Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years

From the AP via Yahoo courtesy of Eschaton:

Bush has adamantly refused to set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Asked if there would come a day when there would be no more U.S. forces in Iraq, Bush said, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

Pressed on whether that meant a complete withdrawal would not happen during his presidency, Bush said, "I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say."

White House officials worried Bush's remarks would be read as saying there would not be significant troop reductions during his presidency. They pointed to comments Sunday by Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who said he expected a substantial troop reduction "certainly over the course of 2006 and into 2007."


Click here for the rest.

Wow. I've been asserting frequently lately that the US will never leave Iraq, most recently here. But I never expected the President to just come out and admit it. It's possible, I suppose, that some "future presidents" may defy my expectation and decide to get out, but that would surprise me a great deal--the ability to control the world economy by influencing oil markets with Iraq's massive deposits is just too damned tempting, to both Republicans and Democrats. There is historical precedent for this, too: it took the US ten years of brutal war against Filipino insurgents to stabilize American control over the Philippines, and then we stayed there for nearly forty years afterward. That took us through eight Presidents, from both parties. And there was no oil there, either! Anyway, Bush's admission is weird; his staffers certainly seem to agree with me on that.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$