Bush's Korea model for Iraq shows he's "seriously out of touch with both history and reality"

[ProSense]

Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea

From Josh Marshall:

<...>

It is hard not to take this as another example that the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq.

Let's run through a few differences. First, Korea is an ethnically and culturally homogenous state. Iraq, not a culturally or ethnically homogenous state. And needless to say, that has been a point of some real difficulty. Second, Korea a democracy? Well, yes, for about fifteen years. Without going into all the details, South Korea was a military dictatorship for most of the Cold War.

A deeper acquaintance with the last half century of Korean history would suggest that a) a fifty year occupation, b) lack of democracy and c) a hostile neighbor were deeply intertwined. Remove B or C and you probably don't have A, certainly no A if you lose both B and C.

The more telling dissimilarity is the distinction between frontline troops and troops for stability. At least notionally (and largely this was true) US troops have been in South Korea to ward off an invasion from the North. US troops aren't in Iraq to ward off any invasion. Invasion from who? Saudi Arabia? Syria?

No, US troops are in Iraq for domestic security, in so many words, to protect it from itself, or to ensure the continued existence of an elected, pro-US government. That tells you that the US military presence in Iraq will never be as relatively bloodless as the US military presence in Korea since it has no external threat it's counterbalancing against. In a sense that the US deployment in Korea has never quite been, it is a sustained foreign military occupation.

link

[leftofthedial]

1. plus, Iraq is surrounded by potential North Koreas

who might take sides in Iraq's internal divisions

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[gulliver]

3. I think Josh Marshall is seriously out of touch with Bush this time.

The only thing Bush likes about the Korea model is that troops have to stay forever. Bush knows that the second our troops leave Iraq it will collapse, and his sneaky-boy game of avoiding blame will be over. So, given that troops have to stay, Bush needs an example of troops staying somewhere in perpetuity and it being "OK" with the American people. Voila, Korea! That's the way the smarmy little bunch of creeps that Bush surrounds himself with and epitomizes think.

Bush doesn't think Iraq is like Korea. He doesn't think we are winning. He thinks people are really, really stupid. The smart people (like Marshall) know that having troops in Iraq ten years from now is nothing like Korea, but Bush is not out to convince them. Bush only needs to convince a tiny percentage of people--maybe only the few hundred he needs to kiss his ass the rest of his life.

But if the Dems or someone allow this Korea meme to take hold, there will zillions of alcholic brother-in-law types to keep it alive. I don't know how you fight such a bold con by Bush and his fellow weasels. But I think you start by suggesting that they don't even believe what they are saying. If they believe it, then let them defend it. They either prove they don't believe it (making them liars) or they fail to defend it (making them idiots).

But no. The Dems will let them get away with it or they will try to make cogent arguments like Marshall (whom I respect greatly, by the way). And they will miss the point. It's a con with Bush, not a policy.

[Imagevision]

4. Crazy perhaps but look at the billions US. defense contractors are looking at of

which daddy still has input into The Carlyle group, You know, the company Tony Blair will be working for when he steps down...

[TwilightGardener]

5. A terrorist-recruiter's dream--a permanent infidel presence!

[vixengrl]

6. The degree we are to, like, Korea:

A quick evil thought--

MR. SNOW: Wendell just asked the same question. I don't think -- again, that's not strictly comparable because what you have is a North Korea that continues to be a threat, I mean as we've seen with the development of nuclear weapons. We're hoping that the Iraqis, in fact, are going to have the kind of security and stability they need so that what you're really dealing with is the internal security of Iraq, rather than trying to provide reassurance against an external foe.
Q So you're not suggesting that U.S. troops would be there for over 50 years in a --
MR. SNOW: No, no, I'm not. I don't know. It is an unanswerable question, but I'm not making that suggestion.
Q You're not suggesting that there's a parallel between the Korean model today and the Iraqi model today in terms of U.S. force posture?
MR. SNOW: No, what I'm saying is you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support role. But, no, of course, we're in active combat.
Q Tony, while there's no way of telling whether we'll be there 50 years, or not, but isn't there planning going on for a significant number of troops to be there for a long time? I mean, do you still consider this a long war? :shrug:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070530-9.html

No one is suggesting that the United States will have troops in Iraq for the next fifty years. Not at all. The country will be divided in two and the part that hates us will have nukes, but....