WSJ.com Forums

Join the discussion. Please remember to include your FULL NAME (first and last, no initials) so that we can consider your message for posting.

Also, see the previous Question of the Day: Will polar bears still be around in 50 years?

Remember:
• This poll isn’t a scientific sampling of reader opinion, but it is a handy snapshot of what your fellow readers are thinking.
• Please see WSJ.com's forum guidelines.

It will cease to be called a "war," and the speechwriters will think up a more palatable name. There will be fewer troops, but we will be in Iraq forever.

I just looked at the Evening Wrap, and McCain said that by the end of his first term there will be only "spasmodic" violence in Iraq. Honestly, in 4 years, he really thinks that the extreme factions of Shia and Sunni will have kissed and made up?????? He's living in Fantasyland.

So this is what the Republi-convicts call change? The only thing they have changed is their campaign rhetoric from fear and negativism to fear and false hope.

For McCain, change means changing positions to placate the pseudo-cons. I think they used to call this le gran flip-flop. And I once thought McCain had some integrity. It must be the water in D.C. that turns backbone into jelly.

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that if McCain does get elected the conditions on the ground will mysteriously necessitate the troops to stay until 2113.

Besides, Flipper McCain’s new BFFs, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Jerry Falwell, will have to approve any troop withdrawal so it won’t happen unless Armageddon starts.

As long as there is profitable oil to be had in Iraq, there will be an American obtrusiveness there also. Nothing says we are here for the oil better than an armed force. When the last drop of oil is gone, then American troops will leave, with or without a “democracy†in place.

Regards
NC

Carol,

I agree with you--almost. I believe we will be there a long time; I believe it because that's the way we operate. Our enemy morphs into a friend and advocate. Witness the Marshall Plan, laid out in 1947 by the General to students at Harvard University.

I also understand we were dealing with a different kind of enemy during World War11. Maybe the analogy doesn't work; maybe the Mideast is destined for eternal turmoil.

Betty

In my opinion, they will be home much earlier than 2013, no matter who the President is. US has no manpower to support (unless it reinstates Draft which no President who is looking for reelection will do). Moreover, economic situation is going to get worse -- higher and higher deficit financing, lower and lower value of $, and increasing stagflation, higher and higher prices for Oil, etc. Don't expect much support from other central bankers any longer -- UK is already not too good shape; I doubt Gordon Brown will win reelection.

No, US has very little staying power in Iraq. US is there because of stubborness of GWB and gutless Congress. But ground realities in Iraq will force US to come quicker. Another 5 years is too long for US people to tolerate without a favourable outcome in Iraq.

Nick:

As long as US troops are there, don't expect oil contracts to be signed which can be enforced in an international court; and Big Oil will not invest a penny unless the contracts are enforceable. And the contracts must be signed by a government which has stability. Do you expect a stable government in Iraq in the near future? At least I don't. And if a government signs oil contracts under US pressure, the moment US troops leave, that government will be toppled, and the contracts will be abrogated.

Life is different in the oil patch these days than used to be in 1930's-1970's. Even Saudi Arabia nationalized US oil companies, paid them for their investments, but kept them as mere contractors for exploration, refining, shipping and marketing. All refineries, pipelines, shipping terminals are owned by Saudi Arabia.

So, simply that US expect to stay in Iraq for a long time, that oil will start flowing from Iraq; forget it. But oil will flow when US leaves quickly. Iraqis are in no mood to give contracts to US/British oil majors. If any government does that, that government will not survive.

So, the best is that US leave and leave quickly and even unceremoniously (like in Vietnam in 1975).

Iraq was our enemy before we invaded them? No. In fact Rumsfeld and Reagan supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. Now Bush likely has turned Iraq into an enemy because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the war and the 4.2 million refugees from both the war and the imposition of Sharia Law in a country that was the most secularist in the ME before the invasion and occupation.



There would be a lot less turmoil in the ME if the US would stop attacking it in order to control their oil.

And even better, if Britain hadn't taken it over and stuck together ethnic groups that don't get along. And if Britain (how did THEY get the right?) gave the Jews their own country in an area that was full of Muslims who owned homes and businesses there.

It's the same in Sudan: Britain pushed the Muslims and the non-Muslims together. Then oil was found in Sudan and America wanted it. The Muslims had a better army and the Western army gave in their demand to keep the country together (which meant they had control of the oil) and began massive slaughter of the black non-MUslims who had converted to Christianity. This mess is still suppurating but apparently Chevron got the oil, so the US doesn't feel inclined to stop the ethnic cleansing and slavery by the Muslims there.

So McCain is now, according to the Bushies, an "appeaser" who has dared set a timeline for leaving Iraq. He obviously wants the terrorists to win, as Bush said tonight about Obama. Oh ,and then bush's handlers said, oh, no, it wasn't aimed at Obama personally, just all the evil appeasers in America who might want to talk to Iran, just as Gates said should have already happened.

How's this appeasement by McCain going to go over with the far right?

Who are they going to vote for? Perhaps they'll just sit this one out. That would be very good for America.

I wish I could say yes. The war has been a catastrophic boondoggle for everyone except the defense contractors.

However, looking at American history, I think it's safe to say the answer is a resounding 'no'. We still have bases in countries like Germany & Japan even though the war ended 60+ years ago. Most veterans of those wars are no longer even alive. However, the military & our government always find reasons to maintain our empire of bases. In the case of Japan, we were initally stationed there to prevent a resurgence of Japanese militarism. When that was no longer a valid excuse, the mission changed to stopping Soviet expansion in the region. Then it was to counter balanace China. Now it's to defend Asia from North Korea and to prevent regional powers from fighting each other.

Good grief... Germany & Japan in particular are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. As it is, they pretty much get a free ride.

Iraq has witnessed a similar change in rationales and will continue to do so until Americans tire of being the world's policemen. That or until we can no longer finance our empire, which is a possibility. We'll defiintely be forced to withdraw from Iraq when China cuts off our funding.

Sadly, the analogy doesn't work.

WWII actually ended and our troops were no longer being shot at after the war ended. There is zero evidence to suggest that our troops will magically stop being targets in Iraq for as long as we're there.

Regarding troops coming home, it is all about perceptions. I expect that within the next two years we will formally end the “occupation†of Iraq. “Job Well Doneâ€s will be handed around to all involved and a nice story will be fashioned so that most Americans can continue to feel morally superior and confident that they are a positive force in the world.

The reality on the ground will be that some of the troops will come home but one or more large bases will be established (at the request of the Iraqi government of course) to keep control of the entire region. These bases will be situated in southern Iraq to maximize the blocking function between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The bases will operate like Guantanamo bay, very secretive, with prisons for people who need to be kept out of U.S. territory and therefore out of the U.S. legal system.

The bases will be centers for surveillance and military intelligence with rapid response teams and the latest in armed drones. Everything needed to make sure that the U.S. can reach out and touch anyone in the region.

This gives the U.S. huge advantage when negotiating “diplomatic†issues in the Middle East. If you are OK with this sort of thing, it is going to be good for the U.S., it increases the ability to project power in that region.

So, yes I believe that most of the current troops (infantry, mechanized infantry, armored) will be home from Iraq by 2013, but the U.S. presence will remain as long as empire endures.

Romesh,

It’s been my contention from the beginning that the rush to war was to prevent exactly what you have outlined, contracts with other than US corporations for control of Iraq’s oil. With U.N. sanctions on the verge of being lifted under Saddam, European and Russian friendly dealings with Saddam, and the U.S. regarded as a pariah by Saddam and others in the region, it stood likely that Bush-backed oil friends were going to lose tremendously.

It’s a type of “sauce-for-the-goose†scenario for the US troops being there now in regard to what you’ve stated. It’s better for US oil concerns that no one gets oil (or the control of oil) in Iraq if it isn’t the US-held corporations. If another country’s Oil Company would get to deal directly with Iraq, like China, what would that do to the US/British oil companies? What if another country would work out a deal with Iraq and then perhaps other ME countries to control the flow to the US?

If US troops can’t win control of the oil, then the next best thing is to keep anyone else from winning it. A stalemate of this type will do in place of a win for as long as it takes. And there is that wonderful cash cow for the Bush/Cheney Corporation in supplying the materials for the war with no competition and no accountability for what is spent. Not bad for immoral profiteers using every last drop of American and Iraqi blood to feed its greed.

But I must give credit where credit is due for making sacrifices for the war. I heard that Dubya gave up golf while the troops were in Iraq. Or, maybe he just couldn’t get rid of a bad case of the shanks so he quit playing until he can devote six days a week on the links.

Regards
NC

With McCain, yes. But by annexing Iraq to the U.S. and declaring all the troops there as home guard.

You got to give the guy credit, he never stops white washing that pile of manure.