This week, the American military presence has passed a milestone. The Bush Administration now admits that it hopes for the American military to stay in Iraq for generations. What many have suspected is now out in the open: The Republicans don’t want American soldiers to leave Iraq. They have announced a new policy of continuing military occupation of Iraq for a very long time into the future. How long? The White House is comparing the ideal military presence in Iraq lasting as long as the American military presence in South Korea. That’s well over 50 years and counting.
I’ve been calling what’s going on in Iraq a “war”, but it’s clear to me now that the war part of the mess in Iraq is over. The violence there now in which American soldiers are playing a part is the result of the struggle to maintain American control over Iraqi territory. It’s an occupation we’re seeing, and armed resistance to that occupation.
Of course, there’s also vicious fighting between different sects in Iraqi society. That fighting, however, is uncannily reminiscent of the divide-and-conquer policy of the British occupation of India.
America is not at war in Iraq. America is struggling to establish and preserve an imperial control over Iraq and its resources.
This is worse than war. It’s killing for power, with sovereignty and liberty tossed aside like unneeded props in a play that goes on for far too long. It is now clear that the Bush White House doesn’t intend for Iraq to be free and independent. It is the official policy of the Bush Republicans to keep Iraq under American control for as long as possible.
That’s not what Americans agreed to, not even the Americans who trotted out their “Support Our Troops” yellow ribbons back when the Iraq mess was still a real war.
Progressives recognize the horrible reality of the American occupation of Iraq. Right wingers are proposing a decades-long fight against terrorists as a justification for imperial policy. I can’t think of a better reason to elect a progressive President in 2008.
(Source: The Australian, June 2, 2007)
But that statement wasn’t from “the White House”. It was made by Sec. of Defense Robert Gates. Here is the entire quote:
And we all know how Korea and Japan have been “kept under American control for as long as possible.” As opposed to free and independent happy, happy Vietnam, which merely supplies us athletic gear from their sweatshops.
Is there a better suggestion for the appropriate American role in the future?
A similar statement was made by the White House Spokesman. So, yes, this policy does come from the White House.
No. That’s not what your link says and that’s not what I found with a quick google search. In fact, White House Spokesman Tony Snow is being quoted as saying things like “no” and “not necessarily” and the media is complaining about their inability to pin down the White House on this one.
Of course that’s what they intend to do. They’re building all those bases.
But that statement did NOT come from the White House.
You didn’t say what was your alternative scenario to the Vietnam ending.
You didn’t ask me to invent an alternative scenario to the Vietnam ending. In fact, with sarcasm laced so heavily through your writing, it’s difficult to know just what you’re really getting at.
YOU have it wrong in your depiction of Tony Snow, which was much more in the tone of saying no to certainty, and not saying no to a decades-long presence in Iraq.
You also omitted the reference to a White House press gaggle which the White House is leaving curiously unreleased, though it usually puts out transcripts for these things. Referring to that gaggle, it was asked in the press conference, “Tony, on Iraq, for the gaggle you were asked about U.S. troops and just how long the presence would be there, the vision. And you compared it to the Korean model.”
In short, Tony Snow, spokesman from the White House did indeed refer to South Korea as a model for how long American soldiers would be in Iraq. That’s extremely interesting, given the similar statement a few days later by Robert Gates.
Oh, dear, are you shouting at me?
I fail to see how anyone could consider the question “Is there a better suggestion for the appropriate American role in the future?” to be “laced with sarcasm” or too difficult to understand or how this is not an appropriate and timely question for policy discussion.
The link you provided does not say anything about Tony Snow or the White House. It only talks about Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and says right in the opening line that this is the first time the issue has been raised. If Tony Snow is indeed making such a policy statement why does the very mainstream WaPo say he is not?
Why do you not provide a LINK?
That’s what I thought.
The above link does not say the White House made a previous statement. It says,
Readers develop trust in a particular writer when the links support what the writer says.