"But with all of that said, I think American troops are on Iraqi soil to stay Permenantly. Mostly as a trip-wire force like those in South Korea.

Oh and then there is Afganistan... I don't think US troops will leave there any time soon either."

The only reason we have ground troops in S Korea is to demonstrate our commitment to the defense S Korea. It could be claimed that the US was responsible for the war in Korea, because US policy wonks had previously stated that Korea wasn't US miltary priority to defend.

Iraqis shouldn't need this kind of demonstration- unless in future we screw up by removing the US miltary too soon and the Iraqis suffer as a result. I don't think the US will stay in Iraq permanently, and I think President Bush should have most the US troops out of there by the end of his term, and in addition I think he should be aware that future US leadership will not have the political capital to make changes and therefore should have long term plans/security agreements with Iraq established before he leaves office.

As far as Afghanistan, I believe this will require a longer US direct commitment. I think Afghanistan might be more similar to S Korea- requiring a US miltary presence to show that we are concerned about future security of that region and to stem flow illegal drugs coming from Afghanistan.

It seems to me that Iraq can afford a well trained miltary and it seems that Iraqi are interested in maintaining a strong miltary. So Iraq may become a country like Turkey [or UK or Japan]- a dependable ally that adds to the security in the region [and beyond] instead requiring security provided by US. Iraq will become a strong military partner rather than a constant liability.