U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit

[Bozita]

Source: NYTimes

U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: October 29, 2011

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=1&ref=world

---

Oil is everything!

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Mission Accomplished!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dover]

3. But of course... n/t

[Dover]

4. U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit

Source: NYT

The Pentagon is drawing up plans to reposition forces across a strategically critical and politically tumultuous region.MacDILL AIR

FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.












Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html

---

http://thecurrencynewshound.com/2011/10/29/nyt-u-s-is-planning-buildup-in-gulf-after-iraq-exit/

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

6. Ah hell, why not?

Don't mind us, we're just kind of hanging' out over here in Kuwait, roasting hot dogs and surfing the internet. You'll forget we're even here.

[avaistheone1]

7. Oh hell, this may as well be called - war without end.

k&r

[No Elephants]

10. Indeed, the WOT has been exactly that for a long time.

Or some synonym, like perpetual war, endless war, war that never ends, etc.

[Volaris]

16. I was going to go with "War without end, Amen.", but those all work too

[alp227]

8. this is the moment where you wish different policies fell to different leaders

Let's split oversight of these government branches to different leaders:
- War: Ron Paul
- Labor: Bernie Sanders
- Health care: Obama

[UnrepentantLiberal]

9. I wouldn't want him in charge of health care either.

How about speech writer? He's good at that.

[No Elephants]

12. Propaganda, truthful or not, can be a very powerful tool for good, evil or anything in between.

[No Elephants]

11. You know, I'd dtrust Sanders with all of three, certainly health care.

Sanders believes in Medicare for all. A strong public option was his fall back position.

But, he probably voted for Obama's plan.

[totodeinhere]

20. I would give labor to Elizabeth Warren and health care to Michael Moore.

And I wouldn't give shit to Ron Paul. He is good on some foreign policy issues but on many other issues he is in the Stone Age. I'm afraid that his aggressive attitudes on so many things would somehow color his judgment on foreign affairs too.

[Danse]

13. WWIII

"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny".

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

It's also a great money-maker. Unfortunately, an attack against Iran could easily spiral out of control, roping in Russia and China. We no longer have the "luxury" of these sorts of conflicts. Time to start acting like adults.

[seacaves]

14. Umm. So the $ will still be spent for the Military.

[bemildred]

15. Yawn.

Aside for the fact that this is all speculative babble, the Pentagon is not the US and the US is not the pentagon.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Exactly and

folks on DU forget that if Obama says "up", repuklicans say "down" and would NEVER fund such a venture because they MUST do the OPPOSITE of what the Obama administration might request. So one can apply incredible reverse-psychology to these degenerates.

And these people are so defective that they will even boot aside the neocons in order to not appear to agree with the administration! :rofl:

[totodeinhere]

21. No, the GOP is smart enough to know that if they fund this it will help to drive a wedge through

the Democratic Party. So IMO they will fund a troop buildup for cynical reasons.

[totodeinhere]

23. To quote from the article that the OP linked to:

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

You can't get any more clear than that. The SOS speaks for the president, and nobody in the Administration has come forward to contradict her words.

Some people are going to deny that this buildup will happen because they don't want it to happen, and I can understand that. But sometimes wishful thinking just doesn't work.

[madrchsod]

18. carter/reagan doctrine will not die until every drop of oil is gone

[totodeinhere]

25. Are Americans willing to give up their gas guzzling SUV's in a quest to wean us from Middle Eastern

oil? Of course it's about oil, but if instability in the region caused us to lose our oil supply from there our economy would totally collapse. It's easy to blame it on oil, but what is the short term alternative? Long term we need to work for alternative sources of energy and stress energy conservation. But those remedies won't help tomorrow.

[scentopine]

19. millions slaughtered protecting the oil investments of the Wall Street CEO -nt

[JCMach1]

22. So now all we are is hired mercenaries for the Saudis to protect them from

the Shia...

[OnyxCollie]

24. And the Sunnis (Al Qaeda), too. nt

[Celefin]

26. Uhm, no. You're paying for the privilege.

Mercs would get paid.

You just get screwed.

[Celefin]

27. Complete drawdown until end of 2011

Well, nobody ever promised the troops would be drawn all the way home.

So everybody is happy. Obama gets to keep his promise, Clinton gets to keep all the options on the table, the GOP gets to whine about a too pacifist foreign policy, Maliki gets to keep his job (and life), Halliburton gets to build and maintain more megabases in Kuwait, the Saudis get to keep their loyal attack dogs close at hand and the MIC and BigOil get to keep the gravy train rolling and... mmm... you get to wave the flag and vote for Obama. What a nice arrangement all around.

[neverforget]

28. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[truthisfreedom]

29. I don't see any alternative.

We've left the area pretty unstable and it's become more unstable on its own. Having a presence there that isn't fighting is much cheaper than leaving and then trying to build up a force in a hurry. It serves as a deterrent and thereby increases stability.

It's in our best interest to be able to protect the oil in order to protect the entire world economy. We should stop burning it, switch to 100% electric vehicles, alternative electricity such as solar and wind, and save the oil for plastics, chemicals and other absolute necessities.

I'm not anti-oil. I am, however, completely against destroying oil by burning it.