Iraq = Korea = Kosovo= Bosnia = Germany = Japan = Australia = Britain = Iceland = ETC
Bush envisions U.S. troop presence in Iraq like S.Korea.
Is anyone seriously surprised by this? Could anyone possibly disagree with this? OK, never mind that last question. Did anyone think an ongoing troop presence, Mideast bases somewhere other than Saudi Arabia, were not part of the scenario? Sectarian violence, largely a development of the past year and a half, being aggressively engaged with positive signs, but will require an ongoing presence for the foreseeable future. Iranian meddling and attempts at regional domination, predictable, in fact a big part of the reason why we always needed an ongoing presence.
We’re still in South Korea 54 years later. North Korea is still a problem. We’re still in Germany and Japan 62 years later. Russia is starting to look like trouble again, and so is China.
Surber: “… the man has one thing right: Iraq. We must democratize Arabia if there is to be a lasting peace on Earth.”
Others have trouble grasping the concept.
Newshoggers, channeling TPM: Iraq and Korea are different!
OK, so what’s your point? Everywhere’s different.
Carpetbagger also needs the analogy to be exact and is upset when that doesn’t work.
Booman Tribune: South Korea was hard, and not always the nice place it is now!
OK, so what’s your point?
Here’s what it is about. It’s about the role the United States has played in the world for most of the past century, to the greater good. I don’t know what is so hard to get about it.
Superpower. Defender of freedom. Promoter of trade. Facilitator of third-world development. Provider of unprecedented and unmatched aid to large parts of the world. Democrats were not always isolationists, and some of their greatest heroes, FDR, HST and JFK, each a stalwart on most if not all of those fronts.
The Middle East has been one of the most problematic regions in the world for decades. A lot of people made a lot of mistakes there, locals and foreigners like us, going way back. It has valuable resources, which invite trouble. The Middle East is not headed anywhere good, nor has it been for some time, thanks to people like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and his ilk, the mullahs of Iran, their proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. It needs to be stabilized. This is hard work and will take time. Without our significant involvement, it won’t happen. If you think that our withdrawal from Iraq will result in peace, you are dreaming.
Welcome back, Boggdwellers! I knew you wouldn’t be able to stay away. It is important that you study and learn. Start here, with Strafor: All Roads Lead From Tehran. But it probably won’t be much of a surprise for you to learn that Hillary hearts Bushthink. A little off topic, but I know you’ll be first in line when the brain transplant reality show comes on line. You may also want to look into the Burkha as an Instrument of anti-Islamist Subversion.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:00 am on Thursday, May 31, 2007
19 Responses to “Iraq = Korea = Kosovo= Bosnia = Germany = Japan = Australia = Britain = Iceland = ETC”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:32 am
I think every single person who voted for Democrats last November suspected Bush would be crazy enough to try to turn Iraq into an American colony.
Is that clown areally just trying to get Hillary elected or what?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:19 am
OK, never mind that last question.
I was going to do a countdown until the first leftard popped in to poop on this thread, but I see I was waaaaay late. My bad.
I saw us staying in Iraq long term as a probability back in late 2003. People have asked me how long we need to be in Iraq. My answer is either “As long as it takes”, or “A decade is on the low side.” A lot of military personnel that I know expect much the same thing. It’s what we have to do.
Korea, Japan, Europe were all just fine…..well, at least it was fine when we stopped opposing the Soviet Union, after it imploded economically. Before then, I recall a lot of sympathy from the left about the “American imperialist occupation of Europe”, a rather odd echo of the Soviet propaganda of the time. Korea is questionable as yet to the left, so long as The Beloved Leader™ of North Korea continues to use America as a boogey man to keep his people in line.
Alas, you see, we still have that segment of the American population that emotes instead of thinks, and sees their country as an evil thing…..without ever wondering just how they can protest so freely without fear of arrest.
Oh, and staying in Iraq to work towards peace in the Middle East drives them apes**t. Just like when I used to tell people against the “American occupation of Europe” about the International German Border….where the wall used to be 100 meters in from the East German side, not the west side. The IGB was actually a series of posts driven into the ground. And God help the soldier who crossed that line.
Some things don’t change, at least not the nature of them. Only the “victim” changes.
Back to the present……..I can only assume that any opposition to the continued American presence in Iraq in fact supports continued Middle East conflicts and instability. I assume that because I’ve not heard any serious counterproposals from said opposition. Mostly it’s “Leave Iraq, and damn the consequences!” Usually expressed in hysterical terms, but with a straight face.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:43 am
Jeff,
American never faced a domestic threat during the occupation of Germany, Japan or Korea.
Long term plans made by Bush and the U.S. military for Iraq are about as credible as the ones Saddam left in his desk drawer.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:40 am
2007.05.30 Iraq/Iran Roundup
See previous: 2007.05.30 Iraq/Iran Roundup Below the fold (newest items at the top): Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea
May 31st, 2007 at 5:02 am
What a predictable bore the ant is. He uses the term “colonize” as if Americans were lining up to move to Iraq. The colonizing always runs the other direction, of course, which is why a large contingency of Koreans, Japanese, and Germans moved here after we took over their countries. And Vietnamese. And Filipinos. Et al.
Hint: One might learn what the terms one uses actually mean.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:18 am
Hint: one might look at the Phillipine-American war a little more closely.
Spoiler:We crushed an independence movement…then had to give them their country back in the end.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:51 am
Hint: Non sequitur. Bringing up the Phillipine-American war doesn’t change the definition of “colonize”.
Idjit. Just once I’d like to see you stick to the subject.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:41 am
At last someone’s thinking logically. As you guys keep saying, if the American troops leave, chaos is sure to follow.
Thus, the American troops can never leave.
At least we know this for certain now.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:07 am
[...] Crittenden: “Is anyone seriously surprised by this? Could anyone possibly disagree with [...]
May 31st, 2007 at 9:07 am
At least we know this for certain now.
If you were able to think logically, you’d have known it all along. And as for “colonizing”… like Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. were “colonized”? Last I checked they are sovereign nations who have never requested that we remove our troops, preferring instead to let us provide their military defense. You do know they have their own standing armies, don’t you? You do know they’ve had the best economies and the most stable governments in their respective regions thanks to us, don’t you?
It’ll be no different in Iraq. With our presence there to stabilize things, they can get on with the business of becoming an economic powerhouse in the Middle East, and a stabilizing influence in their own right, effectively neutralizing the Iranian mullahs and the Saudi princes.
Most of us would welcome this outcome. There are some sour souls who, alas, don’t. Looking at you, alf and corny
May 31st, 2007 at 9:55 am
At least we know this for certain now.
Finally waking up, huh?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
So just so I’m clear, the subject of this post suggests that all of these places are comparable. Mr Bush is suggesting at least that South Korea and Iraq are comparable. Then someone points out that they’re not comparable…and your response is, “so what?”.
The question that needs to be answered (and I can see various attempts at it both in the post and in the comments) is: what is the FUNCTION of having a permanent US force in Iraq? Throwing out trite little phrases like “Superpower. Defender of freedom. Promoter of trade. Facilitator of third-world development.” is pointless. The question is what are they going to DO?
In South Korea (as in Germany) it was about force projection; to dissuade a hostile state from invading. But no-one’s going to invade Iraq. Not even Iran. Iran is interested in regional security. It’s now the most influential power in the region because we were accommodating enough to remove its two primary threats: Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. All Iran wants now is a Shia-controlled Iran-friendly Iraq on its border and it can get that without invading.
Furthermore, since it seems the new “role” for the US force under this plan will NOT be to get involved in the sectarian violence, it seems that defending freedom and facilitating development in Iraq itself are not on its to-do list.
Finally, as Stratfor recognises, we left Saudi Arabia after Bin Laden took exception to our troop presence there. Simply moving down the road to Iraq doesn’t make things any better. And here’s the crux of the issue (and the reason why making a comparison between South Korea and Iraq is so ridiculous): the politcal and military dynamics are materially different. In Iraq, the physical presence of US troops there has a material impact on the situation itself…and I don’t mean in a good way. (I’m looking at you RebeccaH: “With our presence there to stabilize things, they can get on with the business of becoming an economic powerhouse in the Middle East…” Wow. Just wow.)
If you think that just by having a military base in Iraq, somehow the Middle East is going to see the error of its ways and wake up to what a good idea democracy is then you’re living in Lah-Lah Land. Successful foreign policy is about soft power as much as hard power. If we’ve learned anything from the current debacle (and it seems many of us haven’t), you can’t solve political problems with military force.
“If you think that our withdrawal from Iraq will result in peace, you are dreaming.”
No-one pretends that withdrawal will result in spontaneous peace. But dreaming is what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s about time we made some hard decisions that deal with the reality on the ground rather than more naive dreams.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Andrew, you had me with you until the statement that all Iran wants is stability in the region. You base this statement on what evidence?
May 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“With our presence there to stabilize things, they can get on with the business of becoming an economic powerhouse in the Middle East…” Wow. Just wow.)
Explain to me why they can’t.
And for the record, I said nothing about “installing” democracy. That’s going to evolve on its own with safety, prosperity and engagement with the world of ideas. Or don’t you think the little brown people can manage it?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
[...] Why We Cannot Abandon Iraq May 31, 2007 Posted by taoist in Hypocrisy, Liberty, Human Rights, Iraq War, Iraq. trackback All Things Conservative points out the masses of troops Turkey is putting in striking range of Kurdistan. They’ve said before that the would invade any independent Kurd region, and there’s the evidence to back their words. Jules has a whole list of other strategic reasons. [...]
May 31st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
saltydog, excellent point. Iran clearly wants lots of things. I should perhaps have said that, as far as Iraq is concerned, its primary goal is to ensure that it has a non-threatening neighbour. I’m basing that assessment upon, inter alia, the analysis in the Chatham House report “Iran, Its Neighbours And The Regional Crises” available here.
RebeccaH, my problem is not with your optimism about what *they* can do. My problem is with your assumption about what *we’re* going to do. You’re explicitly saying that “our presence” will stabilise the situation and enable them to do x, y, or z. But after four years, thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we don’t seem to have achieved much in the way of stability. In fact, we’ve exacerbated the security situation. I’m not clear on how retiring to a bunker in Baghdad is going to help.
Again, please think about the contradiction in the argument. You can’t argue on the one hand that if we withdraw from Iraq there’s going to be even more chaos but if we withdraw from the streets of Iraq to our own little permanent fortress in Iraq then things are all going to be rosy. You can’t have it both ways.
And the remark about Turkey is a complete red herring. Turkey’s a fully paid-up member of NATO. It’s not going anywhere without involving us and with the combined clout of the EU and the US there are plenty of “soft power” tools available to influence its foreign policy decisions.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:08 am
Andrew, I gave up on Ivory Tower assessments a long time ago when I realized how very wrong they consistently were (and, I might add, at the cost of untold lives, destruction, and suffering). The evidence of before us without everybody and their dog telling us what it all means. Anyone who studies the region, pays attention not just to what is said, but more importantly, to what actions are taken.
Ask yourself what is the nature of the “stability” Iran seeks–what do they consider stable, not what we think of when we hear that term. What does it entail? In other words, what has been their stated goals since 1953 (actually, look back to the middle of WWI)? How have they acted to reach those goals? When you think of these questions, for once do so without blaming American foreign policy as though we’ve acted in a vacuum and with evil intent. Consider the whole context. We’ve made terrible mistakes (and sometimes acted very stupidly), but I suggest they aren’t the one’s posited by most people.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:09 am
Ack! Make that “the evidence is before us”.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to be shocked as sh!t when it repeats itself.
…And then spend the rest of their lives smoking bad grass and taking antidepressants to deal with their departure from reality.