50-Year Iraq Presence A ‘Realistic Assessment’

[Lanya]

Petraeus: Escalation Not Done By September, 50-Year Iraq Presence A ‘Realistic Assessment’

Today on Fox News Sunday, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, agreed that lawmakers will be able to have a “reasonable and a realistic sense” of whether the escalation is “working or not working” by September. “I’ve said that all along. I started saying that back in January. I think we’ll have had by then our forces in the mix for a good several months.”

Later in the show, however, Petraeus admitted that he didn’t expect the “surge” to be done by September, the date set for Petraeus’ supposedly make-it or break-it report to Congress. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether he believed “the job would be done by the surge by September,” Petraeus responded, “I do not, no.” Watch it:

Asked in a follow up question if that meant “enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008,” Petraeus refused to answer. “Again, premature right now,” said Petraeus. “A number of options out there. And I’m not about to announce what we might do here today, I’m afraid.”

Petraeus then went on to endorse the “Korea model” for Iraq, which envisions keeping troops in the country for decades. “[T]ypically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years,” said Petraeus. “I think in general that that’s probably a fairly realistic assessment,” Petraeus said of the Korea comparison.

Transcript:

    WALLACE: Let’s explore that. General Odierno, your number two, said this weekend that the Washington politicians need to give the surge more time. Do you think by September you’re going to “have a reasonable and a realistic sense of how the surge has gone, whether, in fact, it is working or not working?

    PETRAEUS: I think we will have a sense of that, Chris. i’ve said that all along. I started saying that back in January. i think we’ll have had by then our forces in the mix for a good several months. We’ll have some sense of how we have done in these various sanctuaries that al Qaeda has had in the past that we are now entering for the first time in which we will endeavor to stay. we’ll have a sense of how we’ve done in some of these tough neighborhoods in Baghdad and how we are doing also, all of this in partnership with our Iraqi security force counterparts in Diyalla province and some of the other areas of the country. […]

    WALLACE: There are reports that you and General Odierno would like the surge to continue until at least early 2008, that if it’s going to work, it needs to continue into early next year. is that true?

    PETRAEUS: We’ve got a number of different options that we have looked at, Chris, and it really is premature at this point in time to try to prejudge that. again, i would suspect that late in the summer, early September, that we will provide some recommendations on the way ahead up our chain of command as well.

    WALLACE: But you surely don’t think the job would be done by the surge by September, do you, sir?

    PETRAEUS: I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007, as I mentioned, was substantial. And this is a tough effort.

    WALLACE: So then it would be fair to assume that the enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008.

    PETRAEUS: Chris, again, premature right now. A number of options out there. And not about to announce what we might do here today, I’m afraid. […]

    WALLACE: Let me look out even further than that, General. Some administration officials have talked about needing to make and basically squaring with the American public saying, look, this is going to be a long-term commitment and comparing it to the situation in South Korea where we have had thousands of troops for decades. Do you see this to stabilize and achieve what we want in Iraq as that kind of a long-term commitment?

    PETRAEUS: Well, I think the real question, Chris, is at what level. I think — I think just about everybody out there recognizes that a situation like this with the many, many challenges that Iraq is contending with is not one that’s going to be resolved in a year or even two years. in fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years. The question is, of course, at what level, how much will we have to continue to contribute during that time, how much more can the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government pick up as it goes along, and I think that’s the real question. And I’m not sure what the right analogy is, whether it’s Korea or what have you. I think all that the folks in Washington were trying to indicate by that was that there’s some possibility of some form of long-term security arrangement over time, and I think in general that that’s probably a fairly realistic assessment, assuming that the Iraqi government, in fact, does want that to continue and, of course, it is very much up to them and their sovereignty is paramount in all of this.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/17/petraeus-korea/

[Michael Tee]

50 years is a long time.  With all that oil, the Chinese and/or Russians and/or Indians will have their asses kicked out of there in under 35.  Too bad I won't be around to see it happen.

[BT]

We are still in Japan and Germany right?

What is that 60 years plus

[_JS]

We are still in Japan and Germany right?

What is that 60 years plus

Why use Japan and Germany? They don't seem to be similar situations at all.

[sirs]

We are still in Japan and Germany right?  What is that 60 years plus

Why use Japan and Germany? They don't seem to be similar situations at all.

Military presence in those locations following open war is not similar?  Do we have different branches of the military, I'm not aware of?

[_JS]

Military presence in those locations following open war is not similar?  Do we have different branches of the military, I'm not aware of?

Military presence following a complete surrender without open hostilities and a guerilla campaign afterwards. No sectarian violence either.

Perhaps the colonial period of the Phillipines is a more similar example. It doesn't imply the just war of World War II, but gives a similar set of circumstances (though we didn't take Iraq from a separate foreign power).

We lost about 4300 soldiers in the three year guerilla war and the Phillipino forces lost about 15,000 or so. We built concentration camps in an attempt to sort out the guerilla sympathizers. There was a great deal of atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict, including torture by the United States.

Also, there was a political and cultural movement against the war at home. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate who was staunchly anti-Imperialist. Mark Twain was also famously against the war and considered it un-American. Andrew Carnegie was another famous personality who was against the war. Some of the Filipino leaders even considered the possibility of causing enough casualties to bring Bryan to office and end the war.

I think that this war is far more similar to Iraq and you still get your lengthy occupation period to bring up - 44 years - from 1898 until the Japanese kicked us out in World War II.

[gipper]

From a purely "interest" standpoint, it's impossible for me to conceive a strategic importance for the Phillipines in the same universe of strategic importance Iraq has come to be. Further, not that we were particularly concerned in 1898, but the threat of internecine strife exploding into genocide -- on what should be our watch -- is huge in Iraq. Plus, perhaps the coup de grace, a US exodus with a rag-tag or full-blown conflict raging there (Iraq) almost certainly will destabilize the whole region, as we are seeing now in the particularly volatile pockets.

[Michael Tee]

Due to a single and easily preventable attack on the Pentagon and New York City, carried out by only 19 guys, the U.S. is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight.  Even if the conflict ended tomorrow, those 19 guys inflicted more damage to America than they could ever have dreamed of.  They basically created an arena for jihadis from all over the Muslim world to come and joust with the Great Satan in a win-win scenario - - martyrdom or victory.  They've already cost the U.S. more deaths than the WTC attacks, and maybe 25,000 wounded as well.  This isn't even counting "contractor" casualties.  The combined expenditures of the Afghan and Iraqi Wars and the Homeland Security have to be counted against the cost to al Qaeda of mounting the attacks.  The huge loss in American prestige around the world was just the icing on the cake.  I think they got the biggest bang for their buck that any group of warriors have gotten throughout the history of the world.

Who knows how this is going to end?  If the Democrats' grass roots fail to find new faces and new leadership, it could drag out for a long, long time.  The Iraqis don't have the advantages of huge numbers, as the Vietnamese people did.  In the long haul, the U.S. could prevail.  That would be a total fucking disaster for law and humanity.  Success in Iraq would probably encourage them and others to unleash more wars of aggression elsewhere.  The toll in human suffering would be enormous.  International law, already in ashambles, would just be wiped out not only as a force but even as an idea.  They have to be stopped, but from here I don't see anyone who is going to stop them.  The situation looks really, really bleak.

[gipper]

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.

[sirs]

Military presence in those locations following open war is not similar?  Do we have different branches of the military, I'm not aware of?

Military presence following a complete surrender without open hostilities and a guerilla campaign afterwards. No sectarian violence either.

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     

[Lanya]

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. 

[gipper]

OK, Lanya, you take the floor. Please detail how you would address all the myriad competing interests affected by the Iraq belligerency, and what, pray God, would happen as the result of a premature withdrawal, especially as to a possible out-of-control civil war taking, conceivably, countless more dead and wounded to the realm of genocide in its farthest extrapolations, or the clear and present danger of the fighting sparking a broad regional strife.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.
 

[Lanya]

Domer,
I'm afraid I can't detail all the myriad competing interests or what would happen if we left. I'm no expert and I can't foretell the future.   

What I can do is read articles by people who are reading the Arabic news; people like Juan Cole. 
I can listen to reporters who are there.  I can read testimony of US military generals and sometimes glean things.   

I can foresee a time when this part of the world won't be our only problem.  If we continue to act as if it is, we'll be stuck, we'll lose troops and equipment, and possibly we  still would not have enough to meet another threat elsewhere. 

I think we need to remove ourselves from the region.     Remember Condi Rice talking about the birth pangs of democracy?   Yeah.   More like a huge conflagration that's flaring up region-wide.   
Our soldiers aren't a magic firewall.  They never had enough men there in the first place which is why it got this bad----not enough security.  Not enough water, or electricity.   Not enough people to guard the ammo dumps way back when the war started,  so people are blown up daily.  Streets are unsafe, sectarian warfare.  Iraq is a failed state.   
Study: Iraq World's No. 2 Failed State
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6718897,00.html

The presence of American soldiers won't cure that.   
 

[BT]

You seem to harp on the lack of troops.

Are you in favor of a full blown surge of up to half a million troops staffed if need be by a draft? perhaps we would be able to deal with other problems, or fronts if you will, that you vaguely reference, but fail to define.

Hillary as well as Harry Reid are on record as saying they wanted to send 79k more troops. I guess they were for the surge before they were against it

Nevertheless, they saw the need and the worthiness of the war, until it was no longer to their political advantage to do so.

And that is just sad.