NPR: Iraq: The New South Korea for U.S. Troops?

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

Comments (Send a comment)

Is this, the latest in a long litany of lies, the one I'm to now believe?

Sent by Kevan Evans | 6:04 PM ET | 05-31-2007

U.S. Imperialism! Has this seriously not been clear to everyone all along?

Sent by Pablo | 8:56 PM ET | 05-31-2007

Only if he is President for the next 50 to 60 years. Enormously expensive wars of choice have a way of going whichever way political winds blow.

Sent by Dan | 12:21 AM ET | 06-01-2007

Yes, I think one would have to count oneself naive if they were surprised by our desire to establish long-term bases in Iraq. I don't agree that our military presence will last 50-60 years, though. The oil is supposed to run out well before that isn't it?

Sent by Diego Aguirre | 1:38 AM ET | 06-01-2007

I just don't understand how where we are in Iraq is anywhere near where we were in S. Korea. We are not battling a unified force, the American Government will be the first to admit that we are battling with a multitude of insurgent groups, not one mass of people unified under a similar ideal.

Sent by Alexandra Heuser | 1:49 AM ET | 06-01-2007

We fought a war in Korea, and until the Chinese decided to aid the North Koreans, we would have won that war. The people of South Korea have allowed us to base forces at the border between the two nations for their protection. So who do we position our forces to protect in the aftermath of the Iraqi War? If the enemy there is al-qaida, how do we form a protective border. The absurdity of the original reasons for going into Iraq are finally giving way to the true intentions of Bush and his neocons. A fortress being built called an embassy, an army that was supposedly there temporarily is now mentioned as a long term commitment, lets just say that oil for lives will replace oil for peace.

Sent by Paul Peete http://aboutallthings.blogspot.com | 5:01 AM ET | 06-01-2007

In Korea, the UN declared war to the North Koreans for breaching the line of separation. North Koreans had acted illegally according to the UN back in 1953.
In Iraq, Bush-Blair duo invaded a defenseless country without any provocation in a war of choice. According to the UN Secretary General, Bush-Blair have acted illegally this time around.

Sent by Amir | 7:27 AM ET | 06-01-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:	» List of local stations (PDF)
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.