Posted on 05/21/2005 9:58:21 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Recently, Wolf Blitzer of CNN was interviewing new Prime Minister Jalal-Talibani of Iraq about the situation that the newly formed government council is facing now that Iraq is a democracy.
Blitzer asked Jalal-Talibani when he thought the United States would bring the troops home. Jalal-Talibani told him that he forsees that U.S troops will be in his homeland for at least another two years. When the pime mnister said this, the look on Blitzer's face seemed to say: "You must be kidding." He looked as if he couldn't believe his ears.
But I exclaimed to myself: "Another two years!" That surely seemed to be a low number to be giving CNN's weekend star anchor, because I can see our troops being in Iraq until the end of this decade. But before any of you start sending me hate mail for that opinion, I will give the following reasons why I am thinking this:
1. The insurgents are still attacking not only our troops, but they are still attacking their own countrymen.
2. Suicide bombings have not diminished in the least bit, but they are on the rise in the last few weeks. If you have been watching CNN and FOX, you will know what I mean.
3. The locally unemployed Iraqis who are looking for work are being killed, even the ones who are working on the American F.O.B.'s (Forward Operating Bases).
4. The border between Iraq and Syria is still very porous, therefore, Syrians and others with grudges or with relatives in Iraq's jails are streaming across the border to help the insurgents kill the "infidels."
5. The economy is in its infancy. Therefore, until the newly minted Iraq currency (the one without Saddam's face all over it) can truly compete with the world market, we will be there.
6. Finally, our mission will not be complete until our troops--who go on nightly patrols in the mean streets--stop finding locals who are still for some reason loyal to Saddam or the Baathist Party. These loyalists are storing weapons and ammunition for the insurgents, so until the Iraqi military and local police can independently protect their own country's insurgents, our mission will not yet be complete.
I thought that it was a very conservative number the Iraqi prime minister tossed out there. I have been to Iraq and I have a very good idea of what is going on there, even though my tour ended December 24, 2004. Although I have been away for five months, I still watch the news, and I still keep up with what is happening. And I am poised to returm to Iraq for another year-long tour of duty.
Of course, I do not expect Wolf Blitzer or anyone at CNN to truly understand why our troops will probably be there until the end of this decade.
CNN's broadcasters knows how to show all the bad news coming out of Iraq, but they don't have a clue about all the good things our troops are doing while in that country.
We are winning this war on terror, even though suicide bombers continue their attacks. Recently in Baghdad, there were six VBIED's (Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devices) that went off and killed or injured many. But we are winning.
Our troops are strong and brave, and our leadership in Washington is strong. I understand the Iraqi prime minister's confidence in our military, and I do appreciate it, but--make no mistake--we will win in Iraq. We just realistically need more than just two years.
Steve Boggess is a sergeant in the U.S. Army. After completing a tour of duty of Iraq he is currently stationed in Wiesbaden, Germany. Steve receives e-mail at armyguy352@hotmail.com.
I don't see the political will for us to continue fighting on this level for another five years. At some point there's going to be a crunch--maybe recruiting numbers continuing to tank will do it. Maybe it will be something else. I just think that if by November 2006, the status quo in Iraq still obtains, it's going be hard to keep the Democrats from gaining control of at least one house of Congress. And if that happens who knows what effect it will have on our Iraq policy.
There needs to be substantial, tangible improvement in the situation over there. Hopefully we'll see it soon.
I think when the last US base is closed in Germany and Japan and then ROK, we can start wondering when US troops will leave Kuwait. Then after all the troops are out of various places we had to liberate in the 20th century we can turn our attention to when US troops will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan the first two places we have had to liberate in the 21st century.
I don't expect that to be any time soon. If Iraq becomes completely pacified as Germany and Japan did eventually after WWII, it like Germany and Japan will be in a very bad neighborhood. Thus US troops will likely remain for decades. [Heck we liberated Cuba and the PI from Spain in the 19th century and still have an unwelcome base in Cuba and did not close our bases in the PI until the 1990s.]
And of course if like Germany and Japan things get better in the middle east, then it will become better and better duty and reporters will quit asking such silly questions. In general our troops overseas are not stationed in wonderful tourist spots. But often the having US bases makes a place better at least economically and the duty becomes better and a non-issue.
We should and will maintain forward operating bases in Iraq for the forseeable future. It would be stupid to pull out of our safest point of ingress to the Middle East. I'm betting we open new permanent bases in Iraq in the coming years.
We should expect to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future -- until the War on Terror is finally won, at least. Iraq actually constitutes a strategically located FOB in the War on Terror -- not the least of the reasons why we chose to take down Saddam first.
We're still in Germany and Japan, remember.
It's very hard for our troops to locate and destroy these explosives. They are finding and eliminating whole caches all the time, but it's like spitting in the ocean.
Char
If Iraq can't be cleaned up and functioning by Jan 2007...it's time for Rumsfeld to call the boys home by 20,000 every 6 months at that point. It becomes more apparent every day that they still need us there right now but if they have not cleaned up their own backyard in 4-5 yrs time and by that time Saddam will be hung....there is no hope.
until the Iraqi military and local police can independently protect their own country's insurgents, our mission will not yet be complete.
The Iraqi military protecting the insurgents? Slip of the tongue? Freudian slip? I can't believe he actually wrote that and it got by the editor.
I agree, but what I mean is that there needs to be improvement in the security situation. If our troops are over there for the next 50 years doing garrison type duty--no problem. Active combat going on indefinitely--I think we're going to have trouble sustaining that politically.
I'm not trying to play Monday morning quarterback here. I know the military is doing a great job. It's just a tough row to hoe over there, and historically the American public has had no stomach for protracted military operations, going all the way back to the Revolutionary War.
You didn't know the French still had a military did you?
I can't imagine the Iraqis allowing the insurgency to continue for another two years.
How many years were we in protracted military operations during WWII? Wasn't it like 4-7 years? I can't remember & it's late.
December 41 to August 45. The war began in 39 with the invasion of Poland--or several years befor that if you count the Japanese intervention in China as the starting point. But that's how long the American involvement lasted.
Who is this "us"? You and who else?
I hope you're right. Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country is key.
The collective we. ie, the citizenry. What's your point?
Well, we are still in Germany...
I can't wait for that to happen. I bought a ton of the stuff :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.