Posted on 11/21/2005 10:56:10 AM PST by heldmyw
America’s political elites have a secret they don’t intend to share with the voters.
Democrats claim to want our military out of Iraq more or less immediately, though only three of them have the guts to vote that way. President Bush promises we will stay until the job is done and no longer. Both camps know full well that nobody holding elective office in Washington D.C. today will live to see the end of our military presence in Iraq. It is quite likely that nobody now numbered among the living will still be drawing breath when the last American soldiers come home from Iraq, even taking into account advances in medical technology.
A victorious nation either establishes a permanent troop presence on the battlefield or it loses the fruits of victory. A win or a draw followed by retreat will always degenerate into a defeat.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You'll enjoy this. It's a fascinating perspective.
I never thought we'd leave. We haven't left Germany or Japan. If we can establish a democratic Iraq it would be foolish to withdraw completely.
We need build a large military base there. We need a presence in the area, because we will be back to the muddle east again. It is going to take allot of bullets to square up that region.
People who say we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq need to look at a map. Where would the invasion come from? The answer's easier now. Also, attacking either Syria or Iran would improve security in Iraq but putting one of the destablilizing forces on defense.
An American/British/Australian/Polish combined force sitting in Iraq is like doubling your rooks on the seventh rank in chess.
Your analysis is correct, and I nearly discarded those pictures because so many folks will misunderstand them...
"A strong military presence in the Middle East only makes sense."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF10Ak01.html
Take a look at a world map. We are already deployed openly in every country in the Middle East except for Israel, Syria, Iran and Libya (some with only advisors). And, I'm betting, we're in those countries as well.
Any serious US government official must consider some type of permanent military presence in Iraq as part of the overall strategy for the US in the war on terror. To think otherwise would be foolish and dangerous to the security of the USA.
Me either. However, we are still in Germany and Japan because those nations want us there. Despite all the rhetoric they like to spout, they don't ask us to leave.
Iraq will likely be the same.
We can only lose the war in Iraq if we pull out before the job is done. However, even once the job is done, Iraq is a strategically important place for us to be, and it's likely that the Iraqi government will want us there to help maintain stability and because out troops will provide an economic stimulus to their economy.
But Mulhern kind of ignores an important distinction. Germany isn't a war zone. There's a difference between stationing troops in a country for strategic reasons and having them actively fighting a war.
When the left says they want us out of Iraq, what they want is us out of the Iraqi war.
I don't really grasp the minds of liberals so I can't say exactly why. There are some that want peace at any cost. There are others that just seem to be anti-american to the point where they are only happy if we lose.
I find it very difficult to believe that they are upset by what are relatively small military losses. It's a tradgedy when one of our people is killed, but our military losses have releasticly been extremely small for a conflict of this scope.
The financial cost has been high, but I've never seen a liberal upset about the government spending money.
The left's hate of the Iraq war really seems to be mostly about being opposed to whatever the Bush administration does. Well, that and just being anti-american.
So nice to hear from an EXPERT. You should be on the Sunday Shows.
Sigh, you might be right, and if you are, check out my tagline.
We were involved in a 40 year war which required our troops be stationed in Germany, Korea and Japan and it was called the cold war. We won that war because we were steadfast and our German, Korean and Japanese allies wanted us in their countries. I'm pretty sure the Iraqi govt will want a contingent of our troops to remain for the same reason. This war will go on for a long time.
We are in Germany and Japan because they want us there. They could kick us out tomorrow. The same will hold true for Iraq. Once they have established a democratically elected government and the ability to sustain it, our continued presence will be an Iraqi decision.
Yes, and the left seemed to want us to lose the cold war as well. However, that was a worldwide war, so it was harder for them to know where they wanted us to pull out from.
I feel pretty certain the Iraqi govt will ask us to maintain a presence there. The Kurds definitely want us there.
I concur...
Unless Iran suddenly renounces islamofascism, holds free elections, and petitions for an AraboDisneyWorld.
Oh! And Syria becomes the first Mulim country to celebrate the end of Ramadan with a big ol' Carolina all-you-can-eat Pork BBQ!
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.