1
   

The US presence in Iraq, how long?

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2003 03:28 pm
We are hearing the cries of Yankee go home emanating from Iraq.
How long do you believe it will be before there will be enough stability in Iraq to allow that to happen?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,571 • Replies: 136
No top replies

 
Charli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2003 09:15 pm
Will the U.S. have a choice?
Will the U.S. have a choice about how long to stay in Iraq? That is, unless they do so by force. Would the Iraquis put up with being a captive nation? Thousands of Iraquis want the U.S. out of their country now. And already they are heading toward a fundamentalist Islamic government. The mullahs have begun the process. Kind of hard to stay where one is not wanted ... isn't it? (Therefore, I didn't "vote" in the poll.)[/color]
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 06:45 am
If the US were to pull out now or before a stable government is up and running. There will be a repeat of the Balkans. Civil war would be inevitable and anarchy will reign. Regardless of the pressures the US cannot pull out and leave the Iraqi's to their own devices. If they did the entire operation to remove Saddam would have been a failure and his regime IMO would have been the better choice.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 07:33 am
Yeah, Au -- they are children and have to be lead around!!!

If we truly were interested in democracy (I don't think we really are) we'd leave and let them work democracy out for themselves.

If we impose it, we create a contradiction in terms.

If we facilitate it, we're hypocrites.

In any case, your question was: The U.S. presence in Iraq, how long?

My response:

No more than 40 years in any case.

That is when their oil reserves are expected to be depleted.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 07:47 am
Frank
What is your assessment of what would follow if we were to leave the now? Or at least before a viable civil government and structure is in place?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 08:07 am
just to complicate the issues it appears that, at least in Bagdad the local politicos are creating their own governments ignoring what the coalition forces are doing. Not unlike Afghanistan where the US manufatured government appears to only exist in Kabul with the remainder of the nation in the hands of the tribal leaders. What the coalition may indeed create is a paper government that can negotiate contracts as we dictate alongside a populist government actually running the country. confused? i know i am. in addition we have the additional intention:
Quote:
WASHINGTON, April 19 ?- The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 08:33 am
Iraq unlike Afghanistan has a secular fairly well educated population who are quite capable of establishing a representative government. The fly in the ointment is the diversity of the population and century old feuds and hatreds. The best thing the US can and in my opinion should do is to aid not direct in the establishment of said government and act as a buffer between the divergent forces. If that does not happen civil strife is sure to follow. The Iraqi's will not allow the US to setup a puppet government nor can they avoid civil war without it's support.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 08:44 am
"Soon after the British captured Baghdad in 1917, the civil commissioner, Captain Arnold Wilson, wrote a plaintive note to London, arguing that the new state being created out of three former Turkish provinces could only be "the antithesis of democratic government". This was because the Shia majority rejected domination by the Sunni minority, but "no form of government has been envisaged which does not involve Sunni domination". The Kurds in the north, Wilson prophetically pointed out, "will never accept Arab rule"." from: http://www.zmag.org/
0 Replies
 
Charli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 08:54 am
LINK TO DYLEXIA'S QUOTE?
dyslexia - Could you please give a link to or source of your quote? Interesting! Thank you. :-) Charli
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 08:57 am
um seems that 60% of Iraq is Shia, not matter how you cut it that means a majority that leans strongly towards a theocracy of fundamental islam. Unless, of course, we are not actually looking for democratic elections.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 09:09 am
dyslexia

The fact that they are Shia does not mean that they lean towards a theocracy. Generally from what I understand most people in Iraq are of a secular persuasion.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 09:13 am
au1929 wrote:
Frank
What is your assessment of what would follow if we were to leave the now? Or at least before a viable civil government and structure is in place?


A truly "democratic" government --which would probably be a monster as bad as the one run by Saddam Hussein.

But "a democratic government" is what we said we want.

If we meant "a government of our choosing or chosen under pressures we exert" we should have said so.

But that would have involved telling the truth -- something the powers that be in this country have trouble doing.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 09:34 am
Frank
You want truth and honesty? Where in this world does one find that. Every government lies or at least colors the truth. In fact everyone does. Truth is in the eye ofd the beholder.
Let's face it, there is your truth, my truth and the truth of everyone on the a2k.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:10 am
Re: LINK TO DYLEXIA'S QUOTE?
Charli wrote:
dyslexia - Could you please give a link to or source of your quote? Interesting! Thank you. :-) Charli


Here is the full article form the NY Times

Quote:

April 20, 2003
Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, April 19 ?- The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

The military is already using these bases to support operations against the remnants of the old government, to deliver supplies and relief aid and for reconnaissance patrols. But as the invasion force withdraws in the months ahead and turns over control to a new Iraqi government, Pentagon officials expect to gain access to the bases in the event of some future crisis.

Whether that can be arranged depends on relations between Washington and whoever takes control in Baghdad. If the ties are close enough, the military relationship could become one of the most striking developments in a strategic revolution now playing out across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.

A military foothold in Iraq would be felt across the border in Syria, and, in combination with the continuing United States presence in Afghanistan, it would virtually surround Iran with a new web of American influence.

"There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan," said one senior administration official. "The scope of that has yet to be defined ?- whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access."

These goals do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq, officials say. The United States is acutely aware that the growing American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of empire-building and may create new targets for terrorists.

So without fanfare, the Pentagon has also begun to shrink its military footprint in the region, trying to ease domestic strains in Turkey and Jordan.

In a particularly important development, officials said the United States was likely to reduce American forces in Saudi Arabia, as well. The main reason for that presence, after all, was to protect the Saudi government from the threat Iraq has posed since its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Already, in Turkey, where a newly elected government bowed to domestic pressure and denied the Pentagon access to bases and supply lines for the war with Iraq, the United States has withdrawn nearly all of its 50 attack and support airplanes at the Incirlik air base, from which they flew patrols over Iraq's north for more than a decade.

Turkish officials say a new postwar security arrangement with Washington will emerge.

"These issues will define a new relationship and a new U.S. presence abroad," said Faruk Logoglu, Turkey's ambassador to the United States. "But the need for an American presence in the region will not be diminished."

Regardless of how quickly the Americans reverse the buildup of the last several months, it is plain that since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a concerted diplomatic and military effort to win permission for United States forces to operate from the formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe, across the Mediterranean, throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, and across Central Asia, from the periphery of Russia to Pakistan's ports on the Indian Ocean.

These bases and access agreements have established an expanded American presence, or deepened alliance ties, throughout one of the world's most strategic regions.

"The attacks of Sept. 11 changed more than just the terrorism picture," said one senior administration official. "On Sept. 11, we woke up and found ourselves in Central Asia. We found ourselves in Eastern Europe as never before, as the gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East."

The newest security agreements will come in Iraq. Col. John Dobbins, commander of Tallil Forward Air Base, said the Air Force plan envisioned "probably two bases that will stay in Iraq for an amount of time."

"That amount of time, obviously, is an unknown," he added.

In addition to Tallil, the other base for the Air Force is at Bashur, in the north, Pentagon officials said. The Army now holds the Baghdad airport. The H-1 base in the west has permitted Special Operations forces to move out of their secret bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and set up a forward headquarters.

The establishment of these bases follows the strategy used in Afghanistan, where the American military first seized Forward Operating Base Rhino in the desert south of Kandahar, before moving that headquarters into the city. The American military has its senior headquarters in Afghanistan at Bagram airfield outside Kabul, and it has a number of regional civil affairs offices elsewhere in the nation.

In Afghanistan and in Iraq, the American military will do all it can to minimize the size of its forces, and there will probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops.

Permanent access is all that is required, not permanent basing, officials say.

For the Afghan conflict, the Pentagon negotiated new basing agreements with Pakistan and two former Soviet republics, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. But the arrangements also signaled a long-term commitment to the region and gave the military the ability to deploy forces there quickly.

Although the new bases in Iraq are primarily for mounting comprehensive postwar security operations, senior administration officials make no secret that the American presence at those bases near Syria and Iran and long-term access to them "will make them nervous."

Or as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell put it on Thursday: "We have been successful in Iraq. There is a new dynamic in that part of the world."

Even so, administration officials are quick to echo Mr. Powell's assertions that Washington has "no war plan right now" for Syria and Iran.

"So don't ask if our tanks are going to move right or left out of Iraq," said one senior administration official. "There are a lot of political weapons that can be unleashed to achieve our goals."

Among the pressures to be exerted against Syria will be a campaign to focus the world's attention on a new administration message. "Syria occupies Lebanon," one senior administration official said. "This is the repression of one Arab state by another. Plus there are terror training camps in the Bekaa Valley."

In addition to tamping down public anxiety over possible military action against Syria, or even Iran, officials are quick to assert that these two nations have the most significant vote on whether the United States will ever apply the template of "regime change" in Iraq to them.

"This does not mean, necessarily, that other governments have to fall," one senior administration official said. "They can moderate their behavior."

Administration officials express keen awareness that they must show humility, and not hubris, in the aftermath of their quick victory in Iraq. "We need to be flexible, and modulate our actions according to the political interests of our allies," said one senior administration official.

The senior official predicted that the American military would "modulate our footprint" in Saudi Arabia, which was so concerned about its role in the air war against Iraq that it blocked Pentagon efforts to station correspondents there.

Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who directed the air war from a sophisticated command center outside Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is expected to meet with senior Saudi officials in the next few days to continue discussions about the future of the American military presence there, a senior military official said.

But administration, Pentagon and military officials say it is unlikely that American forces will withdraw completely from the desert kingdom. Military officials are discussing a range of options.

In the Iraq war, American and British warplanes flew from 30 bases in about a dozen countries. In the postwar period, a senior military official said, "We will draw down from those 30 bases, but in a way that will allow us to flex or increase, when we need to."

The roles of many countries in support of the American war effort are coming to light only now.

Two Eastern European countries eager to join NATO quickly offered logistics bases when Turkey blocked the Pentagon's request to base support planes on its soil.

Romania permitted the American military to fly troops, cargo, fuel and vehicles from Europe aboard C-130, C-141 and C-17 transport planes from an air base near the Black Sea port of Constanta. Eight to 10 planes fly missions to Iraq from the base.

About 200 miles to the south, in Burgas, Bulgaria, the authorities opened a training camp and adjacent airfield to 400 Air Force personnel and six KC-10 refueling planes.

Before the war started, 900 Army troops established a training camp for Iraqi exiles at Taszar in Hungary, a new NATO member. The Iraqis were dispatched to serve as guides, interpreters and scouts for American ground troops in Iraq.

In the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon struck a new agreement with Qatar to permit Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the allied commander in the region, to establish his wartime headquarters outside Doha, the capital, and to send many combat aircraft to Al Udeid air base, after the Saudis would not permit missions to be flown from their territory.

Bahrain and especially Kuwait, the staging area for the ground invasion, provided essential bases for the Iraq war. But with Iraq occupied, the Pentagon will review its long-term force and access requirements in the gulf states.

"The subject of a footprint for the United States post-Iraq is something that we're discussing and considering," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week. "But that will take some time to sort through."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:15 am
au1929 wrote:
Frank You want truth and honesty?


Yes, I do.



Quote:
Where in this world does one find that. Every government lies or at least colors the truth. In fact everyone does. Truth is in the eye ofd the beholder.



You really ought to be more careful about the way you use "every" and "everyone" -- or at least identify the stuff you are going to use those words with as guesses.

In any case, I suspect you may be right.

But since this particular administration is making such a big thing of moral values -- and allegience to this god of theirs -- it ought to be held to a higher standard of conduct.

Be that as it may, if we do want democracy over in Iraq -- we really have got to butt out as quickly as possible no matter what the consequences -- something these geniuses should have considered before their ill-advised invasion.

Otherwise we should drop all pretences and impose a government on the Iraqis -- then leave. They will then be able to fight a bloody civil war trying to get that anvil off their neck. My guess is, in the long run, more blood will be shed whether we leave now or stick around for a while -- and the resulting government will not be appreciably better than Saddam's -- and may very well be even more antagonistic to us than his was.


Quote:
Let's face it, there is your truth, my truth and the truth of everyone on the a2k.


I think not.

Their may be your version of the truth; my version of it; and everyone else's version of it, also -- but there may be only one truth.

I suspect in this case, that ultimate truth probably coincides with my take on the situtation you raised rather than with yours.

(But I may be wrong.) ;-}
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:15 am
Au the "secular" government of Saddam was a ruling minority, i believe the majority Shia are not so secular and are very much interested in a theocracy.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:40 am
dyslexia
Quote:


Au the "secular" government of Saddam was a ruling minority, I believe the majority Shia are not so secular and are very much interested in a theocracy.




You may be right and than again you may be wrong. Does anyone have the real skinney in that regard?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:42 am
Frank
There is no doubt that your truth is the "TRUTH" Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 12:06 pm
Au1929 wrote:
We are hearing the cries of Yankee go home emanating from Iraq.

I strongly doubt that they emanate from Iraq. The sources of such cries are in Moscow, Paris and Tehran; Iraqis are used instead of loudspeakers to utter these on the site.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 12:10 pm
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! Add ten years to your life expectancy, then multiply that by 2. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US presence in Iraq, how long?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/10/2026 at 03:54:32