Jump to content

Blog Cosmo

  • entries
    77
  • comments
    0
  • views
    1866

Will the Middle East accept this?


Cosmo

186 views

 Share

US in Iraq for 'another 50 years'

THE US Defence Secretary suggested for the first time yesterday that American forces could be in Iraq for at least another half century, under an arrangement similar to the effectively permanent US troop deployment in South Korea.

In comments that will dismay war opponents at home and alarm Muslim allies in the Middle East, Robert Gates said that "some force of Americans" will be in Iraq for a "protracted period of time" and pointed to South Korea as the model. US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, in the heavily armed demilitarised zone that separates the country from North Korea. US generals are in charge of the combined US-South Korean forces. Mr Gates, speaking in Hawaii during a visit to US Pacific Command, said that current war plans still called for an assessment of the US "surge" strategy in September, but he said he was looking beyond that to the type of military presence the US would have in Iraq over the long term. He contrasted the situation in South Korea to Vietnam, where, he said, "we just left, lock, stock and barrel", a reference to the US withdrawal after the fall of Saigon in1975. "What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans -- with mutually agreed missions -- is present for a protracted period of time," he said. "The idea is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions. The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan is another." All eyes in Washington are on the progress report to Congress in September by General David Petraeus, the US ground commander, with moderate Republicans saying that anything less than significant optimism will end their support for President George W. Bush. Yesterday, General Raymond Odierno, the No2 commander in Iraq, told reporters in Washington via video link from Baghdad that he might not be able to make a full assessment by September of whether the build-up was succeeding in stabilising Iraq. General Odierno admitted that in an effort to quell violence, the US military was seeking talks with Shia Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- believed to be behind the kidnapping of five Britons this week. A Sadr aide confirmed US officials had approached the anti-American cleric's supporters, but said Sadr would never begin a dialogue with "occupation forces". "He has a grass-roots movement that he's always going to have; we have to recognise that," General Odierno said in an interview this week. "We're trying to talk to him. We want to talk to him." In the video conference from Baghdad yesterday, General Odierno said the US was reaching out to Sunni Muslims as well as Shia armed factions such as Sadr's Mahdi Army. "We are talking about ceasefires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the Government of Iraq or against coalition forces," he said. At the same time, however, US and British forces have stepped up operations against the Mahdi Army in the sprawling Shia slum of Sadr City in Baghdad and the southern port city of Basra. The Times, AFP, ReutersL
 Share

0 Comments


Recommended Comments

US in Iraq for 'another 50 years'

THE US Defence Secretary suggested for the first time yesterday that American forces could be in Iraq for at least another half century, under an arrangement similar to the effectively permanent US troop deployment in South Korea.

In comments that will dismay war opponents at home and alarm Muslim allies in the Middle East, Robert Gates said that "some force of Americans" will be in Iraq for a "protracted period of time" and pointed to South Korea as the model. US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, in the heavily armed demilitarised zone that separates the country from North Korea. US generals are in charge of the combined US-South Korean forces. Mr Gates, speaking in Hawaii during a visit to US Pacific Command, said that current war plans still called for an assessment of the US "surge" strategy in September, but he said he was looking beyond that to the type of military presence the US would have in Iraq over the long term. He contrasted the situation in South Korea to Vietnam, where, he said, "we just left, lock, stock and barrel", a reference to the US withdrawal after the fall of Saigon in1975. "What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans -- with mutually agreed missions -- is present for a protracted period of time," he said. "The idea is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions. The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan is another." All eyes in Washington are on the progress report to Congress in September by General David Petraeus, the US ground commander, with moderate Republicans saying that anything less than significant optimism will end their support for President George W. Bush. Yesterday, General Raymond Odierno, the No2 commander in Iraq, told reporters in Washington via video link from Baghdad that he might not be able to make a full assessment by September of whether the build-up was succeeding in stabilising Iraq. General Odierno admitted that in an effort to quell violence, the US military was seeking talks with Shia Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- believed to be behind the kidnapping of five Britons this week. A Sadr aide confirmed US officials had approached the anti-American cleric's supporters, but said Sadr would never begin a dialogue with "occupation forces". "He has a grass-roots movement that he's always going to have; we have to recognise that," General Odierno said in an interview this week. "We're trying to talk to him. We want to talk to him." In the video conference from Baghdad yesterday, General Odierno said the US was reaching out to Sunni Muslims as well as Shia armed factions such as Sadr's Mahdi Army. "We are talking about ceasefires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the Government of Iraq or against coalition forces," he said. At the same time, however, US and British forces have stepped up operations against the Mahdi Army in the sprawling Shia slum of Sadr City in Baghdad and the southern port city of Basra. The Times, AFP, ReutersL
Link to comment

Well this is no surprise. Most analysts have assumed that Iraq would eventually succeed Saudi Arabia as the main base for American forces in the Middle East. I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs, merely that it was to be expected.

Link to comment

hmm..does it not say in the american constitution that you must arm yourself to protect your family and so you can remove an unwanted dictatorlike government???i dont disapprove the american people.you are just confused europeans,,but i disapprove the american government and their terror in the afghanistan and iraq..i am very happy too see americans disagree with teir 4th reich fuhrer:)

Link to comment

Hehe Kalimist,

If we Americans were such war mongers, we would have forced the Germans to rearm themselves and join us in finishing off the Russians during the end of WWII. Russia was certainly on the ropes then...

End of Communism right there....

Link to comment

I agree with anenglishman, all the evidence points to a long stay....Iraq strategically (re: oil reserve) is just too important to America.

The new US embassy under construction in Iraq is reportedly bigger than the Vatican city....and the new military airport under construction in Iraq is reportedly also the biggest in the world.

The question really is whether the so called Arab world will accept this as a fait accompli

Link to comment

yeah,,how will?? i guess the EU and the rest of europe and the arab states will have to..and to haiku,,if you had joined the germans in ww2 you`d

rule the earth by now:)

Link to comment

kalimist> does it not say in the american constitution that you must arm yourself to protect your family and so you can remove an unwanted dictatorlike government?

No, it doesn't.

The original constitution had no such provision. The first ten amendments to the US constitution, called the Bill of Rights, passed by Congress in 1789 and coming into effect in 1791 (when enough of the states had accepted the amendments), contains what you're sort of thinking of, known pretty much universally to Americans as the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

What this says is that you're allowed to wear short sleeve shirts or tank tops, provided you're a member of a militia. The framers of the Bill of Rights were sick of wearing long sleeves on hot summer days, but, realizing the socially conservative values of much of the population, made allowing the wearing of short sleeves more acceptable by associating it with membership in a militia, so that in the public mind it was a part of military dress.

Somehow US courts for many decades used a version of the constitution with a spelling mistake, in which the Second Amendment read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This version is the source of all the trouble. Its intention was defence against an overly powerful government assuming what we would now call dictatorial powers. It seems clear however that the right to bear arms is strongly associated with a "well-regulated militia." In other words, although the amendment doesn't require it, it could easily have been interpreted over time to mean people could keep arms only as official militia members. A government sanctioned militia is not powerless if the government turns against the people, provided it still has its weapons. (This is what saved Slovenia from invasion by Serbia at the start of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The Slovenians took control of local arms caches. The Croatians were not so lucky.) Of course a militia has many other uses besides fighting an out-of-control government, which make it quite likely that the government in its normal state, would help to establish them.

But over time, and through increasing precedent, US courts have come to ignore the clause about the well-regulated militia which gives context to the following clause about the right to bear arms.

Now the only thing that Americans remember about the Second Amendment is the "right to keep and bear arms" part.

Today's situation of gun ownership in the USA bears almost no resemblance to the intention of a "well-regulated militia."

Certainly there is nothing in the Second Amendment as it stands that would stop the government from banning certain types of guns. It's a lot harder than a handgun to hide a proper military rifle down your pants even if they are really baggy! And even if you could, try walking around easily with that sucker strapped to your leg. There's nothing in the US constitution that would stop gun ownership being limited to an official list of militia-issued weapons, and requiring bearers of those weapons to receive militia training in responsible storage and use of them and to be registered as militia members, with weapons also registered.

Of course, that wouldn't stop people from being stupid or evil with the guns available to them, but it might serve to limit the possibilities and cut down on gun deaths - looking at various European countries and even Canada as examples. (In Canada we actually have a lot of guns, but most of them are of the hunting rifle variety, owned by people living in the countryside or people who go hunting. We have a vastly lower per capita rate of gun deaths.)

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...