President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.
Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.
“The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you’ve had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability,” Snow told reporters.
He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and “the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation.”
First of all, some history. The President of South Korea from 1948 to 1960 was Syngman Rhee. Rhee was not a democrat. He tortured and massacred people on the left and was a model of corruption. He was forced out of office by student protests that erupted after a rigged election for his vice-president.
On April 28 [1960], a DC-4 belonging to the CIA – operated Civil Air Transport whisked Rhee out of South Korea and away from the clutches of a lynch mob that was closing in.
Rhee was not replaced by a democrat, either. After a period of instability and chaos, there was a coup d’etat led by Park Chung-Hee.
Seizing the moment, Major General Park Chung-hee led a bloodless military coup (called the 5.16 Revolution) on May 16, 1961, a coup largely welcomed by a general populace exhausted by political chaos. Although Chang resisted the coup efforts, President Yoon sided with the junta and persuaded the United States Eighth Army and the commanders of various South Korean army units not to interfere with the new rulers. Soon, he was promoted to Lieutenant General.
The Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) was created on June 19, 1961 to prevent a countercoup and to suppress all potential enemies, domestic and international. It was to have not only investigative power, but also the power to arrest and detain anyone suspected of wrongdoing or harboring antijunta sentiments.
Park ‘served’ two terms as president, and he wasn’t replaced by a democrat, either. He forced through an amendment to the constitution and ran for a third term. Then he declared a state of emergency and stopped allowing anyone to run against him in future elections. In 1979, his presidency was finally ended…by a bullet fired from the head of the KCIA’s gun.
So…twenty-six years after the end of the Korean War there had been nothing but military dictatorships, a coup d’etat, sham elections, and an assassination of the head of state by the director of central intelligence. At this point it must have turned into a bastion of liberty, right?
Wrong. In 1980:
General Chun Doo-hwan launched a coup d’etat against the transitional government of Choi Gyu Hwa, the former prime minister under Park and interim president, to assume the presidency. Chun’s seizure of power triggered national protest asking for democrazation, particularly protests in Gwangju, South Cholla province. Chun sent in the special forces to suppress the city, and many students and civilian were killed brutally.
You can read about the Gwangju Massacre here.
It wasn’t until 1988, when South Korea hosted the Olympics, that real democracy finally came into existence there. It took a full thirty-five years to manifest itself.
If Iraq follows the same timeline, it will be 2038 when they finally have a real democracy.
But, of course, Iraq will never develop along the same timeline because there is almost nothing that Iraq shares in common with South Korea. South Korea is almost 100% ethnically Korean. They don’t fight over theological differences.
And, while they have a militarized and insane neighbor to their north, just as Iraq has a militarized and insane neighbor to their east, South Korea has no history of invading that neighbor…it’s just the opposite.
The South Koreans tolerate the American presence there because there is a real military threat and Korean reunification has a compelling logic. There is no such thing as Iraqi/Iranian reunification.
Moreover, the Koreans have a long history of being subjugated by ethnically different neighbors. They don’t like it, but they are used to it. And America’s presence there is benevolent when compared to their other experiences. There is no larger ethnically Korean community that is militantly resistant to colonial or imperial influence. Not so among the Iraqis, the Arabs, and the Muslims.
George W. Bush has, at least and at last, laid his vision before the American people. Unfortunately, that vision is insane.
What? You think George should have some vague knowledge of history and geography? Posh.
the only way to stop bush is to ceausescu him
Careful, that was against the law…
.. But absolutely NO permanent bases!
Being an insane dictator is no walk in the park.
subtext:
President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq
[until jan 2009] the White House said on Wednesday.
then it’s somebody else’s problem…and the rats, of both flavours, are going to hang with him on it.
bet on it.
lTMF’sA
clik images for info
The hell makes anyone here think we won’t stay in Iraq after 2009? We’ll be having this same discussion next year, and the year after, and the year after…
It’s always been about the oil. Iraq, Afghanistan, the only question is if Bush bombs Iran or the next President does.
l didn’t say we weren’t staying….iraq’s a fait accompli.
as to iran, in addition to kristol, kagen and company, the real neo-con pus sacs are coming to the plate…norm podhoretz, who l had hoped had finally shed his mortal coil just had an incendiary screed in the wsj, wherein he confesses his true allegiance:
the reichwing lunatic fringe
l’ll not live to see the day we’re out of iraq, and it’s not likely you will either.
meet the new boss,same as the old boss…just a little less whip, and a kindler, gentler image.
bah!
lTMF’sA
clik images for info
Of course BushCo wants 50 years. That’s 30 years of the Oil Law they are pushing off on the people of Iraq plus a 20 year extention. Wonder how the Arab world is reacting to this news?
How many countries do you think the neocons studied? Maximum chaos=Maximum profit margins.
With Russia gone they needed a new enemy.
just as Iraq has a militarized and insane neighbor to their east
Come now, let’s not echo the neocon imperialist propaganda line. The main thing propping up the Iranian theocrats is US hostility to Iran, which also makes a certain level of mobilization necessary. The idea that Iran is a rogue state is nothing but a Zionist myth.
It’s more than a Zionist myth. I don’t think they a really a rogue state, but they’re not run by nice people, or sane people.
I might have agreed with you had I not met someone who had been in the (Islamist) government a few years back. He was a devout Muslim and had spent ten years as a P.O.W. in an Iraqi prison, even though he was a civilian.
He had all the backward ideas about women etc., but we could talk as reasonable men and agree to be different. I think that if we do not attempt to impose our views on them, they will not try to impose their views on us, so that an accommodation can be reached.
Maybe you say they’re crazy because you think they’re like our fundies, Islamic Falwells. I don’t think they are. They have an organic relation to their tradition, while Falwell rejects his (American) tradition, which is based on liberalism. Falwell and Bush are crazy, but the people running the Iranian government aren’t. They just come from a (very old) culture that is very alien to us. (And I say this even though I have a very negative view of Islam, for the same reasons that Pope Benedict does: that their God is unkwowable, so that their “submission” is based on blind obedience as opposed to reason. The Christian God is bound by reason; there’s isn’t. That explains a lot about why the Islamic world is so screwed up, IMO.)
Sure they have backward and highly objectionable views, but the way to encourage them to modernize is to leave them alone, not to make constant threats at them.
I understand the temptation to react to anyone on the left that reinforces the ‘Iran is a threat’ meme. But Iran is a threat. Their president doesn’t have any foreign policy or military power, but he is just about certifiably insane. That’s a concern. Their Council of Guardians compare extremely unfavorably to Falwell.
The Persian people are generally great people…beautiful, cultured, open to ideas from many different traditions and cultures, good at business, peaceful…
Their country has been hijacked, however, by total loons.
As for their transcendent God, there is no religion in the world that is more similar to Christianity than Shi’a Islam. The main difference isn’t the accessibility of their God (after all, ours isn’t exactly making dinner appearances). The twelfth imam and Jesus Christ are basically the same in all escatological ways. There are two main differences: 1) Shi’a Muslims are much more fundamentalist in their approach to their scriptures and 2) they have almost no history of rule.
So, Shi’a Islam is kind of like if Christianity had never been a state religion, except in one country, and Judaism had dominated and oppressed Christianity for 1500 years.
There is a definite inferiority complex which brings along with it a very unhealthy admiration for martyrdom. Christians once revered martyrs in the same way, but got over it after getting to run their own countries for 1500 years.
Thank you for clearing that up. I can’t really argue against anything you said, since all I have to go on is that Iranian former official I met. My sense is that Rafsanjani isn’t a loon, based on seeing him speak at the UN and a couple of profiles I read about him, but I’m not particularly inclined to defend him any more, either.
Still, your remark that “Iran is a threat” does strike me as reflecting an American imperialism. How can a small country on the other side of the world be a threat to us? It may be a threat to “our strategic interests in the region”, but not to us. You seem to be articulating a John Kerry view of American foreign policy, which surprises me, since you have said that America should renounce its empire.
I agree with you about the nature of Shia Islam, which I think you have described very cogently. I disagree that Shia Islam is similar to Christianity. But our disagreement about that may have as much to do with differing views of Christianity as of Islam, so it is not worth getting into here.
It’s a little too simple to say that I want America to ‘give up’ our empire. That’s not really what I want.
But it is too complicated to explain in a comment.
Iran is a threat to our regional interests and we have regional interests that should not be given up.
Our interests need to be defended in an affordable and sustainable way, and that will involve a new way of divvying up responsibility for keeping our air conditioners running.
Thank you again for your frank response.
I follow your posts with immense interest, since I find them to be the most sophisticated among the Web news/blog sites I usually follow, other than CounterPunch and TomDispatch. Both those Web sites are decidedly in favor of America giving up its empire, of course.
We’ve run into a problem recently, and that is that the Dems have shown their cards, and that is that they want to maintain a long term presence in Iraq. Let’s be frank, and admit that that explains why they caved in to Bush, despite his dismal approval ratings.
You write:
I do not necessarily have a problem with that. But I very much hope that you can elaborate, in a full-fledged diary entry as opposed to a comment, what you have in mind. Are these regional interests Israel? Are they controlling Iraq’s oil so that we have assured access to adequate oil supplies? Or is it simply a matter of controlling Iraq’s and Iran’s oil, to keep Europe, Japan, and China in check?
I have never been someone who believes that everyone on the planet should enjoy the living standards of Americans and Europeans: that would simply destroy the planet. Thus, I accept that rich countries need to employ various stratagems to keep poor countries in check. (Especially because life in poor countries wasn’t all that bad before rich countries started “developing” them. Africans were doing fine before Europe started colonizing them. At least they were in equilibrium with nature, and what more can you ask for?)
In other words, I understand that it might be in a people’s self interest to engage in empire. There can be no doubt that Britain’s empire benefited the British people. But the British were upfront about their empire. The Americans in contrast present their empire as a matter of freeing backward peoples.
Given that you say that you do not want us to give up our empire, I think you owe us an honest account of why we should maintain our empire. It isn’t dominating other nations that bothers me so much as the mendacity of claiming that we are helping them while we are actually screwing them.
Maybe I am asking you to square the circle? Chalmers Johnson claims that a country can’t be both a republic and an empire. The only way I can interpret your comment that I am responding to is that you think that it can.
I’ve written about this before. Someone who has tackled these issues in a very thoughtful way is Michael Lind. Since Powell’s search engine is crashing, here is the Amazon link. For a mere $4.80 you can read his latest in hardcover. It’s a shame because he should be widely read and discussed on the left.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
This will never happen in Iraq:
http://agonist.org/david_lublin/20070530/republican_nightmare