President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy US troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said today. Mr Bush encouraged them to make progress toward an oil revenue-sharing plan and political reforms. Democrats in control of the US Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a US role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support model.
HuffPost Personal Video Horoscopes. All rights reserved. Iraq had Bush korea model iraq rid of its WMDs. The core problem with the Korea comparison, many experts on Asia note, is that when the war ended inthere were bright lines drawn across the 38th Parallel, separating the warring parties. Search CNN.
Counterfeit test strips. Bush’s latest appalling historical analogy.
In the months koeea the invasion, there was talk of modeling a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq after the successful occupations of Japan and Germany. Feith wrote to Rumsfeld in October that action Bush korea model iraq Iraq would make it easier to "confront - politically, militarily, or otherwise" Libya and Syria. You Bush korea model iraq opt-out at any time. But even then, historians and analysts were warning against such comparisons, arguing that those were two cohesive societies that korew exhausted by years of war and bore little resemblance to the midel Iraqi society and its potential for internal violence. That hardened into the formal Demilitarized Zone, exactly the kind of division that the Bush administration has said it wants to avoid in Iraq. Tell us what you think. He said that he did not believe the analogy fit. The first indication isn't very positive that he will voluntarily disarm," he said. The question is, will Saddam Hussein disarm? No, it wasn't because of WMDs, democracy or Iraqi oil. The agency is Rope light parallel sockets the public's help in tracking down the men, who it believes may have entered the United States illegally from Canada. Gates also mentioned Korea, saying that establishing a long-term American garrison there was a Busj smarter than the handling of Vietnam, "where we just left lock, stock and barrel. Meanwhile, the president avoided answering a reporter's question about whether the United States can afford a war with Iraq as it struggles to grow its economy. Bush said he hoped that a peaceful solution was kodea, though he sharply rebuked Kim Jong Il, that nation's leader, irxq he has "no heart Bush korea model iraq somebody who starves his folks. It's his choice Bush korea model iraq make.
Dear Common Dreams Readers : A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy.
- Discussion in ' World Affairs ' started by Neo , May 31,
- President George W.
History is beset by military blunders, from Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia to America's decision to invade Iraq. But do leaders learn from the mistakes of others? The authors of the RAND Corporation report Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn look at eight examples of blunders -- and four cases where blunders were not made -- with the aim of warning leaders away from future blunders of their own.
States like [Iraq, Iran, and North Korea] and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. For us, war is always the proof of failure and the worst of solutions, so everything must be done to avoid it. President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq on March 20, , was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler and Tojo.
There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.
Bush was reelected in November of as much because of as despite his invasion of Iraq. His subsequent decision to launch the "surge" did limit some of the damage. The main premise for the war was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction WMDs and that these were at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists.
In the end, however, there were no such weapons, and Saddam's links to al Qaeda were unproven. This robbed the invasion of legitimacy. The insurgency that ensued after initial combat operation robbed the invasion of success.
Today, the United States has less influence in Baghdad than Iran does. Iraq is a Shia-dominated state with an alienated Sunni minority, rampant violence and virtually no control over the Kurdish north. At least , Iraqis died as a direct result of the American invasion, and the violence there continues. Violent Salafists from Syria and elsewhere have swept through the Sunni areas of Iraq, routing the Iraqi army, seizing important cities and declaring an Islamist caliphate. There were no U.
The Kurds have taken the oil-rich contested city of Kirkuk and hinted at the possibility of separating from the Iraqi state. The United States has been compelled to send military advisors back to Iraq, and it may no longer have enough influence with any of the parties or in Baghdad to preserve a unified state.
Meanwhile, the Afghan conflict was neglected for half a decade. Allied trust in America was eroded, and attitudes about the United States in the Muslim world were poisoned. Largely because of Iraq, the U. Major errors included misinterpretation and misuse of intelligence on Iraq's WMD capability, unwillingness to give WMD inspectors time to conclude their work, peremptory diplomacy that damaged the Atlantic Alliance, and failure to properly anticipate what would happen in post-conflict Iraq.
During the s, the United States would have preferred regime change in Baghdad, but it settled for containment. The Gulf War ended after one hundred hours of combat with Saddam still in power. Afterward, President George H. Bush signed a covert-action "finding" authorizing the CIA to topple the Saddam regime. During the Bill Clinton administration, no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq kept Saddam's aircraft grounded in an effort to protect the Kurds and Shias.
When the George W. Bush administration entered office, its initial focus was on China and military transformation. CIA threat briefings concentrated on al Qaeda, not Iraq,8 though efforts to have the new administration deal with al Qaeda failed. Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley developed a policy of phased pressure on Iraq, which included ratcheting up many of the measures used by the Clinton administration, such as sanctions, weapons inspectors, and aid to the opposition.
That all changed on September 11, It became clear that this was not the case, as Bush finally revealed,12 but for many this connection stuck. The first order of business was to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but the case against Iraq moved rapidly to the front burner.
Bush indicated that as soon as the Taliban were driven from Afghanistan, he would turn his attention to Saddam. The case for invasion resembled a layer cake. At the base was the acute sense of imminent national danger caused by the September 11 attacks.
Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a "slam dunk.
The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again. This sense of immediate and extreme danger was amplified in the wake of the September 11 attacks by two other events that cemented the link between WMDs and terrorism.
Soon after September 11, anthrax spores were mailed to the U. Congress and others, killing five people. Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks.
If the US could change the regime in Baghdad, it might create a new model of democracy in the Middle East. In considering war on Iraq, the sibling of danger was opportunity. They had seen efforts at regime change work when the United States invaded Panama to topple Manuel Noriega in , when Eastern Europeans cast communism aside that same year, when the Soviet Union itself collapsed in , and when the Bulldozer Revolution toppled the Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic in the wake of the Kosovo War.
Emboldened by these successes, this group now saw the opportunity to press for forcible regime change in Iraq. Meanwhile, there was growing recognition that U.
The United States had developed new military technologies and tactics that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld championed as defense transformation. These included data networking, accurate and voluminous intelligence, instantaneous command and control, and precision strike. By contrast, the Iraqi military had suffered contractions of 35 percent in its army and 60 percent in its air force since before Desert Storm. The thinking went that if the United States could change the regime in Baghdad, it might create a new model of democracy in the Middle East.
After all, democracy was on the rise globally in what the political scientist Samuel Huntington called the Third Wave. Just as it was flourishing throughout Eastern Europe and Latin America, it could take hold in Iraq and serve as a model for the Arab world.
The fact that Saddam "tried to kill [his] dad" weighed on Bush's decision making. In addition, a new regime in Iraq would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where they fueled extremism, and to have another friendly source of oil. A third and related line of thinking that led to war was a prevailing sense of unfinished business with Saddam—namely, his removal—that needed closure.
The United States had been waging a low-grade undeclared war against Saddam since Desert Storm ended as part of its containment strategy. Air Force flew daily missions over 60 percent of Iraqi territory and was often fired upon, though never hit. Other anti-Saddam options seemed to be failing.
France and Russia were not cooperating with international sanctions and funds were being diverted by Saddam from the Oil-for-Food Programme to buy arms. In January the CIA presented Vice President Dick Cheney with an assessment that Saddam had created a nearly perfect security apparatus that made the prospects of a successful coup nearly impossible. This unfinished business concerned Bush directly. Saddam had earlier tried to have assassins attack his father while on a Middle East trip.
The fact that Saddam "tried to kill [his] dad" evidently weighed on his decisionmaking. Finally, after September 11, forcing a regime change in Baghdad made good political sense for the Republicans. The attack on Afghanistan had bipartisan and international support. By going after Saddam they would be well positioned to "wrap themselves in the flag" and compensate for missing the September 11 attacks. From this logic developed a new national security doctrine of preemptive war.
Bush made the case for this during a June speech at West Point, arguing that the United States could not rely on Cold War concepts such as deterrence and containment to deal with terrorists who are willing to commit suicide for their cause. Neither could it afford to wait for a rogue regime to transfer WMDs to others or gain a decisive capability to harm the United States. It had a responsibility to preempt if necessary. This concept was formalized in the September National Security Strategy of the United States of America , which said: "We cannot let our enemies strike first.
The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action. This concept, born of danger and opportunity, was deeply flawed. The preemption doctrine lacked international legitimacy and undermined international trust in the United States.
And yet this flawed concept drove the Bush administration to an early and uncoordinated decision for war, brushing aside the need for analysis, distorting intelligence, marginalizing senior officers who raised doubts and neglecting postconflict stabilization requirements.
It is not clear exactly when Bush decided to invade Iraq. Even before the inauguration, Cheney asked outgoing Secretary of Defense William Cohen to provide Bush with a briefing focused on Iraq. Wolfowitz was pushing for military seizure of Iraq's oil fields, which Secretary of State Colin Powell is reported to have called "lunacy. Rumsfeld raised the possibility of an invasion on September 11, , as a potential "opportunity.
With little intelligence to support this assertion, the administration continued to repeat that claim. A week after the attack, Wolfowitz began sending memos to Rumsfeld making the case for an attack on Iraq. On November 21, , Bush asked that the war plan for Iraq be secretly updated, which shocked the military. This early planning did not necessarily reflect a final decision: Some saw it as part of a two-track effort to rid Saddam of his WMDs by using diplomacy and military threats to give diplomacy teeth.
But within the next six months, the cement began to dry. Some speculate that Cheney's change of heart was caused by his bypass operation. In March of , Bush informally told a group of senators: "We're taking him [Saddam] out.
He said that he did not believe the analogy fit. Even Bush officials have sometimes dropped their guard. Snow said Korea was one way to think about how the mission could evolve into an "over-the-horizon support role" whenever U. Choinomics - Breakthrough for South Korea? In a Democratic-controlled Congress, which continues to press for a troop withdrawal deadline, talk of permanent bases is not welcome, though many Democrats acknowledge that the United States cannot simply leave Iraq in chaos. Replies: 14 Views: 1, You must log in or sign up to reply here.
Bush korea model iraq. Site Search Navigation
cherrycitykitties.com - N Korea hits back at Bush's 'evil' - February 1,
President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy US troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said today.
Mr Bush encouraged them to make progress toward an oil revenue-sharing plan and political reforms. Democrats in control of the US Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a US role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support model.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement he believes it is time for Mr Bush to "recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq," that US troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and a change in course is urgently needed.
Our troops and the American people deserve better," Mr Reid said. Iraq's neighbours have raised concerns about the possibility of the United States maintaining permanent bases in Iraq, and some US lawmakers have said they think the Iraqi insurgency may have been fuelled by perceptions the United States wants a permanent presence in the country.
Washington has consistently denied wanting permanent bases in Iraq. Bush sees long term presence in Iraq Wed, May 30, , Latest News. Vote controversy: report recommends no sanctions against TDs Essex truck deaths: 39 migrants found dead were Chinese Royal Hibernian Way upgrade plan gets green light Irish Times News.
Follow IrishTimesNews. Sign In. Don't have an account? Forgot Password? Not an Irish Times subscriber?