50-Year Iraq Presence A ‘Realistic Assessment’

[_JS]

You're trying to tell me there were absolutely no skirmishes from the Germans & Japs, following the accomplished mission of ending WWII??  Everyone layed down their arms the very next day??  Then why did we precede to keep a military presence if all was completed nice & neat??  And ironically the presence of sectarian violence and guerilla warfare kinda reinforces the need for our military presence     

Are you really asking why we kept soldiers in Europe and Japan after World War II?

Do you want me to discuss the history of the Cold War?

[sirs]

Are you really asking why we kept soldiers in Europe and Japan after World War II?

No.  I'm actually re-referencing the fact that we did.  Simple as that.  You're the one trying to rationalize why we did then, and yet apparently scoff at the idea that it might occur here

Do you want me to discuss the history of the Cold War?

Your dime.  The point remains that there still is a military presence in a once open area of war, despite the fact that military acts have long since been extinquished

[Plane]

Domer,
I don't get the same feeling from Michael's posts that you describe. 
I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I think he's worried about our country, mourns its dead and grieves at the situation our soldiers are in right now.  It is ruinous.   

I want our soldiers home.  That part of the world is starting to blow up now.
 We can get our troops out, or let them perish when it all blows up. 

Funny how people can read the same words and come away with 180 degrees diffrent meaning from them.

[Plane]

The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.

The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.

The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.

The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.

And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
 

During the Trueman, Eisenhour , or Kennedy administrations which party was in favor of containment of Communism?
Who ever voted for a policy of staying for two generations?

It doesn't work that way , but each year the best choice is the same as the previous years choice because the same  bad alternatives are still just as bad. Forty years in a row.

[_JS]

No.  I'm actually re-referencing the fact that we did.  Simple as that.  You're the one trying to rationalize why we did then, and yet apparently scoff at the idea that it might occur here. Your dime.  The point remains that there still is a military presence in a once open area of war, despite the fact that military acts have long since been extinquished.

Sometimes I don't even understand what point you are supposed to be making Sirs. As I recall, I was originally responding to Bt.

My point was that from an historical perspective this war resembles the colonial Phillipines and that war much more than the occupation of Germany or Japan, which happened for much different reasons and under far different circumstances.

Domer's point of mere convenience of reference not withstanding, I really do not see what your problem is. I'm not bashing your President or even the Iraq War. I'm merely pointing out that this war has far more in common with the Filipino War than the post-WWII occupations.

For example, the Phillipines was a war dominated by the United States presence. Germany was occupied by different nations and ultimately split into two separate countries which later joined two separate major military alliances. Iraq is not being occupied by any former enemies with which it has fought major protracted wars (like Iran or Kuwait), but instead is primarily being occupied by one former enemy - the United States, just as the Phillipines were.

The United States faces guerilla warfare which also punishes compliant civilians. This was not common and was even unheard of in Germany and Japan, but was exactly the type of war fought in the Phillipines. Also, unlike Germany and Japan there were multiple factions in the Phillipines, including a separate Muslim guerilla campaign.

I'm simply comparing historical similarities. I have no idea what your problem is. It is apparent to me that this war is much more similar to the Phillipines War than to anything related to World War II. Just because you don't like history does not give you the right to change it or attack someone for bringing up the similarities.

[sirs]

and My Point, is that there's been a military presence in places like Japan & Germany, for 60+years now, and that gets a pass, but the notion of any military presence in Iraq is tantamount to more validation of how terrible Bush and his policies are supposed to be.  Tends to reinforce the leftist double standard 

Understand now?

[_JS]

and My Point, is that there's been a military presence in places like Japan & Germany, for 60+years now, and that gets a pass, but the notion of any military presence in Iraq is tantamount to more validation of how terrible Bush and his policies are supposed to be.  Tends to reinforce the leftist double standard 

Understand now?

No.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Double standards and hypocrisy are commonplace in politics, amongst the right and left. I still have no idea what that has to do with my point.

[sirs]

and My Point, is that there's been a military presence in places like Japan & Germany, for 60+years now, and that gets a pass, but the notion of any military presence in Iraq is tantamount to more validation of how terrible Bush and his policies are supposed to be.  Tends to reinforce the leftist double standard   Understand now?

No.

Hmmmm, it seems quite simple, even for me Js.  We have a military presence in Japan & Germany, not to mention a multitude of other arenas, incl Clinton's ("They'll be home by Christmas") Kosovo, and barely a peep of protest.  We haven't been in Iraq for more than 6years, and the cries of some prolonged military presence is deafening.  And yet you still don't get it yet, do you.  Well, I tried.     Perhaps Bt, Plane, or Ami can do better at explaining it   

[_JS]

Hmmmm, it seems quite simple, even for me Js.  We have a military presence in Japan & Germany, not to mention a multitude of other arenas, incl Clinton's ("They'll be home by Christmas") Kosovo, and barely a peep of protest.  We haven't been in Iraq for more than 6years, and the cries of some prolonged military presence is deafening.  And yet you still don't get it yet, do you.  Well, I tried.     Perhaps Bt, Plane, or Ami can do better at explaining it

Oh, I understand your point. I just cannot see what it has to do with me or the point I made.

You are making a rather simplistic comparison in an effort to try to make people who wish to pull US troops out of Iraq look like hypocrites. The problem with that notion is that it requires one to assume that all foreign military service performed by the United States is historically equivalent (and socially, morally, politically equivalent). Clearly that is not the case.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sometimes I shudder when I read your brilliant posts, Michael, not because of their brilliance, which I celebrate, but for the flat out hatred of the US you consistently express with its bookend oddity clinching a landscape of a bizarre anti-world: your support, hell, your outright cheering and rooting for the world's worst cutthroats, who, be sure, would literally cut your throat, too, given the slightest opportunity>>

Sorry I don't make it clear where my hatred is focused, domer.   It's not a hatred of "the U.S."     It should be pretty clear by now that there is a fascist, militaristic, aggressive and just plain ugly streak in the American soul (what Robert Kennedy once called the "dark side" of America) and that is what I hate in America.  I'd like to see America turn back to what it could have been, but unfortunately I think it's gone too far down the wrong road for it to come back to itself of its own volition.

And as bad as America's worst may be, I know that of course al Qaeda in Iraq, the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army are probably all worse, but so what?  They weren't expected to be better, they had no reason to be better, they don't come from better.  They will be bad whether they win or lose this struggle.  America if it loses in Iraq may be forced to abandon some of its fascism and militarism.  If it wins in Iraq, it's doomed.  So, sure, I would like to see America - - or at least, American fascism and militarism - - defeated in Iraq.  The country needs a lesson.  A real hard lesson.  It needs a huge kick in the ass.

[Michael Tee]

also in response to "didn't we occupy Germany, etc.?" questions, I think the only close-to-valid analogy from the WWII and post-war periods would be South Korea.  Germany and Japan were decisively defeated by superior military force and virtually every city they had (except, I think, Kyoto) was bombed flat.  Anyone who would have resisted would effectively have chosen suicide.  The fact is, there was no violent resistance to the occupation of either Germany or Japan worthy of note.  For one thing, the entire population was at the mercy of the Allied Powers for the very food on their tables.  South Korea was occupied to protect agaisnt invasion from the north.  So this was not really an occupation of a country against the will of a substantial number of its citizens.

The Philippines is a valid analogy - - long-term occupation "worked"    These were islands and had no outside support.

The reason the U.S. could never conquer Viet Nam was the rebels already had the North and an endless reservoir of troops there and if they needed more, they had China behind them.


Iraq will always find supporters coming in by land to fight.  I think it's possible to subdue it with brute force, though.  It's really up to the people of Iraq if they will submit or not.  And how long will Americans tolerate the drain on the Treasury.

[sirs]

Hmmmm, it seems quite simple, even for me Js.  We have a military presence in Japan & Germany, not to mention a multitude of other arenas, incl Clinton's ("They'll be home by Christmas") Kosovo, and barely a peep of protest.  We haven't been in Iraq for more than 6years, and the cries of some prolonged military presence is deafening.  And yet you still don't get it yet, do you.  Well, I tried.     Perhaps Bt, Plane, or Ami can do better at explaining it

Oh, I understand your point. I just cannot see what it has to do with me or the point I made.

Your point is the continued efforts to rationalize why all the other regions we have a military presence is apparently justifiable & gets a pass, but this time, under this President, it's all apparently wrong, when just the opposite arguement can be made.

[_JS]

Your point is the continued efforts to rationalize why all the other regions we have a military presence is apparently justifiable & gets a pass, but this time, under this President, it's all apparently wrong, when just the opposite arguement can be made.

Not at all and you forget that I support the continued US presence in Iraq.

The problem is that I respect the argument of those who oppose that policy. I have no reason to engage in partisan hackery in an effort to portray those who disagree as hypocrites.

[sirs]

Your point is the continued efforts to rationalize why all the other regions we have a military presence is apparently justifiable & gets a pass, but this time, under this President, it's all apparently wrong, when just the opposite arguement can be made.

Not at all

And yet you continue to do precisely that, explain why all the other regions have a military presence, while lamenting at such a possiblility occuring this go around, using an additional set of parameters, that to me express an obvious NEED for such a military presence to remain

and you forget that I support the continued US presence in Iraq.

Could have fooled me.  I keep seeing innuendo as to how such a possibility is some supposed indictment as to how bad things are in Iraq.

[_JS]

And yet you continue to do precisely that, explain why all the other regions have a military presence, while lamenting at such a possiblility occuring this go around, using an additional set of parameters, that to me express an obvious NEED for such a military presence to remain.

Where did I do that?

Could have fooled me.  I keep seeing innuendo as to how such a possibility is some supposed indictment as to how bad things are in Iraq.

Sirs, if Iraq was all peaches and cream why would any rational individual wish to have an occupational army there?

As an aside, what do my reasons for supporting the continued presence of American troops in Iraq have to do with you? At least I can honestly say that I do not have to stoop to partisan hackery to justify it.