Iraq: We’re NEVER EVER Gonna Leave!!! BWAAHAAHAAHAAA!!!
Might as well cut to the chase. Most of the presidential candidates either don’t know this, or they're pretending not to know: Our troops will be staying and staying and staying in Iraq. We may not be there permanently, but we’re gonna be there for a long looong time.
Presidential contenders are all claiming they have a surefire plan for getting us out of Iraq honorably and on “schedule” (whatever that means). But General Petraeus is saying otherwise, and nobody wants to admit this. His “surge” plan calls for American troops to be hogtied in Iraq for the next ten years. Five years would be the minimum; but ten (maybe more) years seems much more likely. And it’s not gonna be pretty.
Petraeus’ predecessor, Gen. George Casey, had planned on about 60,000 American soldiers remaining in Iraq by 2008. And these soldiers would be cloistered on four giant “superbases” where they'd be relatively safe.
Now — Under New Management — 160,000 American troops will be stationed in hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Iraq. And they’ll be right in the line of fire. Casualties will be higher than ever.
Iraqis are about to “stand up so we can stand down”????? Riiight. Be sure to ask for a left-handed monkey wrench and a skyhook on your way to picking up that bridge you bought at our special price.
One of the Army’s top experts in Irregular Warfare said “This is the right strategy: small mini-packets of U.S. troops all over, small ‘oil spots’ [of stability] spreading out. It’s classic counterinsurgency. But it’s high risk and it’s going to take a long time.”
Well isn’t that special. Come on White House wannabes and Congressional “leaders” (if you're out there). What do you have to say about this?
Labels: General Casey, Iraq, irregular warfare, Petraeus, surge
posted by Tom Harper @ 11:38 AM
10 Comments:
I think you have to be careful not to mix up General Patreus, and his political masters in the White House. The plan to stay in IRAQ is primarily driven by the Neocon's ideological views and the White House's political game-playing. Incidentally, neither of these have anything to do with fighting terrorism. I'd say any positions of General Patraus would come in a distant third behind these two.
CoolAqua
Cool Aqua: Well, whoever's idea it is, Patreus' military plan will leave American troops over there for 5 to 10 years or more. This hasn't been very well publicized and I think Congressional leaders and presidential candidates need to bring it out in the open and discuss it.
Good point that no matter what the politicians say, it is a messy business trying to get out, and even if just for pure tactical reasons, we are going to be there for a looooong time.
South Korea? Germany? Japan? Anyone paying attention?
Prague Twin: Yup, that's something we never think of ahead of time. When politicians are caught up in that big adrenaline rush that precedes an invasion, nobody's thinking "what's the next step? How will we exit?"
Then there is the "draft hydrocarbon law" that the Iraqi officials are being pressured to sign. It is a "Production Sharing Agreement" which grants Western oil companies 75% of the oil profits for the next 30 years in Iraq regardless of which Iraqi govt. is in power. This includes oil from already developed fields as well as fields yet to be developed. Iraq will be "Locked in" so to speak.
The forts that will be manned will actually be guarding the stolen oil production areas.
I'm trying to find out more... the British papers have some info out on this. Our kids are dying and we have murdered thousands of Iraqis for... the Texas oil boys! Freedom has nothing to do with it.
Kitchen Window Woman: "Production Sharing Agreement" -- what a nice euphemistic term. Western oil companies squeezing out 75% of the oil revenues from Iraq. And they hate us why? Oh, because of our freedom.
There's all kinds of terrible news out there that our "media" can't be bothered with.
When I first heard that the U.S. was building at least a dozen permanent military bases in Iraq, I figured we would be there for years and years.
How many troops would have to be stationed at each of those bases? I don't know where the number 40,000 came from, but that's the number of troops that sticks in my mind as to how many would be stationed in Iraq once the total numbers were drawn down. Has anyone else heard something like this, or am I hallucinating again? Probably the latter... heh!
But I'm sure those bases aren't/weren't being built simply to give to the Iraqis once we are "done" there. And if we were to pull our troops out entirely, then gee, we would have to tear down all those new military bases first, right? Because we sure wouldn't want radical Islamists to get ahold of those bases, right? How convenient, to have all those military bases in Iraq!
If it came down to a choice between staying in Iraq or tearing down the bases, I would choose to tear down the bases, but I think I can guess which is more likely to happen: a significant number of U.S. troops will stay, and as you say, Tom, it will be for a long, looooong time. Each base will be kind of like a little island, surrounded by sharks, if you will... but having that many bases in Iraq will make that country a great jumping-off point for the U.S., for invading other countries such as Syria and Iran, or for sending missiles their way.
I think Praguetwin is right, that the U.S. will have troops in Iraq for a long time, maybe another decade or two, for tactical reasons. I can also imagine that an international effort will be mounted to remove our troops from Iraq if we don't remove them ourselves...
That "production sharing agreement" stuff sounds like more imperialist neoconservative bullshit to me. That sounds like the "Cheney part" of why we are in Iraq... more control over more oil = more control over the rest of the world.
I believe the "Bush part" of it has lots to do with oil, but just as much to do with his religious beliefs and with his desperate desire for a positive legacy from his presidency. I believe he wants to be remembered as one of our country's greatest presidents, but that he realizes he may end up down near the bottom somewhere with the likes of Nixon and Harding. He can't stand the idea of leaving a bad legacy. Also, due to what he believes is his calling from God, he needs to be stirring things up in the Middle East to help God's master plan along. A number of his constituents want the Rapture to happen just as much as he wants it to, and well, he is in a position of power to hasten the "end times", should he desire to do so.
His advisors in his administration are mostly oil people, and one of the big advisors in his presidency is Tim LaHaye, the creator of the "Left Behind" series. Go figure...
Snave: Yup, I've heard stories like this too, about permanent bases being built in Iraq. Who knows what our "tactical" reasons are for keeping those bases. Protecting oil company investments, preserving democracy in Iraq, invading other Middle Eastern countries?
Between Cheney's lust for money and power, and Bush's "religious" calling, there's no telling how long we'll be there or what our hidden motives are.
Remember Teddy Roosevelts Great White Fleet? He sent them out around the world and when Congress balked he said "you bring them back!"
Congress left them alone
Erik
Erik: I didn't know about that. At least Teddy Roosevelt was smarter and more stable than the current "president."
Post a Comment
<< Home