So, what's the 38th parallel?
So, the White House is now taking the line that the US should maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq similar to that in Korea.
So, what is the "front line" the US is to be supporting? Is it the metaphorical line behind the Iraqi security forces or is it the very real border between a "democratic" Iraq and Iran that the US will be manning for the next 50 years?
And, if you think the next administration from either party is going to give up this lure of permanent bases, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a fixer upper that crosses the Tigris, but I can give it to you at a great price because of the neighborhood.
(Also, Notice how this story is coming out. "President George W. Bush would like to see.... the White House said."
This did not come out directly in a presidential statement, but is instead being soft released. I guess they don't want Bush on the record calling for permanent bases.)
So, what is the "front line" the US is to be supporting? Is it the metaphorical line behind the Iraqi security forces or is it the very real border between a "democratic" Iraq and Iran that the US will be manning for the next 50 years?
And, if you think the next administration from either party is going to give up this lure of permanent bases, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a fixer upper that crosses the Tigris, but I can give it to you at a great price because of the neighborhood.
(Also, Notice how this story is coming out. "President George W. Bush would like to see.... the White House said."
This did not come out directly in a presidential statement, but is instead being soft released. I guess they don't want Bush on the record calling for permanent bases.)
posted by mikevotes at
1:51 PM
6 Comments:
Just a bit of honesty finally. Permanent bases were the objective from day one.
By
Anonymous, at 3:00 PM
Definitely.
I believe that there were a confluence of reasons in the behind the scenes rationale for the invasion, with bases being one of the primary ones.
At least since the Saudis threatened to throw the US out.
By
mikevotes, at 3:46 PM
When I read about Bush's Iraq/Korea analogy, all I could think was, "What the....!!" What a bizarre and incongruent comparison. No, this will be more like the Russia's presence in the former Eastern Bloc countries of during the Cold War: propping up acceptable regimes and suppressing local dissent.
By
-epm, at 6:17 PM
Ideally the Iraqis will kill each other off and the US just has to lob a few high explosives in periodically. More like Gaza.
By
Anonymous, at 8:28 PM
EPM, yeah, that's not a bad analogy.
Just off the top of my head, I can't think of a permanent foreign presence on the faultline of a civil and regional sectarian war.
What sort of idiot government would sign up for that?
Anon, If you look at the earlier plans for the permanent bases, they are mostly on the outskirts of populations, with the exception og Baghdad and a few airports.
Rather than the Iraqis being penned in though, like Gaza, I would actually expect the US to be the ones pinned in, operating like old west indian fighting forts. (Or west Berlin.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:17 PM
Unlike GWB I can't think of a precise analogy. You may be right about forts surrounded by hostile Apaches. In which case logistics and supply lines will be the biggest problem.
By
Anonymous, at 9:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home