PDA

View Full Version : Iraq and Korea comparison



rbgarr
09-11-2004, 06:40 AM
Analogies are often limited in their usefulness, but the one between the US experience in both countries struck me the other day. It was prompted by some conflicting statements by Pres. Bush, Sec. Rumsfeld and Tucker Carlson, of the TV show 'Crossfire'.

The first two said that we would not stay in Iraq any longer than necessary. The third said that the US should maintain military base(s) there after 'stabilization. If that state is achieved I tend to think that the latter will be the case, especially with Iran and Syria on the borders of Iraq.

If 'stabilization' consists of a moderately democratic process and government, healthy legal institutions, rebuilt infrastructure and an internal security force (among other things), then all those objectives were acheived in South Korea long ago yet we (mainly it's US soldiers, isn't it?) maintain a force of 30,000+ in Korea fifty years after the ceasefire.

I believe we will end up doing the same (and would do so even if this were a more widely supported UN effort, like Korea) in Iraq.

Victor
09-11-2004, 07:11 AM
I thought you were going to discuss invading North Korea, whose dictator is even more evil than Saddam Hussein, and who is openly obtaining WMD. The rationale for invading Iraq would certainly apply. But it will never happen, not unilaterally anyway, partly because there's no oil to speak of there, partly because Daddy didn't do it, but mainly because militarily it would not be the cakewalk that Iraq was. They've been expecting us for 50 years, and they're ready.

[ 09-11-2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Victor ]

LeeG
09-11-2004, 07:29 AM
"no longer than necessary" is a meaningless phrase. If being in Iraq is the largest committment of troops, resources and lives to The War On Terrism and the WOT is open ended then the necessity will be continuous. The US soldiers and $100'sBillions flowing into that effort has more momentum than considering another reason for the war,,long term economic stability by ensuring Iraq/Saudi Arabia don't fall prey to civil war. We can let Sudan or any other country melt into genocide and it's a side bar,,it matters in Iraq/Saudi Arabia because the entire world needs oil.
Remember Rumsfield and gang are part of the happy/positive crew who ensured dissenting opinion about post invasion conflicts were removed from the developing Office of Special Plans where State Dept employees were involved. And ensured that re-manufactured intel by Wurmser/Maloof could end-run Tenet 'proving links' between al qeda and iraq dots. And cost esimats were not possible because "the future is uncertain",,,but the projected risks of failed states in Iraq/SA with China rising isn't?
And Perle provided liason relationships with experts like Khidir Hamza and other Chalabi associates proving Iraqs immenint threat.
Which proved to be wrong,,sorry Tenet,,you're fired.

LeeG
09-11-2004, 08:10 AM
here's an intersting synopsis of Al Qedas goals re: occupation of iraq. www.juancole.com (http://www.juancole.com)

LeeG
09-11-2004, 09:32 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644990.stm

and this is why mixing up occupation of Iraq with combating terrorism is so dangerous for us as citizens.
If we get OBL we win!
If we get Saddam and his sons we win!
They hate us becaue we're free!
WMD!

Another $12Billion for untested ICBM interceptors,,but dismiss gay Arabic interpreters just as the war into Aghanistan is starting.
Start an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext and pull humint out of Afghanistan.
Dismiss criticism of the invasion of iraq by calling The War On Terrism a war,,"not a police action or diplomatic solution",,,except the Al Qeda operatives in Pakistan and England were captured by spooks, spies, police, diplomacy and investigative work, not ground forces as was necessary in Afghanistan,,where there was a geographical location for Al Qedas small state sponsorsorship.