WWII ended 60 years ago, and we still have troops in Germany & Japan.

[TroubleMan]

The Korean War ended 52 years ago, and we still have troops in Korea.

If we hadn't been kicked out of Vietnam, we'd still have troops there.

The Gulf War ended 14 years ago, and we still have troops in Kuwait (and until just recently Saudi Arabia).

We had a base in Somalia, but withdrew because we were taking too many casualties. Our involvement in that conflict ended 10 years ago, but we still have bases in Djibouti and Yemen because of this war.

The conflict in the former Yugoslavian republics ended over 5 years ago, but we still have bases in Hungary, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia from that conflict.

_____


Once we get our hooks in, we never leave unless we're forcibly kicked out. We've had several Democratic and repug presidents in those time periods, and not one has made any decision to end our military presence in those areas.

We will always have troops in Iraq for the rest of my lifetime (I'm 33) - it doesn't matter who's president. The only way that we'll ever withdraw is if the Iraqis kick us out or we experience extremely heavy casualties on a regular basis. It doesn't matter who the President is. You can have bush, another repug, or even a Democrat, and we'll always have bases there. Pulling out our troops is never an option on the table. We'd have to elect somebody like Kucinich or Sharpton for that to become a reality.

bush definitely will never pull out of Iraq - no matter what happens. He would nuke it before doing that. Also, if we get our candidate to the white house in 2008, we need to make sure that we keep the pressure on him to take all our troops out of Iraq. If he makes a promise to withdraw, we need to make sure he sticks to it - no excuses. If he doesn't make a promise, we need to put the pressure on him. In the meantime we need to push for withdrawal with bush, even though he'll never do it. All these dumb excuses he keeps giving makes him look bad. He'll never just come out and say that we're never leaving, which is what the plan really is.

[NVMojo]

1. Yo, haven't you been following the base/post closures over there?

They've been shutting them down and consolidating for the past few years under the direction of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[TroubleMan]

2. Finally....after 60 years. But we still have troops there.

Sure we're downsizing there, but we're not completely leaving.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Japan and Germany made sense as a post war occupation to

denazify the two places, well Japan was more then denaizification... the problem is that both morphed into the cold war and today our bases in Japan and the Germany (as well as Korea) are part of the Cold War and treaties signed. Korea, there is no peace, only a truce... war can start at any moment... and those troops were part of those treaties with the S. Korean government which is now making quite a bit of notice that we should finally pull out as they want a real peace with their north bound neighbors, which is making us nervous... (and to a point it should)

The reasons for those occupations are very different than what is going on in Iraq... here is it a colonial occupation, Germany we were invited as part of NATO, in particular after the Berlin Air Lift... Japan, we promised them that we would defend them at all costs, in exchange for them not having an armed force capable of projecting power. The Japanese Defense Force is truly a defensive force and sending troops to Iraq required special permission from the Diet...

It is important to know why, or you are in danger to fall under the trap of a right wing talking point

On edit all the base consolidation is only happening becaue we don't have enough forces and also as a "punishment" since they did not play well with us and went to Iraq.

[TroubleMan]

5. Good points,

I agree completely with your observations, but regardless of the reasons, a complete pullout in not a option that bush will ever consider. The USA doesn't leave once we have our hooks in. Sure the reasons we are there are completely different, but the hooks are still there.

The Somalian situation is a close parallel to Iraq though. We we originally there for colonial reasons, and we only got involved because of the ports in Somalia have a very strategic location (similar to the strategic placement of Okinawa)...of course they said it was for humanitarian reasons, but that was bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Remember that was started by Bush I

that is a point that people NEED to remember

[TroubleMan]

7. 1991 was when it started. Another mess he left for Clinton.

nt.

[spindrifter]

4. Yeah, and we still have

troops in the South.

[TroubleMan]

8. LOL...some people are still fighting that war.

nt.

[AnnieBW]

9. Spyin' on the Russians

Of course, what they're not mentioning is that those troops in Germany and Japan aren't relics of WWII as much as they are the Cold War, when we were using those countries to spy on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. Several facilities in Germany have been closed since the end of the Cold War, including the massive listening post in West Berlin. Every once in a while, the Germans start making noises about getting all of the US troops out, until they realize how much it will hurt their economy if we did. Pulling out of Japan wouldn't hurt their economy as much, but we're there mainly to protect them from the North Koreans and the Chinese.

[TroubleMan]

10. Yeah....I sort of glossed over the "reasons"

This base in Iraq will now be our frontline for the "war on terrorism" or whatever other new catch phrase they come up with, just like the most of the bases we have now were for the "cold war."

I put all these things in quotations, because no matter what the reason we say we have a base or a war. The real reason we go to war or have a base is for global and corporate hegemony. WWII was the only just war we fought, but we left the bases there mostly for regional control.

[tocqueville]

11. It's not exactly like that

The European bases are part of a treaty of mutual defense against a common enemy. Besides the US had or still have bases in countries that weren't involved in WWII like Iceland and Spain. For the same reasons. The US bases in western Europe are now a minor part of the US deployment overseas.

Other countries than the US had bases in Germany like the UK and France and these have been dismantled not very long ago.

the bases in Yugoslavia are only a TINY part of the whole NATO network there. There are only 4 000 Americans on the ground in KOSOVO out of 50 000 from 35 countries (even non-NATO) of which the bulk is UK and France.

In Bosnia there are about 5000 EU forces (UK, French, Finnish), none of them US since SFOR ended its mission and was replaced by EUFOR. At most there were 2000 national guards in Bosnia.

It's a myth as usual that the US "liberated" Bosnia and Kosovo by itself. Even if the air campaigns were mostly conducted by the US within NATO, due to the US greater resources, 90% of the ground occupation (and all the fighting) was done by NON-US troops. With mostly good results.

the French SOLD a part of their base in Djibouti to the US or/and have a joint use.

The bases in Hungary, Romania etc.. are totally new and were established on demand by those countries who needed cash. Their future is very uncertain specially after the report of the secret CIA prisons. Romania has already emptied two minor bases.

I agree with you about the bases in Asia and the Middle-East. But there is the history relatively different. Remember that in those countries - even if there can be local resentment - a good reason to have the bases is the business they generate. If the countries you name told the US to go home, they wouldn't have any choice. Besides in all those cases (Japan, Korea, Quatar) the US presence is considered "good to have", just in case... depending on the neighbours...

[TroubleMan]

12. So you think that we'll completely leave Iraq and not leave a base there?

That's my hope, but I really don't see it happening. We will never withdraw our troops completely IMHO, unless we make it a political nightmare for whoever is in charge.

[tocqueville]

14. I don't know for sure but the future of the Iraqi bases is very uncertain

The basic thinking from the neocons was that a "pro-american" government would be put in place, and after minor resistance a situation equivalent to Germany would follow. If it had been like that the bases could have been the point of departure for other Syrian or Iranian adventures...

But it never worked. The actual Iraqui government is a transition government. The US will have to leave sooner or later. Maybe sooner than they think, due to the internal opinion and to growing casualties without real military success.

The probable strategy is that they will bunker down more and more, while non necessary troops will be sent home. But this is going to give a lot of room for all the militias and probably an increased civil war. One day the US will be officially asked to leave (thank you, don't forget to turn on the light).

The struggle for power that will follow won't put in place new Chalabis etc... but probably a Shiite power in the majority of the country. These guys won't tolerate any bases in the long run. Iran won't anyway.

Bases are good if you have a common enemy and trade to be made. What's the common enemy today between the different Iraqui factions and the US ? None. Al Quaeda will be dismantled within 2 weeks because they are not necessary anymore.

The only option is the to leave, and turn the bases to the locals...
Bases payed with US taxpayer money...

[MountainLaurel]

17. Aren't we already building permanent bases?

Or am I just misremembering some news articles?

[enigma000]

13. Too much of an investment to leave

Even if a deal in reached with the insurgency next year, some international troops will remain at military bases to continue to train Iraqi security forces. NATO just opened up a training centre for Iraqi officers in Baghdad. Besides, the Middle East is a tough neighborhood, I expect some troops (10,000?) to stay on military bases there for some time - and this may have the approval of the Iraqi people.

[tocqueville]

15. the training of Iraquis is smoke and mirrors

giving a "reason to stay". The Iraquis don't need to learn how to fight (they are doing very well on their own). They didn't fight for Saddam, but they fight when it matters. With success.

What they need is heavy equipment. They cannot have any because it would be too dangerous for the US. Out of ten Iraqui divisions, one is equipped. The 9 remaining train with brooms. And it's not for the lack of money.

The Iraquis are primarily loyal to their ethnic, tribal and religious ties, not to a central Iraqi government. That's why there will never be an Iraqui Army unless controlled by force. Today's Iraqui forces are 70% Shiite militias and 30% Pehsmergas. They are not an "Army" under one flag.

NATO has sent there a bunch of guys to please the US. Nothing else.
They'll get out as soon as they can. Probably they even won't need to get there with substantial amounts. The US will be out before that.

[pitohui]

16. they kinda wanted us there

japan is not quite supposed to have its own army and they need to be defended against their enemies, which used to be numerous

germany had an issue w. the eastern bloc

korea is yr strongest argument, it's really the korean war never ended, since korea is still divided and the no. korean dictator is crazier than a shithouse rat or pretending to be for strategic reasons

i agree any "full" pull-out of iraq won't come quickly

the sooner the bfee is gone and we have reasonable people trying to figure out a reasonable answer the better

[Disturbed]

18. Amerika will stay in Iraq until the oil is gone.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)