Iraq: The New Korea
Filed under: George W. Bush, Iraq — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 30, 2007 @ 7:12 pm CEST
Reuters reports:
President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
Tony Snow:
“The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you’ve had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability…”
He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and “the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation.”
“I think the point he’s trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence,” Snow said.
He added: “The president has always said that ultimately you want to be handing primary responsibility off to the Iraqis. You provide the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of Iraqis but you do not want the United States forever in the front.”
Well, this won’t make Democrats happy: they want all US forces to be withdrawn within a couple of years time. Not a second Korea.
On the other hand, of course, America has the responsibility to do whatever necessary to bring stability to Iraq. If this means that America has to stay in Iraq for, say, a couple of decades, well, then America should do so.
However, one might wonder in how far Iraq and South Korea are comparable. For that, see links to posts by others below. I also think that Iraqis will, to put it bluntly, kick the US forces out after a couple of years.
Some reactions:
- Joshua Marshall: “It is hard not to take this as another example that the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq. Let’s run through a few differences. First, Korea is an ethnically and culturally homogenous state. Iraq, not a culturally or ethnically homogenous state.”Secondly: “Without going into all the details, South Korea was a military dictatorship for most of the Cold War.”
- The Booman Tribune repeats, essentially, what Joshua Marshall wrote: South Korea was not a democracy for a long time and South Korea is “almost 100% ethnically Korean. They don’t fight over theological differences.”
- The Carpetbagger Report: “The politics of this matters, as well. Congressional Dems have been saying for quite some time that Bush not only wants a blank check, but that he also wants an open-ended presence in Iraq, with no end in sight.
As of this morning, the official White House response to this, apparently, is, ‘Yep’.”
1 lthomas
May 30, 2007 @ 9:27 pm CESTEverything I am hearing from Bush and being leaked to the press tells me he has settled upon the Rice doctrine of seeing the war on terror as perhaps a decades long struggle. They have decided that the way to go is to pull back. Redeploy, cut the forces down to around 100,000 and eventually closer to 60,000 troops and hopefully in 10 years perhaps only have 30,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq. With the ultimate goal of only having a few thousand stationed there.
Saudi Arabia, Egpyt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman and UAE were horrified that the Democrats ascended to both houses and their plan was to cut and run.
So much so that the Saudis are now funding the Unity government in Palestine trying to prevent spillage and to prop up Bush and the USA in the middle east.
As Kissinger said. Bush is villified and has made lots of mistakes but one thing he is dead right on. Iran and the chaos in the middle east is an extremely serious affair. If Iran gets nukes then everybody gets nukes and the world will have gone truly mad.
Hate Bush, scream names at him but you best hope and pray he gets it right. We all better. Because there are big Named, heavy hitters out there that have turned pale at the what they are seeing transpiring in the middle east.
2 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 3:32 pm CESTI read a piece in WaPo today by David Ignatius, in which he claims that Bush is planning to switch to the Baker-Hamilton plan at long last, after the conclusion of the surge. Here’s a direct quote:
He talked about a transition to a “different configuration” in Iraq after the surge of US troops is completed this summer.
When pressed on whether he was talking about a post-surge Plan B, Bush answered: “actually I would call that a plan recommended by Baker-Hamilton, so that would be a Plan B-H.”