Permanent occupation doesn't require 130,000 troops

[samplegirl]

The end game is, and always has been, permanent military bases. A permanent military presence gives them the ability to exert influence on the Iraqi government and makes it easier to pressure neighboring countries, or start wars with them.
You don't need, or even want, to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to accomplish that. Probably around 30,000 would do.

Which is why the Bushies don't flinch at talking about drawdowns in the future, because it's part of the plan.

[ShortnFiery]

1. It does if 80+ % of the native population hates your guts and wants you out of THEIR country. nt

[hobbit709]

2. You got it.

[HereSince1628]

3. And. my question is, when state and defense are filled with dem appointments

will those folks be new world order types who think that this is all a great idea?

I have a terrible feeling that the appointments coming out of the limited Dem Thinktanks and Academia are going to be thinking these permanent bases are A-OK.