Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: Curious.

re: Curious.
gbaikie — (archived)

"Most of the advocates for leaving actually don't want us pulling all the way back home. Murtha's proposal calls for troops withdrawing into a neutral country such as Kuwait and sitting back and watching the evolution."

Kuwait isn't neutral, it's a US ally. If you want a neutral country, then perhaps Syria or Iran:)

Though perhaps we if we are going to have a long term presence in region, Kuwait might be good location. It seems that once Iraq security force can provide for better security for Iraq then at the present [that shouldn't be very hard target to reach:], the US and coalition forces should start leaving Iraq.

It also seems to me that we are going to be in Afghanistan far longer than we are going to be in Iraq. I think before Bush leaves office that Coalition forces in Iraq will be significantly reduced [say around 50,000 or less] or will completely leave Iraq. Whereas in regards to Afghanistan I think by same time frame, we will have same level of force or perhaps even an increase.
So, by time Bush leaves we will still have forces in Afghanistan, Germany, S Korea, Japan, maybe even add some to Lebanon, Kuwait, Kosovo, and in numerous other locations.

I think the whole idea of having US forces forwardly deployed in other countries should be addressed in the future. I think the EU should have same number of forces in other countries as the US. And I think we should tap India to get it playing larger role in global security. Here wild idea, could we sell 2 or 3 of our air carriers to India- "outsource" that function?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (55 posts)