Iraq: The New South Korea for U.S. Troops?
So how long can we expect U.S. troops to remain in Iraq? Maybe the next 50 or 60 years.
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said President Bush would like to see a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea, where U.S. troops provide stability but do not have a front-line combat role. U.S. troops have been in Korea since the early '50s.
"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters. ..."I think the point he's trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence," Snow said.
Jules Crittenden, an editor at the Boston Herald who writes the Forward Movement blog, wonders if anyone is "seriously surprised" by this statement. But he thinks it makes a lot of sense because of the need for new Middle East bases, the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq and "Iranian meddling and attempts at regional domination." Blogger Don Surber concurs.
But Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sees it as another example of the Bush administration being out of touch with reality and history. Juan Cole at Informed Comment sees the analogy "as frankly ridiculous" because Iraq isn't like Korea in any way.
5:58 PM ET | 05-31-2007 | permalink
