Why do that when we have these?
Posted on 09/30/2005 5:03:44 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district
"Sunni Arab opposition to Iraq's draft constitution has increased the potential for instability and called into question U.S. hopes for substantial troop cuts next spring, the top U.S. Commander in Iraq said Friday (General George Casey)." _______
In my opinion, we should expect to be in Iraq a long time. I believe that we need to establish permanent bases there as we did in Japan and Germany after World War II. There would be many benefits to this strategy.
Also, I advise President Bush to stay the course until the job is completed.
Respectfully submitted, J. Scott Davis Veteran: U.S. Navy & Persian Gulf War
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Yes, we agree. I also supported putting permanent bases in Iraq and other areas in the Middle East prior to the invasion especially to confront terrorism.
Whatever! We are there to fight terrorism (which has been one and the same for thousands of years).
We agree! We need to take el-Zarqawi with a show of power.
"Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."
- General George S. Patton
Affirmative! That's why I say we need to establish bases in Iraq as we did in Japan and Germany after World War II. We'll be there awhile.
"We agree! We need to take el-Zarqawi with a show of power.
"Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."
- General George S. Patton"
One hell of a lot of agreeing on this thread. heh heh. Time of year to pull out my rather weathered PATTON: Ordeal and Triumph by Ladislas Farago. "Robert is coming." "Robert has arrived."
A true warrior by anyone's standards.
Patton was the greatest- "America does not tolerate a loser."
Syria and Iran needs to come hard our way in fighting terrorism. As President Bush indicated just after 9/11- "either you are with us, or you are against us." The insurgency in Iraq is working in and out of Iran and Syria.
Little problem is we are there to free the peoples of Iraq from a tyrant, remove him and his goons and any connections that where that sponsored terrorist, rebuild the country with the world communities aid, both humanitarian as well as commericially, and show Saddam America would honor the coalition of the willings agreement that UN Res. 14.. etc.,
meant something other then words. We do have to be carefull as to what type military intervention we take against this two countries. We cannot appear as aggressors. We want to stablilize the region. If we start hacking and whacking Syria with heavy ground/air which means we have to take his whole defensive/offensive g/a and airforce, communication grids etc., so our ground element can move freely about the country and destroy his ground forces, lets face it, it reguires a lot to do that, and we then show the Muslim world and the rest of the goons such as in EU, Canada etc., that we are being aggressors, heaving our might about "recklessly " in their eyes. It remains a delicate situation at best.
Maybe the Iraqi government would understand the need and agree to joint military bases in their country?
..... both viable options.
"Maybe the Iraqi government would understand the need and agree to joint military bases in their country?"
Surely the plan is to maintain a small footprint in Iraq once the country stabilizes. With the permission of the Iraqi government we would keep training their forces in weapon systems we will provide them, train them in all the logistics required to maintain and aid their ground forces by air, e.g. their fledging air force, etc.. In short perform the same things the Russians and French did for a long time. Surely with their government's approval we would maintian military Intel units (airforce,army,Marines,navy), and most probably have a CIA presence. One thing that probably is certain. Perhaps it will boil down to making aggreements with them such as we have in Europe and S. Korea to maintian a presence based on mutual needs. As in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, for instance we maintian a presence. Yes I understand that most of our stuff left SA. But the point is some of the ME countries have allowed us to maintain a presence and in the case of Bahrain and Qatar allow us to have a permenant regional HQ (CENTCOM) facility, and obviously in Kuwait, we are allowed to maintain and use a number of camps to rotate our troops in and out of Iraq, as well as use their Ali Salami AFB etc..
Dispite the often voiced connections between say Iran and certain segments of the Shi'ite religious groups and some Iranian insurgent activities, the new Iraq wants nothing to do with the Persians other then trade with them. They don't want Persian influence in Iraq. They look at Iran as a de-stablizing factor. Similiarly with Syria, they can't be trusted. So it would appear natural that we shall be invited to stay in Iraq for a long time. If they want our continued support in the future, they must accomodate their helpers.
And due to the whole situation, we are on the ground in Iraq etc., it is hard to see how they would just want us to leave, and invite the French or Russians back in. After all the Russians failed them, we did not. We freed them from tyrany once and for all.
Marine_Uncle;
All I have to say is that is a great scenario presented on your part. I don't see how it won't be any other way. And a loyal ally we will have earned.
~Scott~
"All I have to say is that is a great scenario presented on your part. I don't see how it won't be any other way. And a loyal ally we will have earned."
Let us truly hope all will work out in the end run. To many of our men and women and other coalition forces have died to give them a unique opportunity. The burden now is do they want freedom under the law to prosper or not.
The Iraqis are on the right step evidenced by the high numbers of their citizens that risked their lives to get out and vote.
"The Iraqis are on the right step evidenced by the high numbers of their citizens that risked their lives to get out and vote."
And that is what a lot of L/MSM etc., fail to appreciate in what GWB and crew are hoping for. The freedom to vote the party and ideology of one's choice. They have never really had that option, like most ME countries. Our sacrifices have given them a power they have never truely known. It scares the pis$ out of the ME. Freedom of choice as you are accutely aware, is not something Islam holds in esteem. Islam by it's very foundation obviously dictates all must live their lives as is interpereted by their particular regional form of Islam, e.g. depending on what type sect one is born into, what hadiths the iman will use, and what other books formulate their version of Sharia. But in all cases, they by birth are locked into submitting to some form of Islamic law, which will drive their lives. Now comes an option. No longer are they beholden to a tribal shiek or to some iman in essence, but to a government they have a right to participate in how it governs them. Obviously their is a clash of civilizations and cultures taking place. No response required unless you want to add.
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.