Iraq is Korea?

[Brad]

At a press conference on Wednesday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said that President Bush thinks Iraq will develop along the lines of “a Korean model,” and defined that to mean a situation in which the United States “provides a security presence,” and serves as a “force of stability,” for “a long time.”

Really, now what does that mean?

Q: So you're not suggesting that U.S. troops would be there for over 50 years in a—

Snow: No, no, I’m not. I don’t know. It is an unanswerable question, but I’m not making that suggestion.

Q: You're not suggesting that there's a parallel between the Korean model today and the Iraqi model today, in terms of U.S. force posture?

Snow: No, what I'm saying is you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support role. But no, of course, we're in active combat ...

Q: [W]hen you talk about this Korean model, would that kick in whether things are going poorly after the surge or going well after the surge? I mean, do you have to maintain a stability of some sort?

Snow: … I'm not going to get into any of the details of those sorts of things. 

slate.com/id/2167362/

So, what are the conditions that would let the troops come home?

[unrealist42]

In Korea, the entire country was completely destroyed and all the bad guys pushed to the north and the country divided in half.

There were over 1million troops on the ground in Korea.
How are we going to do that with a measly 150,000 soldiers?

They don’t have enough bombs and artillery to destroy the whole of Iraq let alone chase all the bad guys into kurdistan.

Anyway, dividing the country in half would be very difficult, it is much larger than Korea and there is not enough mines and barbed wire in the world to make a DMZ all the way across Iraq.

[elephantepelecanus]

They don’t have enough bombs and artillery to destroy the whole of Iraq

are you sure about that?

[Xunzian]

I think that Sam Crane has some interesting points on this topic:

Josh Marshall picked up this doozy from Reuters:

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.

 Josh makes a couple of the obvious points in rebuttal: Korea is more culturally and ethnically unified than Iraq, which is not unified at all; and Korea was embedded in a very different Cold War international context.  He also reminds us that US forces in South Korea, after the armistice of 1953, were oriented outward, to prevent an attack from North Korea; US forces in Iraq are currently engaged in internal civil war.  Big difference.

  I would add that this is just another reminder of how deeply and fundamentally incompetent the Bush administration is.  Remember when, back in 2003, they would regularly roll out the Japan and Germany comparisons to suggest that US occupation (we couldn't use that word then, remember) would establish democracy.  Well, Japan and Germany are long gone as analogies; so, let's try Korea.... pathetic.  What's next?  Viet...no, can't do that....  How about the Philippines?

  I imagine the operative element of the Korea comparison is the "50 years" time frame.  Bush senses that getting Iraq right will take a long time.  50 years sounds about right, and that's just about how long we've been in Korea (actually it is more like 62 years - we landed there in late 1945 to take the Japanese surrender).   

 But notice what's missing: any sense of strategy.  What is the purpose of a long term commitment to Iraq?  Are we there to keep it "united" or will we accept and encourage a partition of some sort? (And can we even be the determining factor in such a transformation?)   Are we comfortable with a Shia-dominated government that is closer to Iran (which is what is emerging)?  How will we counter what has become the most challenging strategic error of the whole sorry episode: the fact that Iraq is now an exporter of global terrorists? 

  None of these difficult questions is being addressed by Bush in public debate.  He is incapable of facing the horrendous mistakes he has made; and so, many, many people continue to die...

  This passage from Mencius captures the current situation well - and with no misplaced comparisons to Korea!

Now the Yen emperor tyrannized his people, so you attacked him.  The people thought they were being rescued from fire and blood, so they welcomed you with baskets of food and jars of wine.  How can you justify killing elders and taking the young captive, tearing down temples and stealing sacred vessels?  The power of Ch'i was already feared throughout all beneath Heaven, and now you've doubled your territory without making your government Humane.  No wonder all beneath Heaven is us in arms.

Hurry!  Send out orders to release the old and young, to leave the sacred vessels where they are.  Consult the people of Yen, appoint a new ruler, and then leave....(2.11)

  Korea is not the future of Iraq.  Iraq is not Korea.  Somebody please give the president a history lesson.  Then, consult the people and leave.

There are a variety of hyperlinks in that blog, so I think that it is worth reading in the native format.

Regardless, I think that the ethnic comment is an effective on. Now, I do have to ask what the ramifications of the ‘Korean’ model. I disagree with Sam Crane, I think that ‘50 years’ is less the operative term than the idea of a partition. But what are the ramifications of that?

After all, Turkey (a long time US ally, and a model of how to have a US-friendly Democracy in the region) would be less-than-pleased if Kurdistan were to become a reality. Not just in terms of international politics, but I think that such a situation would greatly destabilize Turkey. Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing from the standpoint of the 'War on Terror" because such a destabilization would most likely end in the elected government of Turkey being disbanded in favour of a military dictatorship. However, that would put to rest the myth that America is in Iraq to support democracy.

A similar situation would happen in the Shi’ite section of Iraq. After all, it is logical that they would either actually join Iran or at the very least be a state that is incredibly friendly to Iran – a satellite nation, if you will. I cannot think of a way that benefiting Iran benefits the US interests, or the West’s interests in general, or much of anybody’s interest, really.

And, what do we get out of this spectacular clusterfuck? A small third country where, possibly, a pro-US democracy could take root.

Now, given the loss of Turkey and the benefit rendered to Iran, I’m not really sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

[Brad]

I agree with much of that.

Sorry, I can’t add more, I’ll try to get back to this later.