We are in Iraq to Stay

The American Thinker ^ | November 21st, 2005 | J. Peter Mulhern

[heldmyw]

Brilliant and lively bit of historical, political, strategic analysis of postwar winning and losing.

You'll enjoy this. It's a fascinating perspective.

[saganite]

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.

[manwiththehands]

A strong military presence in the Middle East only makes sense. When we are finished helping Iraq win their freedom we won't be considered an "occupying force", but part of a coalition of allies that help keep the region secure. As long as we stay out of the day-to-day affairs of Iraqi politics we should be OK there for years to come.

[SteveMcKing]

[GregoTX]

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.

[Dilbert56]

There is an exception to the "being there forever" trend - that's when the host nation wants you to leave. I agree with his overall view - that Iraq has a pivotal geography. It separates Iran from Syria who has been brought up for AAA for a spot start in the "Axis of Evil 2.0".

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.

[bybybill]

I enjoyed the humor but those pictures as they relate to Vietnam have always driven me a little nuts. They are now protrade the US military having run. As you know, it was the US Embassy being evacuated AFTER the gutless Congress cut off support and aid to the South. Of course, I think your point is that, that if we listen to the cut and runners, will happen again.

[SteveMcKing]

Your analysis is correct, and I nearly discarded those pictures because so many folks will misunderstand them...

[SF Republican]

We haven't left Germany or Japan nor Cuba from the Spanish American War; dang, there are still Yankee troops in the SOUTH for that matter.

[TWohlford]

"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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

There is an exception to the "being there forever" trend - that's when the host nation wants you to leave.

The Iraqi government will never be able to support itself. If we leave they will be slaughtered for collaborating. One day the unrest may be so bad that they may think our leaving will save them but it will never happen.

It will never happen because there will never be a government there that is capable of killing all its violent enemy. The terrorists proclaim hate for us. Killing them would be seen as killing Muslims for the benefit of infidels, which is forbidden in the Koran. The infidel is never right.

There are terrorists in every family. Killing them turns other family members. Also, at least 10% of Islam is always "radical" - meaning following what Koran and Hadith actually say. Kill that 10% and 10% of the remainder will become terrorists. The last 10 Muslims will include at least one terrorist. But you won't get there because terrorists are being born, learning Islam and taking it seriously, turning 18 and making bombs faster than you can kill them. And they won't convert because their fathers would behead them.

So we just have to sit on them forever.

[Reagan Man]

Most people who are paying attention to current events realize that the war on terror will be part of future US history for quite some time. After all, Islamofascists have been attacking US and other western interests since at least the 1970`s. Some people believe it goes back even further. Some folks believe crazed Muslim fundamentalists have been around since Mohammad first formed the "peaceful" religion and began killing his enemies. Enemies of Islam means, anyone whose not a Muslim.

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.

[untrained skeptic]

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.

[bybybill]

So nice to hear from an EXPERT. You should be on the Sunday Shows.

[USS Alaska]

Sigh, you might be right, and if you are, check out my tagline.

[saganite]

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.

[kabar]

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 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.

[untrained skeptic]

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.

[saganite]

I feel pretty certain the Iraqi govt will ask us to maintain a presence there. The Kurds definitely want us there.

[heldmyw]

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!