TheChosenOne

By TOM RAUM
Tue Feb 13, 4:47 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A lesson of history hangs over debate on President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq: Once a U.S. presence is established overseas, it often lasts a very long time. Look at South Korea, Germany and Japan: U.S. troops are still there more than a half century later.

Short of being kicked out by the Iraqi government or having funds cut off by Congress, U.S. forces seem likely to be in for a long stay.

Bush has said flatly that U.S. troops will still be in Iraq when his term ends in January 2009 and that his successor will inherit the conflict. Few disagree, despite talk among some Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail of withdrawals and exit timetables.

The House on Tuesday began debating a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of Iraq policy, a week after Republicans blocked a similar measure in the Senate. "There is no end in sight," under Bush's present strategy, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record).

Bush's goal has been, in a widely used administration phrase, "for U.S. troops to stand down as Iraqi troops stand up," with the Iraqi government fully taking over at some unspecified time. His increase of 21,500 troops is supposed to hasten that day.

But when? Neither the White House nor senior congressional Republicans can say.

"I don't know anyone can give you an informed answer," said Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., a former Navy secretary who fought in the Korean War as a Marine.

Warner doesn't believe, however, that there is a parallel "at this time" with the long U.S. experience in South Korea. He said he agreed with the president's assertion that it was not in U.S., regional or world interest "to let this government collapse and fail."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said it would be "presumptuous" to try to look too far. "We do look down the road ... but there is vast amount of uncertainty from one month to the next, let alone one year to the next."

Optimists cite other postwar stabilization forces. Pessimists cite Vietnam.

Vietnam is not a place where U.S. forces remain, to be sure. But getting out took a long time. President Johnson, stunned by anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy's strong primary-season showing, announced in early 1968 he wouldn't run for re-election.

Richard Nixon was elected later that year on a platform that included ending the war. But it was not until January 1973 that the Paris Peace Accords officially halted U.S. combat action. Even then, an American presence remained until the Saigon government fell in April 1975.

Asked how long the U.S. might remain in Iraq, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., chairman of a House panel overseeing military spending, responded with his own question: "How long were we in Bosnia? We didn't have anywhere near the problems in Bosnia that we had in Iraq, and we just last year came out of Bosnia."

Then- President Clinton declared in early 1996 — shortly after a U.S. brokered peace agreement — that American forces would stay in Bosnia just one year. So much for setting timetables.

American forces are deployed in roughly 130 countries around the world, performing a variety of duties from combat to peacekeeping to training foreign militaries, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a defense-oriented think tank. There are about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

"One could see reasons to have 30,000 to 50,000 troops that would continue to serve as a backup force for the Iraqis — if the situation stabilized and Iraq remained united," said P.J. Crowley, an official with both the National Security Council and Pentagon in the Clinton administration.

In South Korea, about 29,500 U.S. troops are stationed as a deterrent against the communist North, but that number is to decline to 24,500 by 2008 as part of the Pentagon's worldwide realignment of its forces. The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.

In the latest wrinkle, a multiparty disarmament pact was announced Tuesday in which North Korea agreed to halt its nuclear programs in exchange for oil. The deal was seen as a major foreign-policy breakthrough for the administration.

Kurt Campbell, a former Asia specialist at the Pentagon, sees big differences between Iraq and South Korea. "Essentially, despite an occasional anti-American upheaval, South Korea has always been a stable and relatively welcoming environment for U.S. forces and their families." Not so Iraq.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said it "could be many years" before the U.S. leaves Iraq. "But the key is not troop presence. The key is troop casualties." He said that while U.S. troops have been in Korea for more than 50 years, "No one minds because they're not in combat, they're not being killed."


I don't know if this topic has been addressed before here on WAB, I'm sure it has.

This article has a very valid point. In most instances, with the exception of Vietnam since WW2, American forces have stayed. I think we are in for the long haul. Permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganisthan. Will the new government in 2009 do otherwise?

The Pentagon is implementing a large force structure re-organization world wide. In particular, many of the old WW2 European bases have been closing or are being down sized dramatically because both the region is secure and there remains limited practicality to keeping them there with the exception of logistics. The new zone or hot spot is the Middle East. Therefore, bases have been moved closer or into the region itself. From my observations, the Pentagon seems to have taken good chunks of advice from Thomas Barnett on the direction the Pentagon needs to go.

I finally got a link to this map that I've mentioned before.

PNM Map

TheChosenOne

I would like to hear some opinion on this.

Does anyone believe that the middle east may become the new "Europe" so to speak?

Will permanent bases be built here?

From my observations on the construction and continous upgrades from base to base, we are here for the long haul.

Ironduke

With the end of the Cold War, the US has been gradually repositioning strategic assets further east within Europe itself (Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria).

We are in Qatar, Kuwait, and Djibouti to stay... I don't have the background to provide qualified commentary, but I forsee a lasting US presence in Iraq, as part of a ongoing, broader repositioning of forces from the peripherals of the Old World (Western Europe and Eastern Asia [somewhat]) to the center (Middle East and Central Asia).

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

TheChosenOne

How do you think the 2008 elections will impact our new strategic position being implemented in the ME? In particular if a Democratic candidate wins office.

I forsee this only possibly affecting Iraq and Iraq only. Withdrawing troops and possibly re-deploying a size able number to Afganistan. If the new President should choose not to withdrawl from Iraq, the bases will be essentially completed for permanent residence. The bigger bases are in effect, completed but many of the smaller bases have some work left on them. I know the Democratic candidate will use the withdrawl of American troops as one of his/her main theme but my feel is that if elected, that person will know and understand the consequences of pulling out.

Ironduke

I also believe that Democratic candidates will use withdrawal as a platform, and perhaps try to speed up a policy of "Vietnamization". While certain analogies can be made with Vietnam, Iraq is not Vietnam, and a Democrat in office will be forced to adjust to the realities of the situation in the Middle East.

I have not had much time to read the news with my personal life as busy as it's been recently, but I spoke with dalem at some length today about the situation in Iraq concerning the "surge".

I have to say I was quite ignorant that the "surge" was being targeted almost exclusively at Baghdad... I had spoken to a certain British Army captain and he had said coalition strategy from the outset of the war should have been one of high concentration, highly solidifying gains in Iraq while providing security instead of making a grab for the capital right way.

Hindsight is 20/20, and I'm certainly an armchair general when I say this, but listening to him, I formulated a conclusion that we ought to tightly seal the border with Iran with perhaps a division, with a more fluid defense on the Syrian border, and tightly secure Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk or Mosul with two divisions apiece in addition to what we have on the ground at the moment, retrenching in some areas back to the major population centers, and in the course of a year move out concentrically and solidly secure the rest of the country in conjunction with Iraqi forces recruited and trained in environments of utmost security.

If we can provide security in the major population centers of Iraq, it will be a credit to us and a discredit to Sunnis and Shi'ite militias, insurgents, and terrorists in areas we would temporarily pull back from. If they could see the security we're capable of providing in the population centers containing the majority of the Iraqi population, I believe the Iraqi people would come around to us.

This is armchair generalship and nothing more... I have my ideas, but I'm not qualified to provide strategies by any means.

I've drew a map a few days ago... it's rough, but it may serve to get my idea across. In retrospect, a division may be a bit much for the Syrian border. Make sure that everybody within 200 miles of both sides of the border south of the secure part of Kurdistan that any unauthorized movements across the border will be bombed indiscriminately. When I speak of divisions, I mean numerical strength (15,000 troops), and not actual divisions per say.

Attached Images

iraqmap.JPG (47.3 KB, 15 views)

GVChamp

Depends on which Democrat is elected. Hillary is the most hawkish of the bunch, and Obama wants a phased redeployment, IIRC. A few of the Dems want an immediate withdrawal, and a few more favor abandoning most of the country.
Overall ME policy, IMO: Hillary would carry on a policy that would be a lot more aggressive than her husband. I'm thinking Obama would be a lot more concilatory, but by no means would he just let down the defenses and let the enemy steamroll us.

__________________
"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck