What I am thinking is that Thompson’s answers, as usual, are as clear as mud.
Why are you saying 60 to 70 years? I would plan on staying as long as there are threats in that part of the world. Better to be there preventing terror state uprisings than have to keep going back in over and over again fighting the same damn war.
I agree with you 100%. But I'm saying 60 or 70 years because what Thompson was asked specifically, according to the article, was whether we should do something similar to what we have in Korea and Germany -- where we have had troops for 60 or 70 years, and no end in sight.
I agree with Thompson that that would not be a positive thing. If I'm remembering correctly, part of Rummy's transformation of our forces was to try to get away from extablishing post-war bases and never leaving (ala Korea and Germany). Of course we have to stay until the war is really won -- and Thompson himself has said that over and over. But planning to be there permanently is IMO not the best way to use our military resources.