Bush Speech: Iraq Another Korea

Again with the mission creep. I don't know how many times Mr. Bush has expanded our goals in Iraq, but what he's offering tonight takes it around the bend and back again.

On an enduring relationship with Iraq that requires many fewer American troops:

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

Bush speech to the nation: advance excerpts

Mr. Bush can throw in the "fewer American troops" pony, but the the highlighted section above is ominous. What it implies is that Mr. Bush is about to enter into an agreement with the Maliki government that will extend beyond his presidency and commit the U.S. permanently to Iraq. This was obviously the plan all along, especially when you take in the largest embassy on earth, and the football-long bases for troops.

Korea is the model? Only in Bush's little mind. We haven't taken serious casualties in Korea since the late 1960s. Does anyone believe casualty rates will plummet with Bush's new Operation Enduring Nightmare? Just for the record, Bush has been hinting at this for a while (via email from a friend):

"Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say"

"President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S. role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday." [CNN, 9/13/07]

-----------

"With Korea as Model, Bush Team Ponders Long Support Role in Iraq"

"Several visitors to the White House say that in private, he has sounded intrigued by what he calls the "Korea model," a reference to the large American presence in South Korea for the 54 years since the armistice that ended open hostilities between North and South." [The New York Times, 6/3/07]

-------------

"Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea"

"White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea." [Reuters, 5/30/07]

---------------

"White House envisions 'Korean model' in Iraq"

"President Bush would like to see the U.S. military provide long-term stability in Iraq as it has in South Korea, where thousands of American troops have been based for more than half a century, the White House said Wednesday." [The Seattle Times, 5/31/07]

---------------

"S. Korea Eyed as Model for U.S. Troops in Iraq"

"White house spokesman Tony Snow said last week that President Bush looks to South Korea as a sort of model." [NPR, 6/10/07]

This new plan for a permanent commitment in Iraq, not just a long-term presence that has been Bush's launching pad to tonight's gem, should not go unchallenged by Congress. Of course, we're likely to hear a chorus of we don't have the votes blah-blah-blah instead.

Oh, as an aside, the military isn't fooled by Bush's Iraqi hearing pageantry. The military are supporting the Democrats in droves. Sign 'em up and get 'em to run for office.

Iraq as another Korea?

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.

Comments

[KeysDan]

The President's speech was informative and revelatory. For those who still do not get it, the real reasons for starting the war and maintaining the occupation indefinately are hiding in plain sight--right on the pages of his speech, although they were cast as reasons why we can not leave--assure the international flow of oil, protection of the Holy Land, and military, economic and political control. Iraq is to be an ally,(i.e., in our sphere of influence). We know all the previous reasons were bogus (WMD,Sadamm & 9/ll, democracy, freedom, terrorism, and al Qaeda etc) although some are still trotted out, when fear is needed for sales purposes, including last night. To achieve the three realobjectives, a long term presence is required, hence, the biggest embassy in the world--the size of the Vatican, and permanent bases in the desert. Stability is an enemy of a planned long term presence, chaos is a friend. Hence, chaos enabled by strategic incomptence (as opposed to humdrum Bush incompetence as described in books like Fiasco) was required. The Bushies are not incompetent, if you want chaos disband the army, have young men unemployed, permit looting, curb services and wait for trouble. If the occupation went quickly and swimmingly, everyone would say, no WMDs, and the evil Saddam is gone, everyone out of the pool.

[poopdeck]

All commentators I have heard or read about this issue seem to be missing the point completely.
1. According to the Geneva Conventions on Warfare and Occupation, the U.S. and our allies are still "parties of occupation" of Iraq and that will be so until a Senate-approved treaty with the Iraqi government has been signed.
2. Once the U.S. Congress is going to buy into Bush's "Korean-analogy" poppycock (they will!), the president can claim that we are no longer an occupying force, hence are no longer bound by the Geneva Conventions.
3. Today, the U.S. and our allies can "legally" (see Geneva Conventions)requisition as much crude oil from Iraq as is needed for the occupation forces (Oilman Hunt may actually become a war criminal if he takes more crude out of Kurdistan than needed, something his buddy GWB might not want to happen). When we are "at peace" with Iraq, Hunt can "legally" steal as much crude as he wants. If Iraq is a "close ally", we are "obviously" at peace with Iraq.
4. Since GWB does not think that the Geneva Conventions matter, the stealing of crude oil will go ahead anyway but it would be convenient for him and Al-Maliki to have a fig-leaf ready.

[DICKERSON3870]

IT WILL TAKE "BIG OIL" 30 YEARS OR SO TO SUCK IRAQ DRY. THEY WANT A COMMITMENT THAT U.S. FORCES WILL BE IN IRAQ UNTIL THEY HAVE FINISHED TAKING ALL OF THE GAS AND OIL.

[Nonamnesiac]

I think this latest expansion of the US mission in Iraq announced by Bush last night is a treaty that cannot fit within the so-called mandate the resolution to bring down Saddam militarily authorized. He is making long-term commitments to Iraq -- and the Constitution requires such commitments to be made by treaty -- ratified or rejected by the Senate. He cannot act on them until the treaty is drafted and ratified or he is committing a -- you guessed it -- high crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution.

[Nonamnesiac]

I think this latest expansion of the US mission in Iraq announced by Bush last night is a treaty that cannot fit within the so-called mandate the resolution to bring down Saddam militarily authorized. He is making long-term commitments to Iraq -- and the Constitution requires such commitments to be made by treaty -- ratified or rejected by the Senate. He cannot act on them until the treaty is drafted and ratified or he is committing a -- you guessed it -- high crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution.

[jm8094]

Taylor, I enjoy reading your posts - you always have something interesting to say.

[eirefinch]

It's not exactly a very smart idea technically anyway if you think about it since the American presence in Korea in based along inter-country boundries, not something Bush could do in Iraq unless he starts splitting the country up, which would be a very bad plan.

[Overd0g]

Let's hope so. A permanent U.S. military presence in the center of the Heart Of Darkness (the Middle East), is a very good thing for the U.S. and the world. I believe we should withdraw the troops, when the local dictatorships can no longer threaten the worlds oil supply. That will either occur through developing alternate energy supplies, or civilizing them. I don't hold much hope for the latter.

[apduncan1]

This a Holocaust. Plain and simple. Don't even call it a war.

We are no different from the willing Germans of WWII that allowed for the Nazi genocide of jews and other "undesirables".

Shame on us.

[fmoramar]

The "willing Germans of WWII" did not take out ads calling their Nazi generals betrayers; they did not publish statements calling Hitler and his gang crazy; they turned their eyes away from what was going on in the death camps. "We" are not doing that. Today"s papers are filled with editorials about the insanity of Bush"s policies. The Germans did not have people like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and others daily ridiculing the policies of their government. They did not participate in open forums like this one pointing out the ludicrousness of their leader"s view of the world. I don"t think self-flagellation gets us very far. This is Bush"s war, and a great many of us are doing what we can to raise awareness of the horrors that he has inflicted upon our country and the world.

[IntegrityIntact]

It's no surprise what George Bush blabbed about last night. I'm sick and tired of this sh#t!! What an utter and complete insult to any of us who have rational working brains. This man is akin to the most dangerous psychopath ever known to walk the earth.

March on Washington this SAT. SEPT. 15TH 2007 TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ/IMPEACH BUSH-CHENEY. Expect over 100,000 to show up for this historic stand against this American tyranny and tragic raping of American Democracy.

[MajorKong]

So how many US troops die in South Korea every year?

[rbenjamin]

Watching high def. Bush last night, I couldn't help but notice parallels between his Iraq Policy and Tony Snow's final press briefing. Both were up-beat, brave and made ambitious plans for the future, but if you can't willingly suspend disbelief (or critical thinking), the prognosis for both their cases looks glaringly terminal. Bush can move the goal posts, Tony not so much. Belief in miraculous intervention from a higher power is about all either have left.

Tasteless you say? Unfair? So are nearly 4000 dead US military and God only knows how many Iraqi civilians killed for a lie.

[bar1ed]

as a vet., i am totally embarrassed by this president. to think i put my life on the line for this man.

[researcher]

oh it will get worst much worst.

We are being held hostage by a madman. Our bad.

Imperialism has its price.

we Americans will pay that price for our ignorance and our complacency.

they the Iraqis will bleed us slow and drain our treasures, which we do not feel the affects yet as this war is being waged on borrowed money.

they know we have installed a puppet government and want to control and occupy their country for their oil.

we would do the same if someone occupied our country.

maybe we will get lucky and someone will invade us and remove our dictator. Congress does not have the courage and Nancy and Reid are playing politics with this war.

we have hit the hornets nest and we are about to get stung.

[researcher]

oh it will get worst much worst.

Imperialism has its price.

we Americans will pay that price for our ignorance and our complacency.

they the Iraqis will bleed us slow and drain our treasures, which we do not feel the affects yet as this war is being waged on borrowed money.

they know we have installed a puppet government and want to control and occupy their country.

we would do the same if someone occupied our country.

maybe we will get lucky and someone will invade us and remove our dictator. Congress won't and Nancy and Reid are playing politics with this war.

we have hit the hornets nest and we are about to get stung.