NYT: Bush Admin Developing Plans To Keep 50,000 Troops In Iraq For Decades

[kpete]

Bush Administration Developing Plans To Keep 50,000 U.S. Troops In Iraq For Decades

The New York Times reports that the Bush administration is making plans to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely:

Mr. Bush on Friday made clear that the American commitment to the country will be long-term. Officials say the administration has begun to look at the costs of maintaining a force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come, roughly the size of the American presence maintained in the Philippines and Korea for decades after those conflicts.

On Meet the Press, Retired Gen. Barry McCaffery said it was likely that the U.S. will keep at least 50,000 in Iraq for the next 10 years:

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, if it’s a government that works, we can probably sustain the U.S. troops, 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 troops there for 10 years and hope that Iraq turns into a responsible governmental entity that doesn’t attack its neighbors, doesn’t build WMD. I still think that’s a likely outcome if the political system can come together on the ground.

Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress stripped a provision from the supplemental spending bill that would have ruled out permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/11/troops-iraq-decades/

[acmavm]

1. Well I think somebody better tell george not to get to cocky. It's been

tried before. And if al Sadr says the word, it will be a bloodbath.

[rfranklin]

2. This was the plan all along...PNAC, remember?

It was all spelled out in detail by these thugs over a decade ago.

[serryjw]

6. DING! DING!

We know we were never going too leave. We spent $300 billion and counting to protect the oil.

[bdamomma]

19. it is all about the oil

remember bush and cheney are oil men that's all, and to damn with everyone else.

[ClintonTyree]

28. Well, we have to secure our American way of life.........

we have to make sure we can steal enough of the remaining world's oil reserve to supply our citizens' Hummers, Explorers, Tahoes, Motor Homes, Four Wheelers and such. You know, the American way of life! And if we have to colonize Iraq, so be it! We MUST maintain a presence in the Middle East, we energy sucking Americans demand it!

HEAVY :sarcasm:

[Lasher]

12. That's what I've been repeatedly saying

All you've got to do is look to PNAC for a road map of what their neocon intentions are. Next, unless they are stopped by something like a Democratic majority in Congress, they are going to use their permanent military bases in Iraq to launch an invasion of Iran.

[Kutjara]

3. Let's do a little calculation.

If we assume that 'decades' means at least 20 years and that an average of two US soldiers per day will die in the occupation during that period, then King George's little adventure in the desert will cost us 20 x 365 x 2 = 14600 servicemen and women. The number of Iraqi dead will be 10 or 20 times that. This assumes, of course, that the insurgency will not increase in intensity from current levels.

That's enough of a bloodbath for anyone.

[Lasher]

11. OK, so let's calculate the capital cost

The Pentagon estimates we're spending $6.8 Billion a month in Iraq, excluding costs for equipment. Lemme see now, at that rate for 20 years that comes up to $1.632 Trillion, in addition to the $298 Billion we've spent there so far.

That's a grand total of almost $2 Trillion, not even counting the military equipment.

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." — Bush, Jan. 2001.

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. So this is what "finishing the job" is all about?

[bridgit]

5. it'll take that many to defend the embassy & the starbucks...

x(

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. K & R - meanwhile they are distracting with bigotry campaigns and

fearmongering.

For example;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1405628
thread title (6-12-06 – General Discussion): Frank Rich/NYTimes: HOW HISPANICS BECAME THE NEW GAYS

[Clarkie1]

8. They are insane. They want permanent bases in Iraq.

That will do nothing but continue to breed more terrorism, and our presence in Iraq will not help them for a government either next year or 10 years out. If there is any window at all left for our presence to be at all useful for Iraqis (doubtful) that window is nearly closed and is not going to reopen.

These people and their radical ideology have to be stopped. The only way to do that is to retake the executive branch in 08' (of course, presently all our focus must be on retaking the congress in 06', which hopefully will serve as a prelude to that).

Undoubtedly, they will try and use fear again to influence the election in 08', and possibly in 06'. I suspect an attack on Iran. We cannot allow these people to deceive the American people into believing a vote for Republicans is a vote for a strong military and national defense. We have to take that card away from them or the results will be disastrous for the world.

[The2ndWheel]

16. Military bases in another country

is hardly the radical ideology of the neocons. This is a decades long process built by the concentration of military power in the Pentagon, CIA, defense contractors, etc. Good luck trying to change any of that, especially with elections where the only people that make it far enough to vote for are the wealthy who profit the most from our empire.

[Lasher]

17. I wish I could say you're wrong

But you're right. And so was Ike.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/30/60minutes/main892398.shtml

[Voltaire99]

46. Not just Bush: Hillary has no problem with US bases in Iraq.

For Hillary's view of occupation and invasion, see, e.g., http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428

No leaders of the Democratic Party oppose these permanent bases. Nor do any of its rising stars, like Barack Obama (fresh from his recent appearance at a Lieberman fundraiser).

But, oh, by all means, let's "take back our country" by electing people with the same imperial views.

[Lasher]

47. Gosh, I didn't realize it was that bad.

I wish we would close most of our military bases on foreign soil. We could be spending that money on Americans.

[Voltaire99]

48. Agreed.

I wish we would close most of our military bases on foreign soil. We could be spending that money on Americans.

I'm with you on that.

[hobbit709]

9. This will work real well

They should look more to the Philipines after 1898 than 1945 as a preview of what's to come. And after the Korean War the locals weren't blowing us up on a daily basis. The neocons have no real world experience and definitely no sense of history.

[cali]

14. Oh, I think they're aware of history. They choose, out

of arrogance, to ignore what they don't like, and these guys are beyond arrogant. This is a plan that will blow up in someone's face. Unfortunately, that someone is likely to be a dem who inherits this awful mess, not the bastards who planned it.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Wow! Just like we are doing in Germany, Japan, and Italy n/t

[Philosoraptor]

13. Another star on our flag!

We might as well make it a state, remove all the natives and pave it.

[bigtree]

15. I heard Gen. Barry McCaffery talk about this yesterday.

McCaffery was one of the pre-911 cheerleaders for an Iraq invasion..

This seems to be wishful thinking. According to McCaffery, they want to bring the force down to 100,000 by the end of the year, but he thinks even that will be a struggle.

I can't imagine that anyone will be served with a stripped down force and the violence still raging, as I predict it will be. The remaining troops will be more vulnerable, and essentially useless outside of a token presence which will aggravate more than deter anything.

I think this is an awful plan which should be attacked for its false logic. It's premised on a peaceful Iraq, with a working government. Not likely at all in the next year. Propaganda for the election. They think it will be viewed as a drawdown. I'm betting they can't make it happen. Not in their wildest dreams.

No way should we allow a stripped down force to remain to muckrake along with the new Iraqi army. This is misinformation for an inattentive audience.

[JPZenger]

18. Permanent Base Ban Quietly Removed from Bill

Rachel Maddow this morning on Air America said that both the House and Senate had passed a Democratic provision that would have banned spending of Federal dollars on permanent US bases, and would have said that the US would not control the Iraqi oil infrastructure. She said that over the weekend, the provisions mysteriously disappeared when the bill came out of the conference committee. She said that no GOP legislator is not taking responsibility and instead they are blaming their staff.

What is particularly strange is that a conference committee is supposed to iron out differences between House and Senate versions - not remove provisions that they both passed. The conference committee operates in secrecy, and Dems are usually not invited into the meetings.

Maddow said that it exposes the real reasons for the Iraqi invasion - vs. all of the after-the-fact justifications they have tried to think up.

[jarnocan]

20. so like he altered the bill after the fact AGAIN = Un-constitutional!

the Bush regime plans were for permanent bases all along.
IMPEACH!!!!

[JPZenger]

22. Ban on Permanent Iraq Bases Deleted from Bill

Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition

Jun 09 Reuters
By Richard Cowan

"Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.

The ...bill.. is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law. As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq. A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."

...While the Pentagon does not necessarily plan to use any of the emergency funds to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, congressional Democrats wanted Congress to be on record against such a long-term military arrangement. Doing so, they argued, could help overcome Middle East fears that the United States intended to control the region militarily, at least in part to oversee foreign oil reserves. "The perception that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq indefinitely is fueling the insurgency and making our troops more vulnerable," said Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who won House approval of her amendment on permanent bases. "The House and Senate went on record opposing permanent bases, but now the Republicans are trying to sneak them back in the middle of the night," Lee said."

[DirtyDawg]

21. Duh...and somebody's actually surprised?...

Attention Cindy Sheehan. If you ever really expected geedubya to answer your question of 'Why your son had to die?'...this is it. From the very beginning these guys simply wanted to use Iraq as a permanent base(s) for US military in the middle-east. Partly to protect Israel's flank but mostly - and this is largely why we worry about Israel - to guard our oil that so inconveniently has found it's way under all their sand. Oh yes, and to get their hands on whatever cash flow that Iraq would ever have again.

WMDs...Ridding the world of a bad man...bringing Democracy to the mid-east...and on, and on...when the real reason was...It's a profit deal!

[newportdadde]

23. Need a launch pad for middle eas oil. As oil becomes scarce war is

inevitable. Lets face it, as the black gold dries up we will go to war over it and I would say Iran is next up to bat. The juice the precious juice.

[LaPera]

24. How strong would Bush's "commitment" be if Iraq had no OIL?

If say, Lima beans were Iraq's major export and Iraq had no oil, would BushCo of "cared" one bit about the Iraqi people and still illegally invaded Iraq - and be continuing his bullshit plan of democracy in Iraq and stationing 50K troops for decades to control the region?

Tell me its not about oil...As they build the largest US embassy & fortress in the world along with a huge air strip in Baghdad.

[Philosoraptor]

25. So our grandchildren will die there too.

Great.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. After pulling out of Saudi Arabia he had to put them somewhere

The Endless War.

[Rainscents]

27. It looks like, Bush is NOT leaving WH!

[earth mom]

29. Wow-I was thinking the exact same thing!

Question: How in the hell can they plan a long term war if they will not be in power? :wtf:


Answer: They will steal election after election to do so, or they'll just officially crown * King since he seems to think it's his role already! :puke: :puke: :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Egads I am not expecting electiions in 2008

I said this to my hubby this morning while having breakfast... funny thing, when I said that, even the birds paid attention. (We have breakfast with our two feathered friends)

[november3rd]

31. it's too late, baby

did anyone see the CSPAN "Q&A with Chalmers Johnson" last night? http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1079

He basically says that we're overspent because of the military and our energy and trade policies, and we won't be able to sustain 50,000 soldiers in Iraq for twenty years without drastically compromising civil liberties and domestic standard of living.



"The Pentagon is out of control."

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. You think they care?

they are doing this for our own good.

:sarcasm: and civil liberties, silly you... only them damn libruls care about them arcane and ancient concepts.

[opihimoimoi]

33. the Romans did the same thing,,,had bases all over their empire

guess what...it all failed...

[wizdum]

34. Isn't that jumping the gun abit? The current administration will have no..

...say on the length of time troops will stay in Iraq since they will be voted out of power soon enough.

[spuddonna]

35. Tell me that the funding won't come from somewhere...

We're building a freakin' Kubla Khan Pleasuredome Embassy there, 10% larger than any we've built before. It's going to have its own water and electric plants.

We've taken our troops/planes out of Saudi Arabia, and the military is looking for the new digs... We're going to be in Iraq for a long time, if these people can keep their hands in it...

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Please don't insult Kubla Khan (and Coleridge) by

comparing the Albert Speer-esque monstrosity under construction in Baghdad to the "stately pleasure dome" that covered the river Alph.

[spuddonna]

39. You're right... my apologies...

ETA: I think a better analogy would be to Thunderdome...

[coalition_unwilling]

41. Yeah, I think I agree with you on Thunderdome. (eom)

[warrens]

36. Which means they have to steal elections for decades to come nt

[coalition_unwilling]

37. This just in: Hitler developing plans to keep troops in

Stalingrad for 1,000 years. :)

[arewenotdemo]

49. sweet

:thumbsup:

[Divine Discontent]

40. THEN WE MUST ACT - I CALLED, WILL YOU?

(President) John Kerry sent out an email today asking we call our senators and tell them to vote for his resolution that all troops be out by the end of 2006 because this is a CIVIL war between the Shiaa & Sunnis.

I CALLED 2 Republican senators, one who may flip over because of his impending election - DeWine.


Will you do the same? It cost me 40 cents for each call, I have a cell with prepaid minutes, and no phone, that's how important it was to me, and I told them that.




www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- Check it out, top 06 & 08 ProDem stickers & AntiBush wear!

[long_green]

42. what do they think we can accomplish with 50k troops?

They would hardly be able to protect themselves.

[chelsea0011]

43. Not if the Dems take the House, Senate, and Presidency there

won't be a permanent presence.

[PATRICK]

44. And the private security guards

that don't exist in the Philippines or Japan?(I think) The troops are not going to be castled and isolated in permanent bases and, unlike the other nations garrisoned, cannot mix with the natives upon peril of assassination, if we are truly going to be in control and keep those bases. other arms of control are likely to broaden at taxpayer expense of course. Private guards now numbering 25,000 lawless, license to kill individuals. Lord knows what kind of secret forces and spies posing as contractors, not security. Air strikes from the castled areas when anyone gets out of hand. Playing off militias against each other and treating the entire puppet nation as a native ghetto not allowed to interfere with the foreign corporate rate.

Sadly, even in the "successful" vision of Bushco, a far cry more cynical than the equally disingenuous promise of Chalabi, this is pretty much what they had in mind all along, only THEY were supposed to be instigating planned chaos, not responding on such a defensive that the whole nation will blow up around their plans. Stubbornly they chug ahead, pouring more lethality into the planned weakness and chaos of Theft Iraq. If the ghetto is more quickly and more prematurely burned out that is the insurgents' fault.

One real reason why Bush has not abandoned the Iraq "strategy" because in large part the strategy, as ugly and dangerous as it now is, pretty well matches their heart's desire, absent UN or pan-Arab suckers who would have been trapped in disgust between the Bush rape occupation and the warring Iraqis' needs. Real change is therefore not an option to repair anything because that really would threaten the plan. This is adamantly clear when Bush recently called for the neighbors to "help Iraq". he even demanded it. HIS understanding of help is to do the grunt rebuilding and get into the buffer zone to quiet things down so he can move on to Iran, Even better, that was always part of the sucker deal. if the Arabs could help that would free troops. At the same time he could keep their hands off the oil and get them fighting among themselves via Iraqi factions in full bloodletting. Listening to him speak, that is not hard to imagine. What is IMPOSSIBLE to imagine is that Bush means to let the region take care of itself in the same way Kerry and the Dems propose and ultimately withdraw, happy that democracy and cooperation has taken root. Hah!

Another twisted ugly sham on top of all the rest. The same sucker blackmail is being offered to the UN. In noway shape or form does he share even the most pragmatic goals with the UN and its members. they are tools and suckers to set against each other and become dutiful cronies to the fake America Bush fraudulently leads.

[Philosoraptor]

45. Oh yes, they are developing a LOT of Nifty plans alright.

We ain't seen nothin' yet.