A new Enduring Freedom in Iraq

Posted on November 27, 2007

According to the AP, the US and Iraq have agreed to end the current Allied military presence in Iraq by the end of next year, winding down to the point where as few as 50,000 US troops will be permanently stationed in Iraq to help stabilize the region.

President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a deal Monday setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

The NY Sun reported:

“Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush’s presidency.”

In his own words Lute said:

in the course of 2008, the two countries, the United States and Iraq, will codify formally our bilateral relationship with, as we’re calling it, the strategic framework agreement. Today’s declaration outlines the main parts of what we expect that emerging agreement to contain. …

Today’s agreement is not binding, but rather it’s a mutual statement of intent that will be used to frame our formal negotiations in the course of the upcoming year….

First of all, I think it’s important to the people of Iraq. It signals a commitment of both their government and the United States to an enduring relationship based on mutual interests. The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that’s very good news, but it won’t have to stand alone.

It’s important also to the people of the region, for Iraq’s neighbors. The United States considers Iraq a key factor in regional stability, and just as we have longstanding relationships with other states in the region, we’re looking to shape our future relationship with Iraq in the course of these negotiations in 2008. And finally, it’s important to America. It signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security.

In short, the war will be over - as over as any war we have been in during the last 100 years - and we will maintain troops there in order to prevent a vacuum into which undesirable elements could take power. We ended WWII with very long term deployments of troops in Germany and Japan. We “ended” the shooting in the Korean war with a permanent deployment there.

The only shooting war that we have been in that didn’t end well was of course Viet Nam where we cut and ran, leaving our allies in the south at the mercy of Ho Chi Min and the north.

There is a message there - when we leave a shooting war with troops in place - things go well, when we cut and run they go badly. What will be the outcome of the Iraq War? If we cut and run like the Democrats in Congress want - it will end badly, if we end it with an “enduring presence” it will end well.

HT to Don Surber

» Filed Under general nonsense, Will Breazeale, Sununu, Democrats, War on Terror, Legislators, North Carolina, Hillary, World politics, Presidential Primary, National Politics