Bush = dumb
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S. Korea
As a military situation, Iraq is absolutely nothing like Korea. The limited U.S. military presence in South Korea is able to focus it's attention on essentially a single, clearly defined, not particularly large border. They're on the one side, and the "enemy" is on the other side, and South Korea is bordered on the other three sides by water.
Even if there was a U.S. presence along the entire Iraqi border -- a significantly greater area to cover than in South Korea -- there's no enemy to keep out, because the "enemy" is already in Iraq. Besides, placing troops along the Iraq-Iran border would only serve to exacerbate an already unstable situation between the U.S. and Iran. Iran would likely see any kind of concerted troop build-up there as a prelude to invasion -- and given our President's history and prior statements, they might not be wrong.
There's really no good way out of the situation we've become mired in. We can stay, and keep hemorrhaging troops to a dug-in guerrilla force, or we can get the hell out and likely watch the Iraqi government collapse into disarray, probably sparking a civil war. Unfortunately, I think that the first option will only serve to delay the second one -- I've not seen much to make me think that Iraq will survive without us there, and we can't conceivably keep these troop levels up forever. Civil war is almost inevitable, in my opinion; the only real questions are how long it will be before it happens and how many people are going to die before it even starts?
Another question is: What are the military leaders thinking about all of this? Are they silly enough to think that this could really be like South Korea, or are they trying to convince the Administration otherwise and just being ignored?
As a military situation, Iraq is absolutely nothing like Korea. The limited U.S. military presence in South Korea is able to focus it's attention on essentially a single, clearly defined, not particularly large border. They're on the one side, and the "enemy" is on the other side, and South Korea is bordered on the other three sides by water.
Even if there was a U.S. presence along the entire Iraqi border -- a significantly greater area to cover than in South Korea -- there's no enemy to keep out, because the "enemy" is already in Iraq. Besides, placing troops along the Iraq-Iran border would only serve to exacerbate an already unstable situation between the U.S. and Iran. Iran would likely see any kind of concerted troop build-up there as a prelude to invasion -- and given our President's history and prior statements, they might not be wrong.
There's really no good way out of the situation we've become mired in. We can stay, and keep hemorrhaging troops to a dug-in guerrilla force, or we can get the hell out and likely watch the Iraqi government collapse into disarray, probably sparking a civil war. Unfortunately, I think that the first option will only serve to delay the second one -- I've not seen much to make me think that Iraq will survive without us there, and we can't conceivably keep these troop levels up forever. Civil war is almost inevitable, in my opinion; the only real questions are how long it will be before it happens and how many people are going to die before it even starts?
Another question is: What are the military leaders thinking about all of this? Are they silly enough to think that this could really be like South Korea, or are they trying to convince the Administration otherwise and just being ignored?