Getting Serious In Iraq

Well, I'm glad to see this, even if it will give the Left fits. After all, throwing fits is what they do best.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

I was always left scratching my head when the Dems talked about no bases in Iraq. Anyone with a sense of history, see Germany or Japan, should know a long term presence makes sense. It may or may not include basing rights, but the strategic relationship makes sense. It's precisely what we need in the Middle East, more specifically, in that area of it.

Comments

[Yoda]

Want UN out, US in. Sober realists they are.

[Terry]

Boy, that was an understatement to suggest that the Left would have a "fit" over this. Over at Balloon Juice, Mr. Cole and his knuckle-dragging acolytes are in near hysteria over this proposal, throwing out words like "colonialism," "treachery," etc. Most of them, including Cole in particular, are so ill informed that one doubts that they are even aware that we've had in excess of a 100,000 American troops based in Europe and other foreign spots since WWII ended over 60 years ago.

[BobInStamford]

Another victurree for the babysitters! Thank you for the cheap oil!

[Fred Beloit]

"...we've had in excess of a 100,000 American troops based in Europe and other foreign spots since WWII ended over 60 years ago."

Yes, Terry. We ought to think now about getting THEM out of most of those places pronto. The hangers-on we have been protecting should now be able to build up their own forces. Strange the Dems never mention this expense.

[rwilymz]

For most of the past ~65 years [Europe, Japan] and ~55 years [Korea], the number of US troops deployed has been in excess of a million. By a wide margin. Which has been very costly to our economy. And very beneficial to the economies of those nations we've been deployed to.

The only way we've been able to afford it is by being supremely capitalist. ...which is a bad thing, according to a great many pampered ideologues in those countries [not to mention our own] who believe money grows on trees. Organically.

[seekeronos]

I don't think now that we should be so quick to withdraw from Japan and our forward operating locations in the PACOM in consideration of Red China's ongoing arms race to surpass us as a military superpower. Unless we want to urge the Japanese to start building up their own nuclear arsenal.

I think we can leave Europe - which should be strong enough now with L'Armeé du France and the Bundeswehr heading up the land forces of the EU Defense Force as well as the Royal Navy and RAF to keep the Russian Bear from getting too uppity.

Of course, the Islamists lurking at about 15-20% of the populace might pose an interesting case for them to seek to maintain NATO mutual defense agreements...