PROGRESS REPORT June 4th. 2007 by Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, and Matt Corley In 1964, when the Vietnam War "was only a small dark cloud on the very distant horizon," President Lyndon Johnson privately told National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, "I just stayed awake last night thinking of this thing, and the more that I think of it, I don't know what in the hell -- it looks like to me that we're getting into another Korea. It just worries the hell out of me." For President Johnson, Korea was the model he privately feared. For President Bush, Korea is the model he has publicly embraced. The White House announced last week that it "would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea," where U.S. troops have been stationed for over 50 years. (Never mind that in June 2006, Bush said, "I've told the American people I'd like to get our troops out as soon as possible.") Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed the "Korea model" on Thursday, and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who oversees daily operations in Iraq, called it a "great idea." In fact, modeling our Iraq strategy off the U.S. experience in Korea relies on a grossly inaccurate historical comparison, and runs directly opposite Americans' view that the U.S. should disengage from Iraq. IRAQ IS NOT KOREA: "In no meaningful way are these two wars, or these two countries, remotely similar," military analyst Fred Kaplan writes of Korea and Iraq. "In no way does one experience, or set of lessons, shed light on the other." To begin with, "we intervened in South Korea as a response to an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to contain Communist aggression. We intervened in Iraq as the instigator of an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to expand unilateral American power." Second, in South Korea, there is something concrete to defend -- the border with North Korea. "In Iraq, no border divides friend from foe; no clear concept defines who is friend and foe." Jonathan Alter adds in Newsweek, "The only two reasons to station troops in the Middle East for half a century are protecting oil supplies (reflecting a pessimistic view of energy independence) outside the normal channels of trade and diplomacy, and projecting raw military power. These are the imperial aims of an empire." PERMANENT BASES OUT IN THE OPEN: The Iraq Study Group advised, "The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq." Yet for the first time, the Bush administration "is beginning publicly to discuss basing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades to come," the New York Times reported yesterday, noting that the subject is "so fraught with political landmines that officials are tiptoeing around the inevitable questions about what the United States' long-term mission would be there." In public, administration officials are mostly silent. "But when speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, they describe a fairly detailed concept. It calls for maintaining three or four major bases in the country, all well outside of the crowded urban areas where casualties have soared." This report comes despite the fact that the Iraq spending bill just signed by Bush includes a provision prohibiting any U.S. funds from being expended to "establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq." IRAQIS DO NOT WANT THE KOREAN MODEL: Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last week observed another crucial difference between Iraq and Korea: the U.S. military presence "has engendered stability on the Korean peninsula because 'the South Koreans welcomed us,'" and the United States was viewed as a force for good. In Iraq, an ABC News poll earlier this year found that 78 percent "oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil"; just one percent of Iraqis "want the US military presence to go on without end." Thus, Brzezinski noted, "the US could never hope to sustain an enduring presence unless American leaders resigned themselves to facing enduring resistance." Indeed, the prospect of permanent bases is a significant threat to U.S. forces, "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 region. "The president and vice-president like to say that insurgents in Iraq listen to what we say over here," said Jon Soltz of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans group VoteVets. "If they do, there's no question that this morning, those who seek to kill our troops are buzzing with talk that America plans on occupying Iraq forever. The bulls-eye on the back of our troops just got a whole lot bigger, and the president is to blame." OpEdNews columnist Allen L Roland is available for comments , interviews and speaking engagements ( allen@allenroland.com )
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||