This story is archived

Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq »

Posted by: Beau7890 2 years, 6 months ago

Archived 53 0 drops

U.S. military officials here are increasingly envisioning a "post-occupation" troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years. One of the guiding principles is that the U.S. should leave Iraq more intellige

Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »

Submitted By:

Beau7890

A chicken walks into a bar holding a violin case. He’s wearing a chrysanthemum in his lapel. He sits down at the mahogany bar ...

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 53

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PilotSmall
June 10, 2007, 11:18 a.m.
Bad, bad thinking!
Avg rating: (+0/-6 -6)
Neophile
June 10, 2007, 2:09 p.m.
Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 2003: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Avg rating: (+21/-0 21)
simonsez
June 10, 2007, 4:07 p.m.
No surprise here and it makes sense.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
brothers
June 10, 2007, 4:23 p.m.
Doesn't suprise me either.
Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)
kedirian
June 10, 2007, 7:04 p.m.
At the rate at which our troops are being blown up, it may not be such a longterm presence, after all! And I doubt if the American people will tolerate any longer feeding their sons and daughters and other kin into the Iraki Meatgrinder..., or coughing up billions in taxes for such an adventure! Let's face it, Irak is Dubya's BLUNDER of an unprecedented nature for which we will pay without posting our military there for years to come, not the least of which is our payment in loss of prestige and world leadership...
Avg rating: (+11/-0 11)
MikeReardon
June 10, 2007, 7:04 p.m.
This is the South Korea idea that keeps troops in bases not directly in cities as reaction forces against attack from the north (Iran). It seperates the Shia and Sunni world in Iraq.
If it goes like Korea all the way out until 2059 or so, the plan its going to be a long commitment.
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
slate
June 10, 2007, 7:12 p.m.
We are still in Germany, Korea and Bosnia after all this time,,,,, why would it be unreasonable to have a longer term presence in Iraq?
Avg rating: (+20/-2 18)
quackpot
June 10, 2007, 7:31 p.m.
What a surprise.
Avg rating: (+1/-6 -5)
NelsonR
June 10, 2007, 7:31 p.m.
Bush would stay forever if he could. Lives lost, millions displaced, a world in upheavel, it matters not since his legacy is the ultimate goal. The man should be convicted of crimes against humanity but it will never happen since the elite rule our world or at least until the masses are fed up enough. Louis lost his head and my only desire is that very few Americans visit his shrine that is costing millions. The man deserves nothing but rebuke and despise. I hope the place of his legacy is shrouded in cobwebs.
Bush should go back to drugs and alcohol and included with that have the song, "Be Happy" playing.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Obaku
June 10, 2007, 7:40 p.m.
These idiots have no idea, no concept, of having an occupation force in hostile country.
Rome and the Ottoman Empire did it, and still failed at it, in the long run.
Spain and Britain did it, and eventually failed at it.
The bloody English invented concentration camps to cope with the Boers, and the war(s) spanned over twenty years.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
Edmar14
June 10, 2007, 8:59 p.m.
Good points, and yet, we still can't just pull out. Kind of leaves us in a vacuum, doesn't it?
Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)
cloud15
June 10, 2007, 9:16 p.m.
"At the rate at which our troops are being blown up, it may not be such a longterm presence, after all!"'
Umm.....im pretty sure were not getting blown up at that high of a rate.....im sure the rates was much higher in past wars, I'm actually 100% sure about that.
We can't pull out of Iraq, its too late for that. Once we invaded it pretty much garunteed a civil war and which would require us to stay to the end. Im not saying I want us to stay, but we made the mess over there, so we gotta help clean it up. We cant just leave and say "its not our problem" because it is our fault and adversly our problem. Would be very irresponsible for us to pull out at this point and would make us even less liked by the countries of the world.
Avg rating: (+5/-1 4)
el4sail
June 10, 2007, 9:45 p.m.
The Longer we stay in Iraq the more troops we lose and the closer Iran gets to its bomb.
As long as we are fighting in Iraq Iran can safely assume they will not be invaded or attacked.
Avg rating: (+0/-9 -9)
Obaku
June 10, 2007, 11:20 p.m.
That might be true, if Iraq weren't ALREADY a mess.
That might be true, if it weren't even truer about Afghanistan, where there really is no option but to put the country back together, because AL Qaeda and the Taliban are actually there, and expanding their influence in Pakistan, which ALREADY has nuclear weapons.
If the U.S. could do both, it would have, and since it can't, I choose Afghanistan, and Iraq can go to hell without us.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
evelyna
June 11, 2007, 12:30 a.m.
That could be a solution to the illegal immigration problem. Send them over there.
The ones who do not want to go will not come back and the rest can resettle and rebuild there. I keep hearing how hard of workers they all. If they want to shoot, loot and steal none will notice the difference in Iraq. No prisons except for Bush illegal torture chambers.