10 more years in Iraq

Yup, that's what visiting UK dignitaries have concluded.  The Independent reports that a group of MPs has concluded that the Brits will be there for ten to fifteen years.

And, against a backdrop of continuing carnage, The Independent has learned a cross-party group of MPs has returned from Iraq convinced British troops may have to be deployed there for at least another 10 years.

Where does that leave the States?  You guessed it...

The Independent:  Ten more years?

And, against a backdrop of continuing carnage, The Independent has learned a cross-party group of MPs has returned from Iraq convinced British troops may have to be deployed there for at least another 10 years.

Unlike the Prime Minister, the Commons Defence Select Committee was unable to visit Baghdad because the security situation was too dangerous.

One senior member of the committee said: "It will take 10 to 15 years at least [before troops can be fully withdrawn]. It is another Cyprus. The Iraqis just cannot cope with the security situation and won't be able to for years."

Sounds like a party to me.  Have any administration officials come out with projections like this?  Any senators? congressmen?  On either side of the aisle?

•  What...the...

  FUCK. These are not democracies in the works. To quote Chomsky, these are "client states"...in the works.

  Great news grab. As such...

  RECOMMENDED.

  by kosmologist on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 09:26:12 PM PDT

  •  agreed

    hence the 51st state reference in the poll.

    I don['t subscribe ti this so-called "pottery Barn" rule as coined by Colin Powell.  I think that we ought to leave.

    The US is now a catalyst for violence and chaos.  The first step to bringing peace is for the US to leave.

    The modality of this departure will need to be determinied, but only through open talks with other nations:  you know, something George Bush is quite good at.

    by Gearhead on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 09:52:52 PM PDT

•  Who the heck knows

  since we dont know why we went in, or what the mission is now beyond the BS, who knows how long we will be there.

  My guess, at the current drip drip, its going to have to be resolved much sooner than 10 years.

  the only way i foresee that kind of stay is if Iraq is peaceful and we have bases there....

  I dont know.

  by Pounder on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 09:43:04 PM PDT

•  Good stuff

  by Descrates on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 10:30:57 PM PDT

•  By 2010, Iraq

  will be either part of a greater Iran (an add-on to a Talibaptist super-state spreading across the Middle East and rolling over secular nations) or merely a Shiite client-state/protectorate of Iran, the way Puerto Rico is a protectorate of the U.S.

  It's why they are following their current nuclear strategy. They have the location, the Shiite population majority, the net-surplus of oil combined with the high prices to generate the resources needed for this Talifest Destiny.

  The U.S. is currently playing into the Iranians' strategy with insistence on the January vote that will strongly favor Shiite populations (unless the Bush Junior Admin sends Mr. Blackwell to Basra to surpress the votes of Shiite true-believers).

  By crushing the most "powerful" secular state in the Islamic world (Iraq) since 1990, U.S. foreign policy is creating a power vacuum for the Talibaptists to expand into.

  Certainly sad. Most likely scenario to come to pass.

  by Big Jack Stark on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 10:42:12 PM PDT

  •  Brain-drain of US elections to Iraq

    You expect fair elections for Iraq?
    .
    Controversial U.S. Groups Operate
    Behind Scenes on Iraq Vote
    

    But in actuality, influential, US-financed agencies describing themselves as "pro-democracy" but viewed by critics as decidedly anti-democratic, have their hands all over Iraq's transitional process, from the formation of political parties to monitoring the January 30 nationwide polls and possibly conducting exit polls that could be used to evaluate the fairness of the ballot-casting.

    "Whispers have been heard the votes will be tallied inside the Green zone because of safety concerns.  A predicted `Warren' type clamp-down to insure proper outcome of the results has not been ruled out. It will be up to Ambassador Negroponte, a majority stakeholder in the territory, to make the final certification on legality of votes."

    "The exit polls can be used as back-up in case of electrical failure of the power node in Bagdad. With all eventualities has been reckoned with. The final count of the election will result in a winner. Negroponte has a vast knowledge of governing from previous post in Central America, Honduras."

    Born a Liberal, voting Liberal, dying as a Liberal: á la Vie á la Mort

    by creve coeur on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 01:45:13 AM PDT

    •  Fair/Arguable/Fallout

      No sir, I didn't expect them to be fair.

      But the problem the Bush Junior Administration faces is that Iraqis can count.

      1. There are a lot more eligible voters who primarily identify themselves Shiite than any other "group", political, religious, ethnic.

      2. The areas of the country that are targeted for pre-disenfranchisement (they're not going to even take or count votes from there...Falluja '04, Cleveland '08) are mostly areas without significant Shiite populations.

      By sheer numbers, the Talibaptist-Shiites would have to win, say two-thirds of the votes. Yes, Halliburton can lose a few here and there and even make up the number out of whole cloth, but all the Iraqis, especially the ayatollahs and their (heavily-armed and -funded by American petroleum consumption) Iranian big brothers will not be unexplosive unless they get a working plurality.

      No matter what the media says, there are no "moderate" Talibaptists Americans should be rooting for. And without the secular core the Ba'ath people used to surpress the Shiite majority, the Talibaptists will either control the apparent "government" or failing to achieve that, the Falluja/Mosul level of heat will become standard most everywhere there. It might not happen overnight, but it would be close to inevitable.

      by Big Jack Stark on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 06:49:28 AM PDT

•  I'm gonna be selfish for a second

  I just hope I make it to 2006, when I'm 25.  I would have gone under Kerry, but not these fucks.

  though they'd probably take me under the skills draft with my biochem masters and chemical engineering undergrad.

  by slapshot57 on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 10:57:20 PM PDT

  •  You must run away

    No choice.  Run away.

    by Gearhead on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 06:02:07 AM PDT

•  At the rate he and his cronies are raiding

  the national treasury piggy bank, we'll be bankrupt well before ten years doncha think?

  by Einsteinia on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 12:07:20 AM PDT

•  US Troops May Stay in Afghanistan Indefinitely

  .
  Foreign Troops May Stay in Afghanistan Indefinitely
  U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad likened this possibility to the continued presence of U.S. troops in Europe and East Asia. He suggested Afghans, still bitter at their abandonment by Washington after the decade-long Soviet occupation ended in 1989, might welcome such a presence.

  Reference to Khalilzad - Who is he?
  Read full story via link.
  "They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence, currently chairman of the defence science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan - where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory - and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for - you guessed it - Iraq."

  Born a Liberal, voting Liberal, dying as a Liberal: á la Vie á la Mort

  by creve coeur on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 01:57:36 AM PDT

•  Cyprus

  The Cyprus analogy seems to assume Bush gives a flying fuck about the Iraqis' actual security. I don't think that's true.

  That doesn't mean I don't think we'll be there in ten years, though. My guess is that the Neocons' plan is to install a strong man who will protect the oil infrastructure, possibly by playing the three major ethnic groups off one another so that they participate in securing their own areas. US forces will be stationed mostly away from population centers, acting as a last-resort enforcer of corporate  interests, insuring the free flow of oil.

  by Olds88 on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 05:02:17 AM PDT

•  the United States will...

  pull out of all these areas including Iraq, I predict, very shortly, within the next year and start a massive air war against all the countries of the world simultaneously.

  The Brits are just too practical (read: sissies) about client states and empire building--Ha! ten years!

  by SpuytenD on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 05:28:07 AM PDT