Posted on 11/23/2005 12:03:25 PM PST by Redneck Limey
Those troops were there for two things. One to secure the peace after the war, but in the long term they were there as bases to secure us against the Soviet Union, it's satellites and China.
Wow...you are stuck on stupid, Mr. Dreyfuss.
The good guys have won the war. (That would be us.)
We are now busy securing the peace to insure the freedom of the Iraqi people and helping democracy spread through the Middle East, ---- which, assuming you can connect more than two dots, Mr. Dreyfuss, you'll understand that these heroic efforts will make the free world a whole lot safer.
The difference is like Viet Nam, we will have an ongoing one man against us war for the foreseeable future.
In addition, Nixon was elected in part due to his promise to get us out of Viet Nam. Nixon was hardly a liberal or democrat.
I fail to see how I help. But in reality, we are between a rock and a hard place. I guess since you are such a dedicated partiot you should have a guess as to troop levels in 2 years, 5 years and 10 year. For that matter, why not forecast 20. For now, we are in the 160,000 range. Do you believe we will be at 50 or 25% of that level in two years or even 5?
I followed the link to his site...see the book there "Devil's Game:How the United States helped unleash Fundamentalist Islam"?
All liberals, and this guy is no exception, think in terms of root causes of everything. They all think that if we do this or that to change something in the lives of the poor/disenfranchised/angry terrorists, then they will change their behavior, and it is our fault for either creating the conditions or not doing something to eliminate them. "We need to fight PID (Poverty, Ignorance and Disease)..."
Liberalism is the most dangerous challenge our country faces in the 21st Century. Terrorism we can defeat, but Liberalism will eat us from within.
Well we can take great comfort in realizing that, Like Rolling Stone readership, the Anti American Left seem populated by large number of rapidly aginging badly, relics from the 1960s.
"I think the average American thought we would go in ala Desert Storm and be out in 3-4 months."
Anybody who thinks that never read or listened to anything in all the months leading up to Iraq. Among others, the President said countless times this would be a long, hard fight and there would be no easy way to get rid of the terrorists. If you want a "quickie" war, just think about how quickly we ousted and found Saddam and take a look at the great progress in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We'll probably remain there in some form, much like Europe and Korea. The more presence we have in the Middle East, especially when fighting terrorism, the better. Hopefully it will be the Domino Theory in reverse.
Egads! How did those glossy pages work out for him? I feel like the non-glossy eg matte paper might be a bit more absorbent.
joesbucks,
You wrote: "...we will have an ongoing one man against us war for the foreseeable future..."
Therein lies the critical difference. We did not have Vietnamese flying planes into our skyscrapers, or killing our citizens throughout the world. We do have people from the Middle East doing that now.
We are at war, even if Rolling Stone and many American citizens or politicians don't understand. If we remove the troops over there, we will be fighting the war over here.
We will be attacked again, no doubt. I want our country to make it as difficult as possible for them to attack us at home, even if that means chasing them on their home turf, day after day, from house to house even if just to keep them from hooking up their laptop long enough to download instructions to their terrorist buddies.
Asking scory, yourself or me to make some kind of prediction about troop levels doesn't really address any kind of facet of the issue, in my opinion. None of us know what the right level should be since none of us have a crystal ball. Personally, I think we will be in Iraq for the next 3 years at large troop levels, and will draw that level down to several hundred or thousand over the next seven after that. But what the heck does that mean? I have never set foot in Iraq, have never led troops, never fired a gun or set up a roadblock. And even the guys over there who HAVE done those things don't know. In war, as in life, everyone is going to perceive it differently. The guy who drives a road near Mosul where dozens of vehicles have been hit by IED's is definitely going to perceive Iraq differently from a guy stationed up north in the Kurdish areas.
Bottom line: we are in this for the forseeable future whether we are in Iraq or not. I think our best bet is to be there to fight the terrorists on their soil. If we can free a bunch of Iraqis and introduce them to Democratic rule, that is a great and worthy byproduct.
Give us fifty years or so and we'll be gone,,just like Germany...
Oh - Rolling Stone has an opinion! Wow - sure am glad I read it; I've been foolishly thinking all these years that we were winning and that the Iraqis were on their way to self-actualization. Let's see, we got Saddam, there were two votes, casualties are relatively small, Iraqis are protecting their own...clearly we're losing Big Time. Thanks, Rolling Stoners! (SARCASM)
So if we cleaned up and Iraq was a functional independent US loving country, then the words spoken would have been wrong.
The words given by the administration were CYA. They also gave various scenarios that indicated the worst was behind us, how welcome we would be, what the face of the effort would be and where the resistance would come from. In many cases, that has significantly morphed over time.
My guess for the first three years is much like yours. I believe we will have significant troops there (80% of current levels) 8-12 years from now.
If povery and oppression is the cause of Islamic Fundementalism why were all the Sept 11th Hijackers Univeristy educated products of privlidged upper middle and upper classes?
Provide 3 quotes proving this claim. I do not remember the Administration ever saying any such thing. This is more of the Hate Bush always spin. The Administration probably never said this. A LOT of talking head media types, including a number of predominate Democrat Pols like Bill Clinton said this sort of crap, the Administration never did. It is like the lie about "Bush said Iraq is an immediate threat" Bush never said it. But the hate Bush crowd has repeated the lie so often people who should know better buy the lie.
Well nice you people have opinions, please do not confuse them with reality. We will not have 10% of our current force level in the Middle East 5 years from now. Up until Gulf War 1, the US posture was to over the horizon from the Arab Countries. To have NO significant presence IN the Middle East because it inflames Whabbists fanaticism. Due to Bush I and the "Realists" screwing up the ending of the Gulf War(just like they are trying to screw up the ending of this one), the US got sucked into a large continuing based presence IN the ME trying to "contain Saddam".
One of the reasons for the US is to liberate Iraq is so we can go BACK to hovering over the horizon and NOT be directly involved in the ME. That is why we are closing down all those Old Europe bases and opening new ones in Bulgaria and Romania. We will maintain the ability to project power rapidly but will NOT be "on the holy soil of Islam"
Nice so many old Conservatives have strong "realists" feelings. Please don't confuse them for facts.
Does this apply to Clinton post 9/11?
MNJohnnie,
You wrote: "Well nice you people have opinions, please do not confuse them with reality."
I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, but your tone in your response is condescending and negative.
First of all, if you read my response, you would see that I am indeed stating it is an opinion, and that mine is not necessarily any better than anyone else's.
Secondly, why take a tone like that? Do you think your perspective or opinion is somehow better than mine or anyone else's on this forum? Yours is just another opinion among many. You wrote "One of the reasons for the US is to liberate Iraq is so we can go BACK to hovering over the horizon and NOT be directly involved in the ME. " Got news for you, MNJohnnie. On 9/11, we became involved in the Middle East, and are going to have a presence there for a good while longer.
You also said "Up until Gulf War 1, the US posture was to over the horizon from the Arab Countries." Well, that worked really well for us on 9/11, didn't it? That is a great policy model to want to return to.
Your opinion is just that. You may think it is better, and I am sure to you, it is. What in your life experiences makes you a better analyst and judge of the situation in the Middle East and US foreign policy in general than any of us misinformed mortals?
And you need to read my post more carefully, MNJohnnie. I am NOT saying that is the reason for problems. I am saying that is what many liberals falsely THINK is the problem.
Or, perhaps I wasn't being clear enough.
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.