What would this smaller fighting force do for the next several decades? Nothing, except get shot at occasionally -- not often enough so's you'd notice
Would they even have a mission? Preserving Bush's reputation ad infinitum
How would this force improve U.S. security interests? By making Democrats -- the only existential threat actually facing the US -- look bad.

What would this smaller fighting force do for the next several decades? Would they even have a mission? How would this force improve U.S. security interests?

I think it's clear it would continue the disastrous situation, undermining out security interests. As long as we're around, we're going to get drawn into the civil war in Iraq by any party that thinks it can use us to leverage its position. And attacked by the other party. This will keep Iraq unstable, ultimately destabilize other countries (think Jordan, Saudi Arabia), and be a complete disaster.

Get out, get completely out, stay out. That's our safest and most secure solution.

This sounds like a formula for an indefinite, perhaps lasting decades, slow bleed of our military. Who could possibly want that?

Q: Who could possibly want that?
A: Al Qaeda and military defense contractors

The surge was proposed because the half assed occupation we had in Iraq was no longer politically tennable after the Rep's shellacking in 2006. So now that's run out of steam so they propose a quarter assed occupation to gain political support.

This has nothing to with security, they've given up on that, if they ever cared. It's about 2008 and 2010 politics

So where are the "serious" people now who laughed at us crazy "conspiracy theorists" for believing all along that these people want to keep us in Iraq forever?

Congressional Dems nothing! Do you really think Pres. Cheney will let this gain any traction?

Who were the representatives of the (sovereign) Iraqi Government at this meeting?

Cranky

I did not see any mention of deployment for decades, such as in Korea. As for mission, it would be just as what is stated: training, fighting Al Qaeda, securing the borders.

As soon as there is a Democratic Administration, all the posters here will discover that the troops in Iraq are actually performing tasks that are absolutely necessary, because the new Administration will say so.

and what about Halliburton & Blackwater? Would they still receive boatloads of cash, and even LESS supervision?

C'mon
A new approach?
why the hell do you think they built the permanent bases in the first place?
And no not a Korea...it's far closer to a Guatemala, Honduras or Nicaragua in terms of the type of Iraqi security forces that will be used.(and a continuation of the neo-con wet dream in terms of economic policy - destined of course for complete failure)

Get a clue, really.

How about this solution: We notify the Iraqis we'll leave entirely if they promise not to continue fighting. We make the same promises to Iran, Syria and Al Qaida if they'll quit meddling. In addition to withdrawal we'll agree to fly over the assembled signatories on a monthly basis and release billions of dollars into the atmosphere. No accusations about funds diverted into various crony accounts. Everybody has the same chance at the money. We'll send the same amount we're spending now and forego the death and ruination of our military. A net savings over the current arrangement.

Gates has revealed himself to be a liberal and a traitor.

The only way to achieve our goal of bringing democracy to Iraq is by crushing all opposition with overwhelming force. Fortunately the President realizes this and will never agree to Gates' plan.

it's hard to imagine congressional Dems going along with Gates' proposal

Yes, it is hard to imagine Congressional Democrats approving of Gates' proposal since that is their major presidential candidates' proposal as well. I think they will wait until 2009 to implement it, letting their liberal base down but not their defense contractor contributors.

US troops will be in Iraq in 2032. Will it still be a campaign issue?

And if the Democrats really think Bush is going to free up some of the soldiers, they are FOOLS! Bush will turn right around and use those soldiers to attack Iran. Bush has never done anything without an ulterior motive.

Hmmm, wonder why they'd want to free up troops from Iraq....

This all comes back to the fundamental goals of Bush's invasion, which always was a permanent U.S. presence, similar to the U.S. presence in Germany, Japan and Korea, which the Project for a New American Century folks, thought would lay the basis for American power projection in key areas of the world.

So, Gates wants to salvage what he can of the plan to dominate the Middle East from a base in Iraq.

Bush failed in Iraq, because no one in his Administration -- at least no one competent -- was seriously interested in the "transformative" agenda or the rhetoric liberal internationalism. What Bush wanted was a weak Iraq, weak enough to accede to a permanent American presence.

Now we know just how weak Iraq would have to be, for the U.S. to be able to stay indefinitely. The price in blood and chaos is very high.

My advice? Take the deal. It will collapse on the ground in Iraq, and the Iraqis will ask us to leave.

Even though I think getting entirely out now would be the best policy, as a Democrat I would strongly support taking up Gates on his idea here. After all, it's not like any agreement the Dems make will have any binding force once Gates is gone, a year and a half from now. By adopting this course, we're actually getting movement in the right direction. In 2009, we can keep troops in or pull every one out. And of course, this is a good way of attaching the invidious label 'cut and run' to Bush, not the Democrats.

Of course some will call this a sell-out. But if we follow Gates' plan, we could be under 100,000 troops by the time the Democrats take over. If we oppose it, and demand everyone out or nothing, we'll still have 130,000+ in come 2009, and a Democratic president who has to take 100% responsibility for the 'retreat'.

I hope Gates' offer is genuine, and I hope we take it.

all the posters here will discover that the troops in Iraq are actually performing tasks that are absolutely necessary, because the new Administration will say so.

I admire the Czech and Slovak patriots who assassinated Reinhard Heydrich.

I suppose it's encouraging that the existing policy is losing support at the Pentagon, but it's hard to imagine congressional Dems going along with Gates' proposal.

Broja's right, unfortunately. I agree with you that they shouldn't support Gates' proposal, and there are a lot of obvious and unanswered questions about it... but it pretty closely matches what leading Democrats have stated they want.

Following the Korea example would be relying on a bad analogy, bad because there are a ton of differences between the situations. But that doesn't mean it's bad domestic politics, and it certainly doesn't mean that people think it is.

……. As for mission, it would be just as what is stated: training, fighting Al Qaeda, securing the borders. Trashhauler at 4:34 PM

If the US is losing in the fight against al Qaeda now, is unable to secure borders with the current force, and completely unable to train Iraqis despite the current levels of US troops and the expenditure of $19,000,000,000, reducing troops is not a 'formula for success.' Your prescription is for more deaths, more civilian death and destruction and would engender more terrorism there, here and everywhere.

I can assure you that Democrats will not be happy with any half-assed solution as the one proposed by Gates.

Your understanding of the situation in Iraq and the world is lacking.

If Iraq is Korea, who is Kim Il Sung and where is the 38th parallel?

The Korea analogy is not new. Army types have been bringing it up for several years. They ask, “How long were we in Korea, Japan, Germany? I ask, “How many US troops were shot or blown up by Koreans, Japanese, Germans during that time?

I call bullshit. Gates has no need of Congress to implement this. He just needs Cheney's permission.
In terms of policy all that would change is the numbers, 150,000 troops with no mission becomes 50,000 troops with no mission.

It's the oil, stupid.

I assume the force would be tasked with going into areas OUTSIDE Iraq that are seeing upswings in violence and pacifying the area.

Now that might make sense as we seek to keep the war contained into the geographic borders or Iraq as much as we can, but in practice our armies have shown that they largely can't do that through a confluence of factors.

What would this smaller fighting force do for the next several decades? Would they even have a mission?

Their mission would be to provide a "decent interval", and it wouldn't be for several decades.

The Republicans, with few notable exceptions, have over the last fifteen years proven themselves to be collectively dishonest, delusional and untrustworthy.

Therefore, time spent listening to them is truly time wasted. The Republicans are going to do what they're going to do, regardless of whatever they say or promise publicly.

Having compromised its integrity and forfeited its credibility through its singular quest for power, it only remains to be seen whether the American people will make the GOP forfeit its control of the federal government.

Step one of this proposal (reduce troop levels, stay in bases to help discourage genocide, train 'good' Iraqi forces) sounds like what responsible Dem presidential candidates are proposing. Step two ( 'stay in the bases with no date certain for withdrawal - ever') is a deal-breaker.

Cheney and those he actually represents want the army next to the oil. That's why we went in, and that's why we'll stay.

No. Unacceptable. Out now. 100%, total, complete withdrawal with NO residual troops.

No presence whatsoever. The ME is NOT our property to control or lord over. OUT.

Doesn't this suffer from the tragic flaw that Al Queda exists because of our presence on bases exactly as this plan calls for?

There's no way we're going to get our of being a target while still leaving troops, equipment, or money there.

Here's my counter proposal: ALL US military OUT. You want "troops" there, leave Blackwater goons there under private contracts with the Iraqi government, if they want them. Let those thugs eat the bullets and RPGs they so richly deserve.

Get the real troops out and leave the dregs to die in the sand. Good riddance.

The Dems would be SO over if they caved in for this crap.

The debacle must end, lock, stock, and barrel.

No residual troops. Not a one.

Remember, the whole reason we're IN Iraq right now, is because Osama bin Laden demanded (and Bush obeyed) that our previously endless occupation of Saudi Arabia be ended. Since US troops were in Saudi Arabia to protect Bush-family cronies, the House of Saud, from Iraq, the next best place would be to station those troops in Iraq. The invasion wasn't about WMD, or Democracy Promotion, or getting Al Qaeda.

It was about Bush doing what his masters in Ryadh commanded.

As long as the House of Saud requires the protection of a force of paid mercenaries (ie. The US, a.k.a. Saudi's Oil Slaves) to protect their oil fields, US troops will remain in the region to prop up their illegitimate dictatorship.

in return, Gates will give Congress an end to an ineffective "surge" policy.

Let me get this straight. Gates would - if Congress does not deal - continue with the "ineffective 'surge' policy"?

What sort of a weird game would that be?

The only way to achieve our goal of bringing democracy to Iraq is by crushing all opposition with overwhelming force. Fortunately the President realizes this and will never agree to Gates' plan.
Posted by: Al on July 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm on board with that plan. When will the President begin sending an overwhelming force? 2003 would have been a good time for that plan. Wow.

....You want "troops" there, leave Blackwater goons there under private contracts with the Iraqi government, if they want them.
Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on July 3, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, this is the best long-term solution. Only the private contractors should be paid for directly by the oil companies that want them there. Then those companies can pass that expense on to their customers at the pump.

I think with that dose of honesty "injected" into the market, folks will start to look for less costly energy alternatives.

Seems like Gates is overstepping his bounds. Shouldn't a proposal like this be coming out of the State Department? What does Secretary Rice have to say about this?

Neither Congress nor the next (Democratic) President would be bound by this 'agreement' with Gates. Why doesn't anyone recognize this? Who cares what the 'terms' of the agreement are? What's the downside to getting the withdrawl from Iraq started under Bush, and then having it finished by the next President, who can just declare that 'circumstances have changed' and bring every last soldier and marine home?

Or. Would. You. Rather. Hold. Breath. Until. You. Turn. Blue?

Any Democrat who doesn't see an opportunity here is a fool and a pony-chaser.

Why does Bob Gates hate America?

Why does Bob Gates hate America?
Posted by: SHannity on July 3, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

whadda surrender monkey.

Democrats should defund all expenses for the occupation of Iraq. Democrats require no deal to encourage the beginning of a withdrawal. They do require the will to exercise their constitutional powers, however, and they seem to lack that.

I think there is huge misperception among Republicans. A lot of Republicans now hold that Bush was totally wrong to start the war and that Bush botched the first few years of the war but that Bush has finally realized the problems and is making course adjustments so now the war can be fought intelligently. This is all wrong though. The surge was doomed to fail and undermines support for the war so that, of course, was the course Bush selected. Look for another loose cannon war undermining move from Bush in the months ahead. I wonder what that could be.

The so-called "deal" should be turned down. There's nothing to deal. If the admin thinks that troop levels should be lowered, then that's what they should do. The surge is producing nothing except an increased body count and casualty list.

Junior has nothing to trade in this deal.

Colin >"This sounds like a formula for an indefinite, perhaps lasting decades, slow bleed of our military. Who could possibly want that?"

Oil companies & those that hold their stock, defense contractors & those that own their stock etc

Get It ?

AJ >"This has nothing to with security..."

Of course it does

Security of the control of oil

Steve LaBonne >"So where are the "serious" people now who laughed at us crazy "conspiracy theorists" for believing all along that these people want to keep us in Iraq forever?"

I believe they are running things

Cranky Observer >"Who were the representatives of the (sovereign) Iraqi Government at this meeting?"

Most likely the folks from the Oil Ministry

Michael7843853 G-O in 08! >"...Would they still receive boatloads of cash, and even LESS supervision?"

Probably

bh. >"...why the hell do you think they built the permanent bases in the first place?..."

I KNOW why

Control of Oil

next question...

steve duncan >"...In addition to withdrawal we'll agree to fly over the assembled signatories on a monthly basis and release billions of dollars into the atmosphere..."

have you been listening to Jimmy Buffet lately ?

bdr >"Hmmm, wonder why they'd want to free up troops from Iraq...."

To train for their next "adventure in empire building" I would imagine

Bruce Wilder >"...Bush failed in Iraq..."

Actually they have been VERY successful at completing this phase of their master plan

Control of the Oil

Cyrus >"...it's hard to imagine congressional Dems going along with Gates' proposal..."

Oh come on

They have gone along with the rest of the master plan so far, why quit now ?

Mike >''...Your understanding of the situation in Iraq and the world is lacking."

Talking to yourself in the mirror are you ?

You clearly have NO CLUE

Dick Durata >"...becomes 50,000 troops with no mission."

the mission is Control the Oil

Get It ?

bicmon >"It's the oil..."

DING !!!

Donald from Hawaii >"The Republicans, with few notable exceptions, have over the last fifteen years proven themselves to be collectively dishonest, delusional and untrustworthy..."

They have also been very, very successful at accomplishing their goals

Read "The Real War" written (supposedly) by Richard Nixon

MaryLou >"...Step two ( 'stay in the bases with no date certain for withdrawal - ever') is a deal-breaker."

Not a chance

It is an opportunity to surface their master plan and cease having to hide a bunch of stuff

Control of the Oil is the plan (notice the location of the mega-bases/fortresses)

chance >"Cheney and those he actually represents want the army next to the oil. That's why we went in, and that's why we'll stay."

DING DING !!!!

Praedor Atrebates >"The Dems would be SO over if they caved in for this crap..."

Oh nonsense, they have stock portfolios that need to be protected as well as the ReThuglicans do

osama_been_forgotten >"...As long as the House of Saud requires the protection of a force of paid mercenaries (ie. The US, a.k.a. Saudi's Oil Slaves) to protect their oil fields, US troops will remain in the region to prop up their illegitimate dictatorship."

DING DING DING !!!!

The Brotherhood of Petroleum does rule

Duncan Kinder >"...What sort of a weird game would that be?"

More of the last 4+ years until they get what they want

Control of the Oil

osama_been_forgotten >"...the private contractors should be paid for directly by the oil companies that want them there. Then those companies can pass that expense on to their customers at the pump..."

YES !!!

Someone that actually understands what The Grand Game is

DavidLA >"...What does Secretary Rice have to say about this?"

She gets lots more kewl shoes to wear

lampwick >"...Any Democrat who doesn't see an opportunity here is..."

You clearly don`t understand what The Grand Game is

Brojo >"...Democrats should defund all expenses for the occupation of Iraq..."

And defund their stock portfolios ?

No Way !

One More Time for the benefit of those that are still fighting reality

The U.S. Armed Forces are in Iraq & the rest of the Middle East to ensure Control of the Petroleum from now until there is no more petroleum to pump

Watch this video to understand about the bases/fortresses that are being built for our long term use & note their location in reference to the fields of petroleum & the associated infrastructure

“You would label it cynicism-as if that proved it wrong.� - Robert A. Heinlein

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and some allies in the Bush administration are seeking to build bipartisan political support for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq by moving toward withdrawing significant numbers of troops from Iraq by the end of President Bush's term. [...]

NO *ucking way..

This war is about what American considers it's "interest in 0the region" so to keep killing the people of Mideast for that oil - and as such an ugly war, Gates can't stick it where the sun don't shine because like Kissenger said, IT"S not possible.

Hillary BETTER NOT MOVE in this direction either BECAUSE she wants a presents in the region too - for the oil and it's not possible.

Bush lies and when he's done being a liar - he lies even more. It's like Olberman said tonight - resign Bush! Bush is nothing but a PIG and EVERY appointie in yes-man criminal line up is also a pig. Go to hell Gates.

daCascadian - That has to be one of the most unreadable posts I've ever seen on the WM comments; it looks like a gibberish spam message.

Please don't do that again.

slightly related:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/update-on-bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

It is curious, don't you think, that the false story about the beheadings got so much play, but this actual atrocity did not.

Osama_been_forgotten: Actually, this is the best long-term solution. Only the private contractors should be paid for directly by the oil companies that want them there. Then those companies can pass that expense on to their customers at the pump.
&&&
I think with that dose of honesty "injected" into the market, folks will start to look for less costly energy alternatives.

I would like to see that also. But I think that politically it is a non-starter, shades of the real "robber barons". Second-best is to realize (intellectually) that military deployment is a part of the cost of ME oil, and to ramp up the ongoing investments in alternative fuel supplies.

da Cascadian: The U.S. Armed Forces are in Iraq & the rest of the Middle East to ensure Control of the Petroleum from now until there is no more petroleum to pump

So get behind the Apollo Alliance and their push for energy independence.

And those troops wouldn't be residing in those super secret bases that everyone denies were being built in Iraq would they? The policy is insane. Our government refuses to accept the fact that the era of black gold aka fossil fuels is over. Entrenched interests clinging with both hands to a world view that is no longer sustainable. They can stay 2000 years, kill thousands more and it is not going to stop the rest of the world from switching to alternative fuels and other alternative energy sources. China, India, and Brazil are going to do what they please to develop this technology and tell the US to go to hell. Bush is fighting to save the horse in the age of the automobile.

And those troops wouldn't be residing in those super secret bases that everyone denies were being built in Iraq would they? The policy is insane. Our government refuses to accept the fact that the era of black gold aka fossil fuels is over. Entrenched interests clinging with both hands to a world view that is no longer sustainable. They can stay 2000 years, kill thousands more and it is not going to stop the rest of the world from switching to alternative fuels and other alternative energy sources. China, India, and Brazil are going to do what they please to develop this technology and tell the US to go to hell. Bush is fighting to save the horse in the age of the automobile.

A small US force would be under constant attack. They wouldn't be able to do much besides protect themselves.

lampwick >"...That has to be one of the most unreadable posts I've ever seen on the WM comments..."

Haven`t been around here long have you ?

I simply get tired of all the whining about what Bush should do blah, blah, blah when we all KNOW Control of Oil is what this is really all about but almost no one will admit it

Did you watch the video ?

"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel." - Saudi saying

Whatever deCascadian's 7:47 post may lack in the etiquette of readability, it more than makes up for in analytical accuracy.

We are not leaving Iraq because we were never supposed to leave in the first place. The predictable chaos we have fomented is the required justification for our "stabilizing" and subtantial presence at the massive bases we have built. Next to the oil.

Unless they begin by acknowledging this reality, discussions of what to do about Iraq are extensions of the "inept foreign policy" theme which camouflages the real plan.

Cheney is despicable but not inept. He intends the bases to remain (and attendant loss of life to continue) as long as there is oil in Iraq.

How many senators will support the demolition of those bases?

MatthewRmarler >"So get behind the Apollo Alliance..."

Dude, you are soooo behind on this

I have been for serious alternative energy since 1973/74 when I had to deal with the even/odd gasoline rationing absurdity & learned how the Brotherhood of Petroleum worked their "mahjik"

"...playin with matches in a pool of gasoline..." - Swamp Mama Johnson

aline >"And those troops wouldn't be residing in those super secret bases that everyone denies were being built in Iraq would they? The policy is insane...Bush is fighting to save the horse in the age of the automobile."

Continuing to beat a fairly tired horse I am...

Here is a nice video about those bases/fortresses that are all about saving said "horse"

Believe reality or don`t; your choice

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

I'm disappointed. No dings. But the point was well understood.

Gates just wants to go back to the method of waging war endorsed by all good Americans -- killing people from the safety of 15,000 feet.

Gates wants Congress to agree to a long-term, Korea-like presence

Well, yeah, but nobody is shooting in Korea, the South Koreans actually want us there, they have a stable government and a functioning economy, cars aren't blowing up all over the place, there aren't any Sunnis or Shias, there's no civil war...

Other than that, Korea is just like Iraq.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?....Gates says military troopers are commodities, cheap ones, just like toilet paper.

All those military sons and daughters are merely pawns for big oil - Gates is only as patrotic as ExxonMobil tells him to be. Does Gates think our domestic security is less important than our economic security - I mean, a nuclear arms race in the Mideast doesn't od American any good.

I vote that since slavery wasn't worth cheap cotton nor the South's ecomonic security during our own civil war, thus neither is controling oil in the Mideast worth the lives of American troops.

I say Gates should volunteer to let the next IED found Iraq take his own respective legs off, or better yet his son or daughter's legs off – then tell the US citizens if this loss is worth Americans collective interest in the region? The turth about the Iraq war is that it is about oil, and control of it. so Gates doesn't see the Iraq war as a big sacrifice for US military members over the cushioned comfort of his Washington office. Iraqis are clearly NOT interested in our democracy - so why else does Gates want to perserve those billion dollar military bases. To create a No fly zone between Iraqis and their oilfields? Iraqis will never come around to just giving it away to great Bushies and ExxonMoble unfair contract quotas.

Gates is a mercenary commander for ExxonMobil and BP, and that should in no way be confused with a US commander for soldiers in American. I don't know why he doesn't send his resume off to Blackwater because patrotism isn't Gate's bag and certainly not part of the equation. It's patrotism to the man, not the country.

Killing young American millitary members just so Americans can comfortably cruise around in SUVs and big pickup trucks in a fight for many conforts at the expense of few under a banner of "economic security" isn't patriotism - it's treason.

The Bushies didn't want to offer Iraqis any real freedoms, nope, all they wanted to do was just take. This war is about oil, and control of it and nothing else.

The administration shifted from trying to "win" to needing to "contain" when they replaced Rumsfeld. However, there aren't *two* superpowers and there aren't proxy states involved. Gates is in there to implement a "run-out-the-clock" plan and it will be disguised as "containment". I agree that we will not leave Iraq unilaterally. However, Iraq can technically ask us to leave. Gates is there to shift the likelihood of disinvitation to the next administration. He is doing damage control for the GOP from the inside. I wonder if the "surge" was just desperation because they were worried they couldn't meet the Nov. 2008 deadline..

Thank you DaCascadian!

The "analysis" thats taking place here over these moves is totally f**king comical.

The architects of this war didn't invade with the intention of ever leaving. This is old school imperialism folks, with all the bullshit debate about troop levels etc.. being fodder for the rubes.

Quit following the misdirection and debate the real objective: Do you want the United States to own and manage an oil-production colony in Iraq for the next 10-20 years?

"...and bring every last soldier and marine home?"
__________________

We haven't had every last soldier and Marine home since about 1899. It goes with being a world power. Try finding somebody else you'd trust more with the job.

"...understand about the bases/fortresses that are being built for our long term use & note their location in reference to the fields of petroleum & the associated infrastructure."
_____________________

What silliness. What other reasons could there be for the location of these bases? Relative remoteness from built-up areas. Defensibility. Proximity to enemy concentrations. Sustainability. Proximity to areas, assets, and people to be protected.

Certainly, the last includes oil infrastructure. But that's a far cry from saying that defense of oil infrastructure was the determining factor for location. In any case, most security for oil fields in Iraq isn't even done by Americans.

Likewise stupid is Gary Hart's question about the permanency of the bases. "Are you pouring concrete or using steel?" To which any engineer would say, "Of course we are, you idiot. What did you expect us to use - mud? We'd do the same if we were only staying two or three years as we would do if staying 100 years."

If any poster can tell the difference between a temporary main operating base and a permanent garrison base, they have yet to describe it here. In this case, avoiding clarity aids the tinfoil hat brigade. They describe the bases as permanent because they suppose that doing so supports their favorite conspiracy theories.

Our bases in Iraq certainly can become permanent. All that takes is political will. But to suggest that they are being built with permanence in mind is simply nonsense, borne of ignorance and wishful thinking.

But to suggest that they are being built with permanence in mind is simply nonsense, borne of ignorance and wishful thinking.

Oh cut it the fuck out. You know we're building permanent bases in Iraq, we know we're building permanent bases in Iraq, the White House knows it, and the people building the fucking bases know it.

Odierno is saying permanent bases are a "great idea" and Petraeus is saying we'll need to be in Iraq fighting the insurgency for "at least ten years." Hello, even you should be able to read those signals, they're not exactly semaphore.

Bob Gates and the other administration toadies know it or they wouldn't be calling it the fucking "Korean Model." What did you think they meant by that, that every base would come with a Samsung TV and a steaming pot of kimchi????

Your weak rhetorical word games aren't going to find any purchase here. Just because the bases in Iraq aren't going to be there until the sun burns out doesn't mean they're not "permanent." Just because a future president could reverse this decision doesn't mean they're not "permanent." They're enormous self-contained cities with swimming pools and restaurants and bloody fucking subdivisions and this administration plans on keeping them peopled with American soldiers until Jesus returns with his magical bullwhip.

They're. permanent.

Yes, we're planning to garrison troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future because Osama bin Laden bitched at Bush for keeping them in Saudi Arabia to the tune of some prime New York real estate and the lives of some thousands of Americans. Instead of going after bin Laden until he was dead the little pussy instead knuckled under and moved the troops at the ultimate cost of over a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, figuring he could look like a big man, achieve the PNAC wet dream of an American hegemony, and leverage a second presidential election out of it in the process.

Next.