Yet just a year ago the Bush admin. was using S. Korea as a “50 year” military basing model as for Iraq:

Key word is “combat troops”, Doug. And just how many military personnel do you think BHO will be leaving behind for the training, back up security etal? Estimates are 40-60K. There is little difference between what GWB has, and BHO has planned. The only difference is BHO is leading the public to believe he’ll be pulling pretty much everyone out by a firm date, and will fill you in on his changes later on.

As I pointed out to Dave Noble on another thread, watch for a President Obama on your nightly news to tell you there has been a delay in the withdrawal due to unforeseen events… so he won’t make his promised date. But then he’ll go on to assure you that the troops will still be coming home.

The difference between BHO and GWB or JSM is that he will obligate to dates, because that’s what people want to hear… and change them after he takes the oval office on lies. GWB and JSM don’t want to obligate because they know those dates are artificial and will morph. Basically one is being honest, and other is saying what you want to hear. But I wouldn’t count on him fulfilling his promises… just like he’s done nothing in the US Senate of his subcommitte on Afghanistan.

INRE the rejection of a permanent ban on bases in Iraq…. I agree with that. Not because we want permanent bases, but because a Congress today cannot accommodate for what the future brings. It’s the height of chutzpah for them to decide for future CICs and Congresses where and what to do with the US military. A decade ago, we would never have thought to have even a temporary base in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And what Congress makes law today, is nigh on impossible to get changed down line. Just simple logic… nothing more.

One may argue, McCain was speaking in the context here of only ‘as long as Americans are not being harmed or killed’. True, but yet, he still wants to stay as long AQ wants is a threat.

You continue to ignore that both GWB and JSM would leave at the request of the Iraqis. They are not attempting to perform against the Iraq govt’s will. Your whole argument is a moot point. If there was a base, such as Germany or S. Korea, it would only be there with the Iraq govt’s blessings… period.

(As much as MH decries my statements that the Bush-Maliki SOFA is a failure, a no-show, it is a reality. MH knows it is in a hospital hooked to ‘life-support’. If she still thinks it will, perhaps she (or anyone) can give me some evidence of how it could reasonably happen given the climate of events in Iraq and it having to be debated and passed in Parliament in their election year!!)

Uh… okay. So you think it’s on life support, despite Maliki’s own statements above about the importance a short term security agreement witih the US… whether under this POTUS or the next. I suppose that is progress for you, now calling it a step above “failed”.

My suggest for evidence is, why don’t you just be patient and wait? I’m so sorry they can’t bash out an agreement, or both stride away from the table quickly enough for you. But the fact is, it’s about halfway thru 2008. The coming months will reveal much … far more than your political palm reading and hedging of bets today by parsing every media report. Some things just don’t happen overnight, Doug. You’ve got a good mind, but like I said… I think you are an impatient man.

BTW, I love that even globalpolicy.org… tends to think that the bases *must* be permanent because of the facilities and and quality of construction… I mean all those perks like plumbing, for god’s sake…. LOL

Seriously… every one talks about how we devastated Iraq. And yup… warfare tends to blow the pieces out of infrastructure. So when the US leaves behind a base that they make comfortable for our troops in a desert hell hole with theatres, swimming pool, and restaurant, what makes you think that isn’t a valuable asset to leave behind for Iraq to turn into a commercial venture? Whether a commercial airport, or start of a shopping mall… it’s far more preferable to build quality for our guys, and leave something intact for what they could use besides a place that houses military tents and outhouses. Geez Louise…. where is logic anymore??

And Doug, when you’re talking about the SOFA issue, please don’t revert back to the early June talking points and articles. They have progressed since then… again read the remarks by Maliki in the Speigel interview above which I included.

Like I said, I personally may not like what the US will acquiesce in order to come to a SOFA. But that’s not my business. Frankly, I’d rather we totally leave than allow our military subject to Iraq laws. But I’m not in possession of the overall future ME strategy either. So I leave the future planning to those charged with that task.

This means that with all your dated stuff pointing out who’s aghast at it all really doesn’t mean a hill of beans. The Iraqis and the US will come to terms, or they will renew the UN mandate and do it with the next POTUS.

Or, if they don’t do it at all, and we come home completely… that’s their choice, and I’m fine with it. SOFAs and bases are not a measure of whether the liberation of Iraq, and their future as a stable Arab democracy, failed or was a success. Success will be if they don’t get overrun by jihad, and they grow as a free Arab state…. with or without US bases.

thanks to whoever helped out.

Under the Bush admin, leaving troops in combat positions in Iraq beyond the point of necessity was never on the table. Withdrawal has always been the plan when the Iraqis could secure and defend their new government.

Yet just a year ago the Bush admin. was using S. Korea as a “50 year” military basing model as for Iraq:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and a senior U.S. commander said yesterday that they favor a protracted U.S. troop presence in Iraq along the lines of the military stabilization force in South Korea.

Gates told reporters in Hawaii that he is thinking of a “mutual agreement” with Iraq in which “some force of Americans . . . is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government.” Gates said such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, “lock, stock and barrel.”

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees daily military operations in Iraq, supported the idea at a news conference in which he also said U.S. military units are trying to reach cease-fire agreements with Iraqi insurgents.

Odierno said he sees benefits in maintaining a South Korean-style force in Iraq for years. “I think it’s a great idea,” he said, adding that the Iraqi and U.S. governments would have to make that decision.

“That would be nothing but helping the Iraqi security forces and the government to continue to stabilize itself, and continue to set itself up for success for years to come, if we were able to do that,” Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a videoconference from Baghdad.

The comments represented the second time this week that administration officials invoked the American experience in South Korea in citing the need for a long-range U.S. military presence in Iraq. Concerns that U.S. forces might stay for a lengthy period have provoked considerable controversy in the region.

Yesterday’s statements echoed those by White House press secretary Tony Snow on Wednesday. Snow had sparked quick criticism from Democratic lawmakers and liberal activist groups when he said that President Bush envisions a troop posture in Iraq similar to that in South Korea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053102430_pf.html

Or here in the Washington Times.

While Gates and Rice wrote this year they the WH is opposed to permanent basing in Iraq, and Bush has stated the same, their speech does not match their actions. In January, of this year, President Bush issued a signing statement allowing him to disregard a provision in the Defense Authorization Act banning permanent bases in Iraq.

In his ‘Memorandum for Justification’ for the waiver above, Bush cited his Declaration of Principles which paved the way, without congressional approval for long-term security arrangements between the US and Iraq.

When inspecting McCain’s statements on permanent basing on Iraq, on Jan. of this year, he said on Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Would you have permanent bases?

McCAIN: If that seems to be necessary in some respects. It depends on the threat.
McCain told George Stephanopolous that he opposes permanent bases:

Yet, six month’s earlier he said:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no permanent bases?

McCAIN: No, not forever, but certainly, we would be there for a long period of time in a support role, in many ways.

Both Bush and McCain in advocation an Iraq-style basing along the lines of South Korea, while denying the conception of military permanence in Iraq, have left advocated the position.

All this makes perfect sense of McCain’s comments that we could be the “100 years would be fine with him.”

One may argue, McCain was speaking in the context here of only ‘as long as Americans are not being harmed or killed’. True, but yet, he still wants to stay as long AQ wants is a threat. Of course, defining what a threat is the catch and therefore under this push to go to a metaphorical 100 years one finds McCain’s advocacy of a long-term presence.

The reality is, empirically speaking, the Pentagon has given us enough evidence to disclose the intentions of the Bush Administration to remain in Iraq.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/permindex.htm

To ignore the realities of how difficult it is for us to even close bases here in the US should give anyone pause for how hard it would be to remove troops in Iraq, in a “very volatile part of the world” (McCain) in a country that is rich with oil, a potential “democratic beacon” (Bush) and is the gateway to Israel.

To ignore these realities is to stick one’s head in the sand.

A further piece of evidence to this Bush double-step in basing intentions is the latest revelations coming from the Iraq government itself.

(As much as MH decries my statements that the Bush-Maliki SOFA is a failure, a no-show, it is a reality. MH knows it is in a hospital hooked to ‘life-support’. If she still thinks it will, perhaps she (or anyone) can give me some evidence of how it could reasonably happen given the climate of events in Iraq and it having to be debated and passed in Parliament in their election year!!)

Bush has repeatedly denied offering any _specific_ timetable to pull out the troops, but on Thursday he and Maliki agreed to set a “time horizon” (whatever that means) for a withdrawal in their pact. They resorted to this arrangement because there were sticking points in the SOFA: one of those central sticking points were how many US bases would remain in Iraq and who would own, operate them and even how they could be used:

Iraqi MPs say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed “status of forces” agreement that will allow US troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews that the Iraqi Government rejected this proposal, along with another US demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine if a hostile act from another country constitutes aggression against Iraq.

MPs said they feared this power would drag Iraq into a war between the US and Iran.

“The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,” said Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a leading MP from the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

“We were occupied by order of the Security Council,” he said, referring to the 2004 resolution mandating a US military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. “But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.”
…

Here we find legitimate fears expressed my members of Maliki’s own government that the US has intentions, designs, on maintaining a presence that is more than about a strickly “we will stand down, when they can stand up” posture. This is a main reason the SOFA failed.

Therefore, you have all kinds of evidence for intentions for a US long-term military presence in Iraq, classical US interests in the ME, tamping down Iran, natural resources, empirical verification of large US footprints in super-bases, Iraqi leaders own concerns —and finally, even the analogical South Korean argument for Iraq.

Finally, some may believe that only radical nut-job left-wing moonbats believe the above, I assure you, it is not the case:

…
Iraq experts disagree on what is likely to be included in the framework, and administration officials have been vague. The Congressional Research Service’s Katzman says he believes the agreement may incorporate some of the more contentious security proposals, such as authorization for the use of force, contractor immunity, and perhaps approval for the United States to continue detaining prisoners. Patrick Cockburn, the Independent newspaper’s veteran Iraq correspondent, writes that the agreement being pushed by the United States would give Americans “long-term use of more than fifty bases in Iraq,” an assertion Ambassador Crocker calls “flatly untrue.” The framework, if signed, would also give U.S. troops “a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government,” Cockburn reports. Yale’s Hathaway, meanwhile, says public statements by administration officials have led her to believe contentious security details will remain part of the negotiated SOFA. The strategic framework “basically appears to be everything else” outlined in the November 2007 declaration of principles, she says.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16448/us_security_agreements_and_iraq.html

Of far bigger importantance is the fact that the withdrawal that Bush started on 9/14/07, and will restart soon (OR if you wanna look at Obama or McCain…any withdrawal they order/continue) is possible BECAUSE OF AMERICAN SUCCESS rather than political defeat advocated and perpetuated by the Democratic Party for the past 5yrs.

There is no “stay campaign” and there hasn’t been one. It’s in bold type in the post:

“John McCain and George Bush both said that if Iraq as a sovereign government stated that it was time for us to start withdrawing our troops they would respect the wishes of that sovereign government.””

Also:

“Under the Bush admin, leaving troops in combat positions in Iraq beyond the point of necessity was never on the table. Withdrawal has always been the plan when the Iraqis could secure and defend their new government. And certainly no one wanted to lollygag the withdrawal process, once implemented.”

I suggest you either get with the times, or don’t come back until you can grow functional brain cells, please.

And does Obama’s plan offer that flexibility? If so, he differs not one iota from either Bush, or McCain.

Basically….

Obama is hitching his wagon to the Bush/McCain PlanWagon, and pretending he’s in the driver’s seat. He had no part in driving the current positive trends and developments in Iraq, yet wants to be there at the finish line, high-fiving and pumping his fists in victory, claiming, “I did it!”.

Never mind that it is based on disinformation. We’re talking about Democrats here. Since when was reality important?