borninblood Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Iraqi sees need for U.S. military until 2018: report Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:14am EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's defense minister said on Monday his country would need foreign military help to defend its borders for another 10 years and would not be able to maintain internal security until 2012. Abdul Qadir's remarks, in an interview with The New York Times posted on the newspaper's Internet site, could become an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. "According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country," Qadir said. "In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020," he said. President George W. Bush has said U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq for years but most presidential candidates, especially Democrats, would like them to withdraw much faster. Qadir is currently visiting the United States. On his agenda is weapons acquisitions for the new, U.S.-trained Iraqi army. According to the Times, these included ground vehicles, helicopters, tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers. The United States disbanded the country's previous armed forces built by Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president who was executed in December 2006. The United States and Iraq have said they would negotiate a formal agreement governing the legal status of American military forces in Iraq but talks have not yet formally begun. (Reporting by Alan Elsner) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1444866320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Well, we're going to have some sort of military presence there for a long, long time. The important thing is that we stabilize that country enough in the short-term in order to bring most of our troops home. I don't care who is going to become president in 2009, Democrat or Republican, he or she is going to keep troops there for the long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Not too suprising. We have been in Germany since 1945 and Korea since 1952. War is a helluva business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephGibbs Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Well, we're going to have some sort of military presence there for a long, long time. The important thing is that we stabilize that country enough in the short-term in order to bring most of our troops home. I don't care who is going to become president in 2009, Democrat or Republican, he or she is going to keep troops there for the long-term. Not according to the current rhetoric of the democratic presidential candidates. They consistently state that they will end the war and bring the troops home. They have said nothing about leaving some sort of military presence there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Not according to the current rhetoric of the democratic presidential candidates. They consistently state that they will end the war and bring the troops home. They have said nothing about leaving some sort of military presence there.That is called partisan hackery. They also all mention ending the war and end up voting for more money for the war. That is the game. Both sides play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I am curious what the reports said following WW2 and the Korean conflict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 "Peace in the German east" bring our troops home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Not according to the current rhetoric of the democratic presidential candidates. They consistently state that they will end the war and bring the troops home. They have said nothing about leaving some sort of military presence there. :laugh: You're not serious are you? It's called American politics. Actually, Obama has already stated he would keep some type of security/advisory force there for the long-term. That terminology gives him enough wiggle room to keep a sizeable force for there. Of course, Hillary would too. I'm not sure about Edwards and really don't even care what he thinks. I believe Kucinich is the only Dem that he would order a complete withdrawal of all of the troops in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.