President Bush would like to see the U.S. military provide long-term stability in Iraq as it has in South Korea, where thousands of American troops have been based for more than half a century, the White House said Wednesday.The U.S. maintained over 30,000 U.S troops in South Korea throughout the 1990s. The security situation on the Korean penninsula is one of the last global flashpoints left over from the Cold War. I don't doubt Bush's word, but I don't see the same type of security environment facing the United States today as was the case during the 1950s (thus my remark that I didn't see the U.S. staying in Iraq 50-plus years, as we have in Korea).
Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, told reporters that Bush believes U.S. forces eventually will end their combat role in Iraq but will continue to be needed in the country to deter threats and to help handle potential crises, as they have done in South Korea.
The United States has 30,000 troops in South Korea; its military presence there dates to the 1950-53 Korean War."
At some point you want to get to a situation in which the Iraqis have the capability to go ahead and handle the fundamental matters of security," Snow said.
The U.S. would have a support role and thus be able to react quickly to major challenges or crises, even though "the Iraqis are conducting the lion's share of the business," he said.
Bush has mentioned the "Korean model" to help make the point that "the situation in Iraq and, indeed, the larger war on terror are things that are going to take a long time," Snow said.
The White House comments come at a time when Congress has been pressing for a troop drawdown, and the administration has been giving mixed signals on its thinking about reducing troop levels.
Bush and officials in his administration are considering what to do after the U.S. military buildup in Iraq announced in January is completed next month, and have raised the possibility of reducing troop levels. But after those suggestions alarmed conservatives, who fear that talk of withdrawal encourages the enemy, U.S. officials emphasized Bush's commitment to Iraq.
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at Brookings Institution, said Snow's comparison of Iraq and South Korea would hurt efforts to convince Iraqis and others that the United States does not plan an indefinite military stay.
"In trying to convey resolve, he conveys the presumption that we're going to be there for a long time," O'Hanlon said. "It's unhelpful to handling the politics of our presence in Iraq."
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates also has said that a long-term U.S. military presence would help stabilize the region and provide for U.S. national security.
"It's important to defend this country on the extremists' 10-yard line and not our 10-yard line," Gates said this month.
It's no doubt that Al Qaeda and the transnational terrorist movement are dire threats to national security, and the nature of that threat could be existential should al Qaeda operatives develop the means of delivering nuclear weapons to rain down on American cities. For the most part, though, the war on terrorism will be a long struggle, without a clear end -- al Qaeda's operations are networked and diversified, and the threat is of a non-state nature. Importantly, while I would prefer -- and indeed, I see it as an obligation -- that the U.S. stay in Iraq over the duration, I don't know if there will be a public commitment to a long stay in that country. (While some polls show that Americans resist the use of U.S. military power to promote democracy overseas, I need additional survey data to support my broader feeling that the views of American society today are less supportive of our global security obligations than those of earlier eras.)