Think tank: U.S. likely to stay in Iraq after Bush's term

[sabra]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-10-25-troops-stay_x.htm

Think tank: U.S. likely to stay in Iraq after Bush's term

LONDON (AP) — Continuing violence and instability are likely to force President Bush's successor to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, despite the recent passage of the Iraqi constitution in a referendum and other political progress, a leading military think thank said Tuesday.
Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said many U.S. troops would probably have to remain in Iraq until well after the U.S. presidential elections in 2008.

"We're likely to see continued bloodshed and instability inside Iraq," Cronin said at a news conference where the institute issued its annual report on the world's military forces.

"This is a long-term proposition, and I would expect the next U.S. administration to have forces inside Iraq at a fairly large number for some years to come."

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Who is IISS, and are they another neo-con front?

[endarkenment]

3. Doesn't appear to be.

Dennis Healey is a former labour leader - and from the era when labour was far more left than today. Wikipedia doesn't have much on it. Perhaps they are just being realistic and projecting continued neocon dominance of US and GB?

[Lasher]

4. I went to the International Institute for Strategic Studies web site.

I couldn't tell for sure, but it looks like they are a bunch of hawks.

http://www.iiss.org/

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. It's establishment, but realistic

From The Independent in 2004:

Iraq Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says Studies

...
The IISS has strong establishment links, with former US and British government officials among its members. The Foreign Office contributed £100,000 towards the setting up of its headquarters in central London, and Baroness Thatcher and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, then secretary general of Nato, attended the opening.

The IISS dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, published on 9 September 2002, was edited by Gary Samore, formerly of the US State Department, and presented by Dr John Chipman, a former Nato fellow. It was immediately seized on by Bush and Blair administrations as providing "proof" that Saddam was just months away from launching a chemical and biological, or even a nuclear attack. Large parts of the IISS document were subsequently recycled in the now notorious Downing Street dossier, published with a foreword by the Prime Minister, the following week.

However, unlike No 10, the IISS admits that it made mistakes in its dossier about the extent of the Iraqi threat, and has commissioned an independent assessment by Rolf Ekeus, a former head of United Nations arms inspectors in Iraq.

Dr Samore and Dr Chipman pointed out yesterday that its dossier had caveats about Iraq's supposed WMD arsenal, while the Government insisted on removing such caveats from intelligence assessments - leading to "sexing up" accusations.
...

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/IISS-Iraq-Occupation26may04.htm

[soothsayer]

2. So THAT's why we've built our biggest military bases EVER.

Shocker! Who woulda' thunk it.

[hippiechick]

5. Wow, really ?

:eyes: I had no idea !!!

And they PAY these people money to come up with this shit ?

[rfkrfk]

6. what happens when, US fatalities are nearly zero, but ten-twenty...

thousand US tropps are still there,
plus unknown numbers of 'advisors' and mercenaries?

[A Brand New World]

7. It'll take decades to get this little shit's "policies" out of our

system!!

[Miss Chybil]

8. Is this why Dems won't admit they regret their war vote?

I don't get that stance. I really don't.

[IndianaGreen]

18. They are DLC cowards!

FRank Rich of the NY Times told Tweety that the Democrats have yet to come clean about Iraq and accept responsibility for their own shameful role (mind you that people like Conyers, Kucinich, Feingold, et al were the exceptions rather than the rule).

The Democratic establishment does not want an antiwar candidate, so they are rallying around prowar luminaries such as Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc. Yes, Kerry doomed himself when he said that he would have voted for IWR had he known Bush was lying.

[eridani]

19. Not true that Kucinich et al were exceptions

TWO-THIRDS of the House and Senate Democratic contingents voted against the IWR. That wimpy other third definitely hurts us, though.

[Larkspur]

9. With recruiting down, how does this think tank figure to support such

a long stay in Iraq?

People are not joinging because of Iraq and politicians like McCain and Hillary Clinton are not going to improve the recruiting woes.

I forcast that the US will be forced out around the end of Bush's term or early into the next Prez's term because our Army will not be able to sustain an occupying force.

[SKKY]

10. No shit. Iike we have a freakin' choice.

[0007]

11. When the U.S. spent billions to build fourteen military installations

in Iraq, it's unlikely that this country will walk away from them.

I don't ever see peace in Iraq as long as military bases exist. bin Laden's main beef was the bases in Saudi. After 911 we sure got the hell out of there plenty fast.

junior has taken a sovereign nation and turned it into a roach motel for Islamic extremists.

[drduffy]

12. oil, oil, bubble and toil

we will stay until the oil is gone or until the neocons, corporatists and all their lackeys - freeper or dem are deleted. The advent of peak oil and the fall of the american economy and empire will also lead to withdrawal as troops are needed to quell riots and discord here. And/or until we confront Iran/China/Russia.

I pray every day that the neocons will all, without exception, sink back into the ooze of dissolution from which they were spawned. They are Nazis and deserve the same fate.


edited to include: These are but some of the possible scenarios.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes...

Sadly, I'd say you're absolutely correct. Well put.

[Javaman]

13. So we stay in iraq to prevent the inevitable civil war???

This doesn't make any sense. Face it folks, the civil war has begun, the only thing that prevents it from becoming a full on war is the USArmy. So, this means it will be a slow trickle, with the occasional spurt of blood shed for years to come.

So what do we do? stay and have a trickle for years to come or leave and allow the iraqi's to fight it out in a bloody long overdue civil war?

We have fucked that country plain and simple.

Here's a solution, for every Iraqi troop that is trained, we bring home an american soldier. simple. Then after we have left, if they are still hell bent on killing each other, then they have that right.

An alternate is, creating a UN force to take over, but moron* has wasted what good will we had left with the rest of the world, so I don't see that happening.

[Benhurst]

14. Unless we have the sense to withdraw soon, the decision won't

be ours to make. Withdraw or be kicked out are the options.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Not if we elect someone like Dennis Kucinich

Dennis, and others like him, will bring the troops home as soon as he takes the oath of office.

People like Hillary will turn Iraq into a Democratic War and forever destroy the Democratic Party and the country.