US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years'

[sabra]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wirq12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/12/ixnews.html

US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years'

America plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports.

The revelation came as George W Bush summoned his top political, military and intelligence aides to a summit on Iraq's future today at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

...

Military planners have begun to assess the costs of keeping a 50,000-man force in Iraq for a protracted period of time. At present the total number of serving American troops is about 500,000.

The plan has not yet received presidential approval. But it would fit with the administration's belief that while troops numbers will fall, American forces will have to remain in Iraq beyond Mr Bush's departure from the White House in early 2009.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I heard Rumsfeld say in 03

that we'd be there for months, probably, but years, never. Wonder how many others remember this lie.

[Johng333]

3. Were are still in Japan and Germany, how long has WWII been over?

Clinton pulled out of Somolia at the first sign of trouble and the results were a disaster. The Islamic militants siezed on that as a victory and a sign of US weakness and a willingness to run away.


Leaving early would be a mistake. The issue is not supporting Bush, but doing what is right based on now, not hindsight.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. My point was that they lied going in

they knew this, they planned on it, but they assured the American people that it would be a quick "in and out", as it were.

[Kolesar]

5. We are well past "early", honey bunch

This far into the debaucle in Vietnam, public opinion had already turned against the war.

[countingbluecars]

6. Can't erase the fact

that this is a war based on lies.

[daleo]

30. Yes, things were awful under Clinton

All that peace and prosperity was disgraceful. It's much better have multiple wars going on, torture by the U.S. military, etc.

[Canuckistanian]

40. Oh no, not the "Pottery Barn" rule again

Because if the rule is in effect, I don't see many things being fixed OR paid for.

[StevieM]

47. John, there are two major flaws in your argument

First, the GOP description of Somalia is a jarring rewrite of history. Clinton didn't say "oh no, we have to leave" when those marines were killed. What actually happened was that the GOP in congress--along with many Democrats, to be fair--started shouting that we had no national interest there. Clinton ha to fight like hell to keep us in for several more months, rather then immediately withdraw. The votes were there to override his veto if he didn't give some exit date. The congress cut off funding in the appropriations bills. Clinton was forced out of Somalia. There are legitimate criticisms of Clinton--but this isn't one of them.

The second flaw is that the issue with Germany and Japan isn't that troops are stationed there. This isn't about foreign deployments or "imperialism." We have troops in those countries because they are amongst the nations on Earth with whom we have a military alliance. But the governments wouldn't fall if we left, we play no role in securing their countries and we aren't fighting wars there. We are keeping troops in Iraq to fight a war. Which isn't automatically wrong, but it certainly is a different situation then our presence in Iraq and Germany. Even Bosnia wouldn't be a great comparison, because there is a permanent peace agreement between the warring parties, one that was based on recognizing the needs of all the groups, rather then picking the ones we like and telling them that they rule over the others. (Although I deeply regret that in Croatia and Kosovo war crimes against the Serbs went unpunished).

In Iraq we are set up a state that was exclusively to the benefit of the Kurds and Shia. The Sunnis don't get their share of the oil wealth. They have been fired from many jobs (gov't administrators, college professors) in the name of "de-bathification," even if they belonged to the party only nominally. Shiites bathists have found ways around the purge. And, for the record, most Bathists actually were Shiite (although Saddams entourage at the top was Sunni). And I don't think all Bathists should be judged by Saddam. The Bath Party, by definition, is a pan-Arab nationalist party.

Then again, I find the whole debate to be silly. We didn't go in for WMDs. If we were going to do that, we would have attacked Syria. But when a country has ultra-dangerous weapons, they tend to be immune from attack. Bush might have thought that we'd find modest quantities of chemical weapons, but I doubt he expected much. And I don't believe we went in for oil, other then because Iraq's oil reserves make it a potential military power in the future (at the time we invaded, Iraq's military power was pathetic, and we knew it).

We went to war for Israel. So we could take out a possible FUTURE military threat. Well, I'm tired of fighting for Israel. They don't behave ethically, and many of their "defense acts" are nothing more then terrorism. I don't want American soldiers dying to enhance Israels ability to maintain settlements deep in Palestinian territory. American men and women--as well as Iraqis--have been killed, with the main beneficiaries being mostly Russian and American settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Israel has 78% of historic Palestine, which they won through deplorable methods IMO. That should be enough. The settlers need to go, the illegal occupation needs to end. Then again, Israel would continue to dominate to Palestinians, and there resources, in every way, so it might not matter. The settlers are somewhat of a means to an end for Israel.

For the record, I'm not a "super-dove" or a peace-nik. I do believe there are times for war, and I would support the president if he invaded Iran. I would also support a defensive war of Taiwan. But I won't support a war that is designed to advance Israel's interests, because I don't support their interests.

I am not an anti-semite, I'm Jewish, and I'm not a "self-hating Jew." Israel doesn't represent me, and there actions are not in my name. And I am also not "backing downto Islamists." I'm all for taking them on. But the Palestinian cause if a national one, not a religious one, and the Palestinians aren't exactly the most devout of Muslims. The PLO/Arafat dream was always for a secular state. Admittedly, the country has become more religious as of late. Israel took everything else away from them besides their religion, so Islam was all they had left. Funny, but now that I think about it.....Israel's enemies have always been the secular groups, now haven't they? Saddam, Syria, Nasser in Egypt, the PLO. Israel doesn't fear radical Islam--they savor it. The radical Muslims can't fight for shit. You think Israel knows this? Well....it was Israel that created Hamas as an alternative to the PLO.

Steve

[Ghost Dog]

49. That's an interesting description of the overall picture,

and largely accurate, IMO, StevieM.

But, why would you at this stage "support the president if he invaded Iran"?

Even now, Iran appears, as has been the case historically, to be much more interested in defending itself and its independence, and getting on with economic and social development, than in threatening any neighbors. Although of course a more left-leaning secular and/or moderate-islamic state would be preferable to the present situation, it seems to me nevertheless that, left to its own devices, the Iranian Revolution would tend to continue to humanise and democratise itself, in its own way, over time.

Why push Iranian society into the arms of the extremists?

[StevieM]

59. Here's my feelings about Iran

First, I think that if we went in, we wouldn't have to stay long. The people there have indicated that they are ready for democracy, the roots have been built internally. They would fight for the elected government and probably could defend it. Their seems to be a much greater sense of Iranian national identity amongst the different ethnic groups (except maybe the Kurds).

Second, I think they would love to see the mullas and ayathollas toppled. They really seem to hate living in an Islamic Republic. In their hearts, the people are secular. And at the popular level Iran is one of the most pro-American nations on Earth. Even Bush has support there. If Hillary Clinton was put on the ballot to run against Ahmenjad, I actually think she would win a one-on-one race, quite decisively.

I also take nuclear weapons much more seriously then any other kind of so-called WMD. Nothing is as dangerous as a nuclear arsenal. We knew that Saddam didn't have a nuclear bomb, and wasn't going to get one--it's not so easy, especially when your country is collapsing, your military is a joke and you're totally isolated from the world by UN sanctions.

I don't think I'd like to see the Khomeini regime with a nuke. Even if they didn't use it, just having it would enable them to get away with a whole lot, including giving a whole lot of support to terror groups. Don't forget that these are the people that blew up the Khobar Towers. Now, I think that the problem would be largely solved if Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). But since they won't, I still don't want bombs going off all around the world. And that's assuming that some nut in Iran doesn't go nuclear--not a completely implausible scenario. I haven't forgotten Khomeini.

Steve

[Ghost Dog]

61. Yes, I (finally) read you (service only available to those who pay).

Sensible, sensitive remarks. I will in future pay attention to what you have to say (administrators permitting - I wanted to send this by private mail but it seems they say, now: or you pay or no way) :hi: my email address is: apb(ampersand.ñospam).swissmail.org

"Here's my feelings about Iran

"First, I think that if we went in, we wouldn't have to stay long. The people there have indicated that they are ready for democracy, the roots have been built internally. They would fight for the elected government and probably could defend it. Their seems to be a much greater sense of Iranian national identity amongst the different ethnic groups (except maybe the Kurds).

"Second, I think they would love to see the mullas and ayathollas toppled. They really seem to hate living in an Islamic Republic. In their hearts, the people are secular. And at the popular level Iran is one of the most pro-American nations on Earth. Even Bush has support there. If Hillary Clinton was put on the ballot to run against Ahmenjad, I actually think she would win a one-on-one race, quite decisively.

"I also take nuclear weapons much more seriously then any other kind of so-called WMD. Nothing is as dangerous as a nuclear arsenal. We knew that Saddam didn't have a nuclear bomb, and wasn't going to get one--it's not so easy, especially when your country is collapsing, your military is a joke and you're totally isolated from the world by UN sanctions.

"I don't think I'd like to see the Khomeini regime with a nuke. Even if they didn't use it, just having it would enable them to get away with a whole lot, including giving a whole lot of support to terror groups. Don't forget that these are the people that blew up the Khobar Towers. Now, I think that the problem would be largely solved if Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). But since they won't, I still don't want bombs going off all around the world. And that's assuming that some nut in Iran doesn't go nuclear--not a completely implausible scenario. I haven't forgotten Khomeini.

Steve"

[llmart]

51. Most DU'ers who even remotely say anything against Israel.....

are chastised by the moderators. But I guess because you used the disclaimer "I am a Jew" it's OK to take the Palestinians side. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of why we're in Iraq. The US needs to stop fighting wars for Israel.

[katty]

63. yup, the U.S. government is the Zionist/Mossad servile bitch

[Ghost Dog]

66. (self-censored)

Hiyya, katty.

Shalom. Intelligence. Peac<e.

[rooboy]

50. You're still in Japan, German, and about EIGHTY other countries.

stop pretending that you're some sort of stabilization force.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

62. Hello and welcome to DU

Not sure how long you'll be here though........

[draft]

2. they knew that goin in...

good thing they got bush for cover, eh?

[Johng333]

7. things change in war

Whatever the expectations going in it would be silly to say there was no chance anything could change. The estimate is agressive, but we do have to react to situations as they occur.


The links to Saddam and terrorism have been conclusively proven and date back to 1993. The only thing not proven was a link to Saddam and 9/11, but that has not been disproven either.


Saddam attempted the assasination of two U.S. presidents, he shot at US / UN troops and planes in the no fly zone, he broke UN sanctions, in 1995 he was caught having lied to UN weapons inspectors and chemical and biological weapons were found, he declared war on the U.S., he allowed Zarqawi into Iraq from where Zarqawi carried out the assination of a US diplomat in Jordan, he was commiting murder on a daily basis, he did not adhere to the agreement of the cease fire post Gulf War , the 9.11 commision found that Saddam was determined to resume a program of WMDs as soon as possible.


All of these can be considered acts of war and meet the requirements of UN resolution 1441

[Thickasabrick]

10. You've obviously been watching Fox News too much.

[countingbluecars]

11. Mission Accomplished?

[Johng333]

14. Dont watch Fox - Mission of defeating Saddam is over - now next

is mission to leave Iraq in control of their country with a freely elected government.

I do read the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post, Time, News Week. I watch BBC, CNN, and others. I also read al Jazera from time to time.

[countingbluecars]

23. I have read your posts,

and I have no doubt you are well read and pro-war.

[Johng333]

26. Not pro war - anti war

Thank you for the compliment on being well read. I do try. I am stead fastly anti-war. Ghandi and Martin Luther King had a better idea.

We are in a war currently, which I can not deny or ignore. Based on where we are at this point in time is important to what we do next.

What happened to get us to this point is important to how I vote next.

[saigon68]

55. Enjoy your stay

It will be brief

OOPS --- BYE BYE ---SEE YA

[NYC]

48. I thought the mission was finding WMD.

What happened to that?

[Sydnie]

18. Show me the proof of this statement of yours

"The links to Saddam and terrorism have been conclusively proven and date back to 1993. The only thing not proven was a link to Saddam and 9/11, but that has not been disproven either."

I'll wait.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thickasabrick]

31. Interesting you should include Christopher Dickey .......

He also wrote a fascinating article about how the US created Saddam.....he was OUR guy.

His article was supported by the late Colonel Hackworth in an article "No more made in the US monsters".

I'll be happy to link them if you'd like.

[Johng333]

36. Have read, but not related to the point

It is good you are familar with Dickey. In the article I quote he closes with the statement that he thinks a war in Iraq would be a mistake.

The article is not pro Iraq war, it is pro-truth.

Knowing that Saddam has links to terror is not to justify Iraq, it is to understand Iraq to make better informed decisions and to make more informed replies to the rhethorice we so often hear.

[Sydnie]

37. Started with this report you provided

"Link to the 230 page report prepared for the Pentagon and recently declassifed. Outlines Saddams links to terrorists, and his plans to use Iraqi trained terrorists against the US

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/iraq/ipp.pdf"


The word "terrorist" appears in that just twice. Once, to describe the attacks on 9/11 and once to describe the "commando/terrorist" training that Saddam was giving to his army and to "volunteers from other countries". Even the writers of that report don't out and out call it "terrorist training" but rather describe it as training of Iraq's own defense capabilities.

That hardly "outlines Saddam's link to terrorists" nor " his plans to use Iraqi trained terrorists against the US". It does point out how Saddam would use his own forces to fight back an invasion from the US though.

If you see something different in that report, then by all means, point me to a page and a paragraph to support your initial claim.

[Johng333]

39. You read a 230 page report in a few minutes ? WOW!

Getting late but I can cut some excerpts out for you. That was an amazingly fast read of a very complex and detailed document. Your speed may have caused you to overlook the points in question.

key sections discuss training camps operated by the Fedayeen Saddam. The camps, which were started in 1994, trained some 7,200 Iraqis in the art of terrorism in the first year alone. "Beginning in 1998," according to the full report, "these camps began hosting 'Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, the Gulf, and Syria."

[Sydnie]

42. that is exactly the sentence in which the word "terrorist" appears

for the second time. Only mentioned twice in the entire report, once about 9/11 and once in the sentence you cited. It does NOT prove that Saddam was involved in terrorist training as implied by your previous post. Had he been so engaged, I am quite sure more of the report would have been dedicated to documenting that effort.

Incidentally, it also states that, while not sure of all participants in said training, most returned to their home countries. How is that really different than, say, the US and the UK engaging in some joint training were we so inclined to do so at any point in time?

[Sydnie]

43. Buh Bye Johng333

:rofl:

[saigon68]

56. adios

[puerco-bellies]

22. He shot at planes over his own airspace.

There has never been any alliance between Iraq and radical Islam. Saddam has always been a threat too, and threaten by Islamic terrorism. Have another Kool-Aid clown.

[daleo]

32. Where were his weapons of mass destruction?

That's what the war was supposed to about.

[llmart]

52. I see you've bought into the propaganda.......

hook, line and sinker.

[pokercat999]

53. But why war?

Why not just take out Saddam and his sons? Why kill so many innocents? Why destroy so much of EVERYTHING?

Try this, Saddam was the mean drunk in your favorite bar. He's bullying everyone and punches a couple of customers. The bar owner finally has enough and calls the cops. Do the cops come in and shoot everyone and wreck the bar? Hell no, they arrest the mean drunk, maybe break his nose in the process, and haul him off to jail. The bar and the remaining customers are left in peace with an interesting story that dies out after a couple of weeks......same thing here. Only our "arrest" would be the assignation of Saddam and sons.

No, Bush co wanted this war, they wanted to rape Iraq, steal the oil and have a base in the middle east to do the same to anyone that wouldn't "play ball" and let them have their oil. The only problem, their egos are bigger than the whole outdoors and they never thought they could be beaten. Well guess what these fucking criminals have been beaten and they are finally revealed for what they actually are.....the mean drunks at the bar, it's time to call the cops.

[niallmac]

8. Iraq is not Japan or Germany.

Iraq is a Muslim country on the northern border of the country that is home to the Holy Kabba, to Mecca.
our military presence in this part of the world is an offense to those who do not wish our
Christian military near their homeland.
Our presence in Iraq will generate and endless cycle
of revenge and suicide missions to get us out of there.
Our presence will ALWAYS be de stabilizing.
We are supreme ethnocentric ass hats to think otherwise.

[Johng333]

12. Iraq is not Vietnam , but that does not evoke a response

It was a loose comparison not a direct comparison. If you believe that no one in Japan harbours resentment against the U.S. you are fooling yourself.


The key point is that we can not leave Iraq until it is stabalized. Clinton ran from Somolia and it was a disaster.

Moderate Muslims do not hate Christians, that is a falsehood. The Koran even recognizes Jesus, as a prophet or wiseman, but not as the son of God.


What is resented is not our religion, but the feeling that the US is forcing its will on them. Currently 65% of Iraq is directly under the control of Iraqi police and Iraqi army and they will be at 75% no later than the end of the year. Iraq has a freely elected government. There is hope that the majority of the US troops will be home in 18 months.

Currently, the Prime Minister, a Shite who is extremely well like and respected by the Shite majority, has good relations with the Kurds, and is accepted by the Sunni, has asked that a US force remain until the country is more stable.

Iraqis cheered at the death of Zarqaqwi, Jordanians cheered at the death of Zarqawi. Things may be looking up in Iraq.

[niallmac]

15. Oh I guess your right.

Who in the world won't come around to just lovin us Amereekis? Yeah, we just stay there and things will
calm down and they will start to act like our own founding fathers.
Moderate Muslims may not mind us but I bet the moderates are the ones whos wedding
parties we haven't bombed.
Don't fool yourself either my friend about the radicals. They are part of the
family whether you like it or not and just like the crazed christian right is not
the majority in this country they sure do have a way with gaining political influence don't you think?

The radical minority in Saudi Arabia blew up my work associate.
The radical minority in Saudi Arabia killed my boss.

Lets leave it here. We agree to watch what happens. I believe what I believe about our
presence there and you believe what you believe.
Lets agree we both wish for peace and understanding in that nation.

I just want $50 if your wrong. :-)

[Johng333]

28. Deal, will you accept coupons in lieu of money?

I agree that forcing a US type of government is not something that Iraqis or any other middle eastern country wants.

I agree that having a force that controls the country is not what is wanted.


I agree that Saudi Arabi has way too many terrorists, and that the word allie is a very loose term to use with them.


I am sorry for your the loss of your friends and coworkers.


I want to see the US out of Iraq, but at the right time and for the right reason. Leaving now would do more damage than good. The timing will be precarious. The situation is not easy. I wish not only the best for our troops but the innocent civilians in Iraq.

[daleo]

34. So, how does the presence of U.S. troops for decades help this?

"What is resented is not our religion, but the feeling that the US is forcing its will on them."

[Johng333]

38. Never connected the two

Personally I would love to see US troops leave in 18 months. I think that is feasible. Decades does not seem feasible to me.

That is just my opinion.

[daleo]

41. The original post said 50,000 U.S. troops, for 10 or 20 years

The only way I can see U.S. troops out in 18 months is:
- a huge military disaster (like the French in Viet Nam).
- a huge political disaster (similar to Kent State and the end of Viet Nam war or the U.S.S.R invasion of Afghanistan).
- troops moved to another, more critical war zone (e.g. an invasion of Iran).

[pokercat999]

54. LOL, you're so funny. Let me refill your kool-aid. nt

[Thickasabrick]

9. Well.....contrary to what Dubya wanted (puppet), the Shiites

rule. I do not think this will sit well with the majority if they ever get their shit together. I don't think Iran really wants the US as a neighbor either. If the US can transform itself into "heroes" in the eyes of the majority, it might happen. Currently, the majority just want us out (or dead).

[Johng333]

13. Shites are the majority

The Kurds recently changed their position and have very publicy supported the majority Shite government and feel that they can work within the framework provided.

The Sunni who had stayed away from the polls and rejected the government in favor of a seperate rule for Sunni, Shite, Kurd have also changed position and have come out to vote in large numbers and have taken many offices.

Irans fear is not of a "U.S." neighbor, but that a peaceful Iraq will make the US look good in the Muslim world. That is their fear.

Iran would also favor a more non-secular government, but Iraqis voted no to Sharia law and included clauses to protect womens rights.


Bush never wanted a puppet state. He specifically said he wanted a free Iraq, and Iraq has a freely elected government. You can hate the man for many things, but Iraq has a freely elected government.

[Sydnie]

16. Freely elected?

Prove that. I don't believe that for one minute. We spent money there, illegally, in support of certain candidates and that is a fact. We manipulated that election and when we didn't like their selections, we forced them back to the table to select again.


If he didn't want a puppet state, why the need for the "palace" embassy and the permanent bases? Why all the talk about spreading democracy (which to blivet** is not democracy but corporatism and capitalism in favor of the "Owners") to "it's neighbors"?

Damn, I want some of what you are smoking because it sure would help me to sleep better at night if I could believe the stuff you do ... but I can't.
blivet** wanted to "one up" his poppa while getting "revenge for trying to kill his daddy" at the same time. The fact that his friends could get rich at the same time was just icing on the cake.

Have you even READ PNAC? Here's a link, just in case ... www.newamericancentury.org/

See how well you sleep after reading that. :shrug:

[Thickasabrick]

19. Well said!!! I was too stunned to respond to that last post.

We might actually have one of the 29% who still support Bush among us!

[Johng333]

29. Read PNAC, heard theory of a "pearl harbor event", good points

Not believing and knowing something to be false are quite different. The current Shite president is far from what the US would want as hand picked.


The Iraqi constitution is not a democracy, but has a democratic process, quite different. It is not the model of Jeffersonian democracy. Iraq is a majority Muslim country. Islam is included as part of the constitution, certain something that proves the free will. At the same time Sharia is not part of the constitution, something that shows how far they are from an Iran like state.


Iraq is not some wonderful story book land that is a show case. It is not IRAQ - Ameria Extreme Country Makeover! It is free of Saddam. It has a government elected by the people. There are signs of progress.

I try to be a realist focused on what is now, with an opptomistic hope for the future. I am not sure how I offended you, but I apologize, it was unintentional.


I may just take some getting used to. Hope you will give me the chance. I enjoy the free exchange of ideas and information.

[Thickasabrick]

20. Here's another link that might clear things up for you:

(snip)

The General arrived in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don’t unpack, Jack — you’re fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner’s job was to keep the peace and, to use the President’s words, “Open Iraq’s arms to democracy.”
Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. “Peace” and “Democracy” were the slogans.

“My preference,” Garner told me in his understated manner, “was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections.”
But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we’d just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off “all state assets” — and Iraq, that’s just about everything — “especially,” said The Plan, “the oil and supporting industries.” Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq’s banks, and weirdly, changing it’s copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation’s assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements — copyright and tax code changes — was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s associate Grover Norquist.)

Entire article here:

<http://www.gregpalast.com/unreported-the-zarqawi-invitation>

[badgervan]

24. Too Many Lies

We were lied into a war in Iraq. Many laws were broken, and continue to be broken ( 750 "signing statements", condoned torture, FISA law disregarded, etc. ) by this gang in our White House. We are an occupying force in a foreign country, and the majority definitely do NOT want us there any longer. 50,000 or 5,000 troops - it does not matter - the Iraqi people, the vast majority, want us out. As do the majority of the American people.
Bush will be impeached for his many Constitutional crimes; of this I have no doubt. No one is above the law, and he has broken so many of them that prosecutors actually have a broad choice to pick from.
You can't make up the rules and disregard settled law as you go along, even if you are the president. The American people have about had it with this crew, and will speak forcefully beginning in November. People like yourself, who try to justify the criminal behavior of our government, make me very depressed and ashamed. Open your eyes - blood for oil is wrong, sir. And if you think that bush/cheney invaded Iraq to "bring them democracy", and not for a permanent presence for the oil and for military reasons - then I suggest that you read the history of the middle eastern region that we would plunk ourselves down in.

[EVDebs]

17. McCain and rest of Repubs want US troops there for '10, 20 years'

Sen John McCain:

""When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said...""

http://spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/09_04.html

[Golden Raisin]

21. I thought from Day 1 that this was all about

our establishing a permanent military base in SouthWest Asia to supervise/guard, and be in close proximity to "our" oil. A base from which to strike back at the Saudi's, (or any other Emirate or Sheikhdom) should they ever decide to get "uppity". Close enough to Russia's southern border too should we ever need to attack them. Our continued presence there, on the doorstep of the birthplace of Islam, will be like stirring up a hornet's nest with a stick. The region hated us before this War and Occupation. Its only going to get worse.

[LouisianaLiberal]

46. We had bases in Saudi Arabia for ten years.

One of Bin Laden's demands was that the US remove those bases. We did so not long after September 11. We now have permanent bases, or bases that the Neo-cons want to be permanent, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're right - its about having a controlling and dominating presence, and about fulfilling the quest for complete privatization.

My memory about the timetable may be faulty here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[agincourt]

27. Permanent boots on the ground where the oil is,

Though I would have never dreamed it was to make the price of oil higher rather than cheaper. The plan was in place long before September 11, 2001. Gee I'm sure people will figure it out eventually. Oh and just a note to the happy children, the reason elections occured in Iraq was to prevent an even bigger insurgency from happening, not from any goodness from of any repigs heart. The Al quaida attacked us because Klintoon pulled out of Somalia can also be smoked with Ann Coulter's dick.

[Johng333]

35. I think you got the wrong idea

al Qaida attacked the U.S. before Somolia. I am sorry but Somolia was a failure.

The US had committed 25,000 troops to a peace keeping only mission in Dec of 1992. By Jan of 1993 that mission was a success and as many as 4 million people were saved.

Then all but a token force was withdrawn from Somolia while the mission changed dramaticaly to one that is very similar to the mission in Iraq today.

Several mistakes were made. One of the biggest was the denying several requests for armour. Clinton said " I dont want to see US tanks rolling through a civilian neighborhood on CNN". At the time that seemed a sage call from a public relations stand point. It was a critical failure that was acknowleded and Clintons Sect of Defense resigned over that failure.


Another key failure was that ex-Pres Carter was being used to negotiate with the biggest Somolian warlord for his peaceful exit from Somolia. Clinton never informed the military command in Somolia and they launched the attack known to most as "Black Hawk Down".


The US negotiating while attacking was a critical mistake as was not informing the military of the negotiations. This caused irreprable harm to the view of the US and possible diplomatic negotiations amongst Islmaic countries.

The loss of two black hawk helicopters and 18 US service men followed by the immediate with draw of US troops sent a few bad messages
- US and their technology can be beaten
- kill a US soldier and put it on TV and the US will run
- beat the US with public opinion easier than with bullits


I hated listening to idiot GOP ranting about Clinton for 8 years. Turned my stomach. That does not mean the man was perfect. Compare a bj in office to illegal NSA wire taps, utter failure of Katrina, failure to plan for insurgency or have an exit plan in Iraq for Bush.


The ability to know the good and bad of a candidate trancends party lines. I am American first. I try to know what candidates do well and what they do badly. Party alone does not define a candidate, actions do.


I behoves us to know our weaknesses better than are opponents do. Denial is not a strategy or a strength.

[suston96]

33. At present the total number of serving American troops is about 500,000.

That's in the linked article. Where does that number come from?

[cliss]

44. I was wondering about that also.

I've read that the US has about 1.2 or 1.3 million troops on active duty, serving around the world.

Has something changed?

[Ghost Dog]

57. Mmm. I think that number includes reservists?

This site usually has pretty accurate information (and attitude):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

"As of January 2005, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan unless bases at those locations are actively supporting a combat operation. Furthermore, tours of duty in these locations are routine and not considered hardship tours. If one were to include these forces the number of deployed troops worldwide would be around 350,000."

...So maybe if you include those on duty at home you'd get a number on the order of 500,000? I'm not sure if these numbers include National Guard, which I understand is planned to be fully-incorporated into standard DoD status very soon.

...There would then be another 750,000 or so trained reservists (if not already deployed)?

[Amonester]

45. So is that where the money for a Public Health Care program...

for Everybody in the USA will be wasted for the next 20 years?

Bring the Boys 'n Girls Back Home.

[teryang]

58. Beyond absurdity

We will continue to hemmorhage every day till we leave. The totalitarian news model. We will reduce to 50,000 but first we have to increase over 150,000.

We say it is so, so it is so.

The corruption of professional officers like Pace and Hayden is extraodinarily disappointing. Are they living in lalaland or just betraying the Constitution?

[Tight_rope]

60. I'm not surprised...Thought that was the game plan from day 1....n/t

[bigdarryl]

64. Troops in iraq for years

This is to pretect the oil in Iraq plain and simple. I'am curious as how the Iraqi people will fell that a Arab nation is going to be occupied for years by american troops. 50,000 troops will continue to be picked off because the people of Iraq(especially Sunni's)will be upset.

[54anickel]

65. The bill they passed today deletes the prohibition on permanent bases

From Friday:

Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-09T205941Z_01_N09199214_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CONGRESS-FUNDING.xml

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.

The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law.

As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq.

A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration has said it does not want to place any artificial timelines on a U.S. presence in Iraq and that it wants to begin withdrawing troops when Iraqi security forces are better able to protect the country. But it has not ruled out permanent bases in Iraq.

While the Pentagon does not necessarily plan to use any of the emergency funds to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, congressional Democrats wanted Congress to be on record against such a long-term military arrangement.

more...



And today:
US House passes $94.5 billion for wars, hurricanes
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13418490.htm

WASHINGTON, June 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved $94.5 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue rebuilding southern states hit by hurricanes last year.

The House voted 351-67 for the "emergency" bill on the same day President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and U.S. troops.

The Senate is expected to vote on the measure by Wednesday and then send it to Bush to sign into law.

The legislation provides $65.8 billion that the Pentagon says it urgently needs to buy more combat materials for soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

snip>

In addition to approving the war bridge fund, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to make the point that it does not want permanent military bases in Iraq, adding an amendment to bar funding for them. Similar language was stripped in final negotiations with the Senate on the emergency spending bill.

The Bush administration has not ruled out establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq.

more...