Perpetual War

Bush's decision to analogize the US presence in Iraq to the one in South Korea is truly telling. The two situations could hardly resemble each other less. If we take Nouri al-Maliki's government to be something like Syngman Rhee's dictatorship at the core of the analogy, then who plays the role of the North Koreans? How do the Kurds and the Sunnis fit into the picture? Where's the USSR? Approve of it or not, the decades-long American military presence in South Korea has a very clear-cut rationale -- it was there to defend America's South Korean client regime from the USSR's North Korean client regime and now inertia keeps it there because the DPRK still exists even if the ROK doesn't really need outside protection.

In Iraq, none of this stands up at all. It's just a raw expression of a desire to keep our troops in Iraq more-or-less forever. For no real reason. In a country where they're clearly not wanted by either the Sunni Arabs or the Shiites, and where our "allies" in the government are as much Iran's proxies as ours.

Comments

"For no real reason."???

C'mon, it's the oil, stupid.

Posted by Justin | May 31, 2007 9:01 AM

A perfect opportunity for your traditional Clausewitz invocation, Matt. The Korean deployment is well-suited to a political strategy of protecting a client regime's border from a hostile neighbor. Democratization and internal security play no role in our deployment; hence, our troops live on the border and not throughout the country. In Iraq, democratization and internal security are the political goals; therefore, a Korea-like deployment is not at all suited to the political strategy.

You're absolutely right that this is just about rustling up a rationale for endless deployment. I'm concerned that Josh Marshall's off-the-bat reply, that Iraq and Korea are different societies and Iraq is "more difficult," obscures the more important point that the two deployments have totally different goals, rather than environments. Josh Marshall's argument is basically "we accomplished it in Korea, but Iraq is harder, so we shouldn't stay." That is misplaced.

Posted by Marshall | May 31, 2007 9:18 AM

Umm, better yet, where's the safe border behind which our troops sit while not being attacked by any insurgency?

Or am I mis-informed, and we really have been fighting a brutal South Korean insurgency in a chaos-stricken yet plasma-TV manufacturing nation for 50 years now?

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2007 9:35 AM

Seriously, it is the oil.

Ironically, the realpolitik explanation for our occupation - the need to project power throughout the region and to control the oil fields - ALWAYS was the best one. I opposed the war from the start, but this was the one explanation I thought might need engaging. Why? Because we are actually capable of it, and we have taken the necessary steps to achieve it (whereas we had clearly failed to build the army, infrastructure, and skill set to democratize Iraq).

So, we are capable of it. I would even argue that maybe we should do it. But, I don't think that the elites of our Country can demand that kind of 50 year commitment from the entire rest of the Country (taxpayers, military, etc) without openly explaining their reasoning. And, they have never shown any interest in doing that.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 31, 2007 9:53 AM

A naked oil grab would have outraged everyone in the Middle East. There had to be a cover story.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 31, 2007 10:08 AM

The Korea analogy is horrible on all accounts, as analogy, history or politics. I'd love to see this pushed with the Republican candidates, do they want permanent US bases in Iraq?

Posted by AJ | May 31, 2007 10:46 AM

From Mossadeqh to Saddam, people in the Middle East have never failed to grasp the real goal of US foreign policy in their own region. (To say nothing of the history of other imperialisms in previous periods).

The cover story was intended to feed the gullible domestic population of the US and those less gullible among us who nevertheless have been blinded by nationalistic fervor.

Posted by Justin | May 31, 2007 10:55 AM

Wrong Asian country.

Posted by Max | May 31, 2007 10:56 AM

Ironically, the realpolitik explanation for our occupation - the need to project power throughout the region and to control the oil fields - ALWAYS was the best one. I opposed the war from the start, but this was the one explanation I thought might need engaging. - MDtoMN

That's why my dad, a conservative of such an old-fashioned sort (he was opposed to Vietnam -- thought it was just a plot by arms manufacturers to sell bullets) that he now passes for a left-wing moonbat, originally supported the Iraq war. But as soon as it was clear that "control of oil" meant, keeping oil flows low even if constant rather than ensuring a flow of cheap oil (remember cheap oil is not in the interest of oil-folk who take a percentage profit off of oil rather than a fixed cut) -- well, you can guess how he feels about things now.

Of course, my dad would never have voted for any GOoPer (unless they run Zombie Taft), so what does the GOP care that they don't have support for the war by the 5 conservatives like him still in existance?

Posted by DAS | May 31, 2007 11:02 AM

It was only a week ago that Bush warned of bloody months ahead in Iraq. At that point he didn’t mention how he planned to provoke the bloody summer of 2007.

You have to hand it to Bush. This is a plan as big as Texas itself. It’s a plan virtually guaranteed to outrage not only everyone in Iraq, but the entire Middle East, perhaps the world.

It’s truly awesome; a permanent US military presence in Iraq.

With any luck this plan could even bring more violence to our own shores.

---

Posted by Justme | May 31, 2007 11:37 AM

My recollection of South Korea and Vietnam is that our boys (and some girls) in our Armed Forces could mingle with the population beyond the base. In Iraq if they tried, we would never see them again. Iraq is best compared to the French-Indian War where the troops dared not venture beyond the walls of the fort.

Posted by Mat Conly | May 31, 2007 2:08 PM

DAS:

"But as soon as it was clear that "control of oil" meant, keeping oil flows low even if constant rather than ensuring a flow of cheap oil (remember cheap oil is not in the interest of oil-folk who take a percentage profit off of oil rather than a fixed cut) -- well, you can guess how he feels about things now."

Does your dad also think that keeping ANWR oil off limits to drillers (thus limiting supply) is part of a right-wing scheme to keep oil prices high as well? What about restrictions on drilling offshore of FL and CA?

This conspiracy theorizing is fun. Let me try making one up, give me 30 seconds... OK, I've got one. Canadian industrial interests were secretly behind the war in Iraq. Why? Well, as everyone knows, Western Canada has significant deposits of oil sands (in addition to regular oil). Canadian companies such as Teck Cominco, Ltd. own interests in oil sands leases. Of course, it is far more expensive to extract oil from oil sands than it is to extract it from wells; therefore, for oil sands to be profitable, oil prices need to remain high. To keep oil prices high, it was necessary to invade Iraq.

Posted by Fred | May 31, 2007 2:55 PM

I agree with Matt & most of the comments, however it's a little known fact that there WAS a Korean counterinsurgency in 1968-9:

www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Bolger/bolger.asp

Note that the battle was basically won by the South Koreans, not the US Army.

Posted by American Citizen | May 31, 2007 3:48 PM

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 1:42 PM

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 1:42 PM

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 1:42 PM