quote: U.S. will retain power in Iraq after transfer
04:37 PM CST on Monday, March 22, 2004
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Come June 30, the American face in Iraq will undergo only a symbolic change.
The United States says Iraq will be sovereign and no longer under military occupation by that date. But the U.S. will retain most of the power. That power will reside within the world's largest U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and be backed by 110,000 U.S. troops.
Top U.S. and Iraqi officials say the fledgling Iraqi government will be capable of tackling little more than drawing up a budget and preparing for elections.
Iraqi Governing Council member Adnan Pachachi says, "We don't expect them to enact any laws unless there is absolute need for them." He says big contractual obligations, either diplomatically or economically, should be done by an elected government.
Hey, at least it's a move to a finish. A better end than some.
quote: Kurds embrace Americans and culture
07:32 AM CST on Saturday, March 20, 2004
Associated Press
SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — Not all Iraqis are wary of the continued U.S. presdence a year after the start of the war that ousted Saddam Hussein.
At MaDonal, a restaurant with a familiar name, diners munch cheeseburgers and fries. U.S. troops open cans of Diet Coke. An American flag flies next to the sign that bears the internationally recognized trademark golden arches.
The scene reflects a fact of life in Iraq's north: Many Kurds are fascinated with the culture of the superpower that freed an oppressed people from brutal persecution by the ousted dictator.
Dana Mohammed, who works at MaDonal, says people there like the Americans.
Many Kurds - ethnically distinct from Arabs - have no qualms about their support for the United States. Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims but some are self-proclaimed secularists and others follow a moderate, tolerant Islam.
At least someone besides England still supports us. Not that I blame the others for not supporting. However, support is hard to come by and I'll take it from anywhere. Maybe after I don't know what time, we can be rid of this whole situation and move on. Make things boring again. I'll take a boring deployment with port calls anytime over a deployment w/ a war and few port calls. Well.....except that they did enlarge the tax free and hazardous duty zones after 9/11. The little bit more money definately helped.
[ March 25, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Interesting. I have been putting all my money on Fearless Leader pulling our troops out of Iraq for purposes of the election. If he leaves 110,000 troops there, he will be showing more testicular fortitude than I have been giving him credit for.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stormy, I don't think it's actually a good idea. From what I understand, the US is in the process of building/rebuilding four to six permanent bases in Iraq. Of course, Rumsfeld denied it, and I agree with what others have written about it. Some believe what the US actually wants is "permanent access" not "permanent bases." But either way, it looks bad when the US starts building bases in a country it claims it's not occupying, yet when you look at history, we've put up permanent bases after every war.
quote: Last Sunday the New York Times quoted unidentified Bush administration officials as saying the United States wants to keep four permanent military bases in Iraq. More than likely these bases will be situated at the international airport, the H-1 airfield, Tallil airfield near Nasiriya, and Bashur airfield. "The impression that's left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it's flat false," Rumsfeld said about the New York Times story.
It's kind of sad that we can't even trust the Secretary of Defense.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, and not to disput you, base closings also happen at the Pentagon's decision. They might end up closing at least half after they realize how expensive they are to maintain. But then, I don't know. I is just speculatin'. I'm probably dead wrong, but I usually am.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, let's put it this way, I support us maintaining a high military profile there, but I don't support us runnign the country. A strong military presence would, I think, be a stabilizing force on the country and the region. It would give us a vested interest to keep the peace in the region and to give Iraq every bit of aid we can to see that it prospers. It would give many muslims and arabs exposure to the US people, and vice versa. I've floated the idea before that our bases in Germany have long outlived their usefulness beyond refueling stops. I think we could shrink our troop presence in Europe quite a bit and place them in Iraq, thus keeping our expenditures at about where they are now.
On the other hand, I don't support us deferring Iraqi democratic self determination one moment longer than we need to. I don't believe this is what's happening since the Bush administration would have to be the most stupid entity on the planet to play into the hands of those who believe we are, in fact, empire building. If it is clear that Iraq is just a puppet of the US, then the country will be racked by civil unrest. An Iraq wracked by civil war and unrest would make us look the most worst, I think.
I think what we will see is the best of all possible worlds--an Iraq that is basically independent, but htat has a strong US military presence. Our troops will negate the need for Iraq to have a strong military, which will mean that a military coup will be impossible for a bit, giving democracy a chance to gain a foothold in the country, and will prevent Iran from attacking Iraq.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
