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

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Well, this won’t make Democrats happy: they want all US forces to be withdrawn within a couple of years time.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’.”

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.

1 lthomas

May 30, 2007 @ 9:27 pm CEST

Everything 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 CEST

I 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.”