U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq

[Better Believe It]

U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq
By Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers
October 30, 2011

The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Well, that should solve the deficit problem. K&R

[Better Believe It]

2. Shocking isn't it? Who would have thunk?

[RC]

3. What transparent bullshit.

Iran is belligerent because it feels threatened. And guess by who -

Would we not do better in the long run by doing peaceful actives, instead of strong-arming those countries?

[RKP5637]

4. I think it's global Manifest Destiny, the spread of imperialism and the

desire by American corporations to also dominate these countries. Also, the MIC is big business. And oil. Yes, we would "do better in the long run by doing peaceful actives, instead of strong-arming those countries?" ... but the mission is sadly power and money ...

[Marazinia]

10. Agree

First thing I thought when I read the title of the story was, 'uh oh, they're after Iran's oil'. But maybe not, because that very well could put the US in a head to head with China, and at this point, that won't end well for the US.

[spanone]

5. if the military downsizes, we might want them to spend less....can't have that

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

6. The article states

that the Pentagon is pushing for this:

<...>

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

<...>

In fact, the article reads like fear mongering and spin.

<...>

At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

“The U.S. will have to come to terms with an Iraq that is unable to defend itself for at least a decade,” Adam Mausner and Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote after the withdrawal announcement.

<...>

Why is the emphasis on Democrats and not Republicans? Seriously, which Democrats have criticized Obama for the announcement?

[still_one]

8. The fact is that the bush lies created this. By invading Iraq based on a lie they effectively

Played into the hand of Iran

Whoever was part of that decision should never be allowed to make foreign policy decisions

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "..should be freed from outside interference.." Oh, the irony.

We're going to build up troop strength in the gulf to protect it from "outside interference".

And, this is to "continue on the pathway to democracy". Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, great bastions of democracy that they are.

Hillary should cut down on the drugs or get a better speech writer.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. "or a military confrontation with Iran. "

Anyone really surprised?

[RKP5637]

11. You know, I think some are deluded enough to think with these wars they

can duplicate post WWII American prosperity. I know that sounds crazy, but a lot of things the US does anymore are pretty crazy. Here's what I think will happen. Israel (per plan) will hit Iran for some reason, and then we will be duty bound to go in ...

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Makes as much sense as anything else we have been watching the past decade.

Except unlike WW2, those who "profit" from it are going to be a very small group of the usual suspects.

When TPTB have bankrupted and/or starved most of the people on the planet, who do they think is going to buy the stuff that they have killed to steal to sell?

[RKP5637]

13. Yep, they've never been known for long range planning. I envision one day

armed corporate wars, as the corporations left standing devourer each other in battle for what the other has. It sure won't be us (what's left of us) so it'll be just them killing off each other, right back to the prehistoric age, for king of the mountain. I also envision a corporate coup d'état trying to take over the government one day. The banking system / wall street is already working on that, but which corporate CEO will be king ...

[bvar22]

14. Recced up to ZERO.

There are DUers who don't want YOU to have this information.

[AntiFascist]

15. Who really needs medicare anyway! n/t

:sarcasm: