Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said many U.S. troops would probably have to remain in Iraq until well after the U.S. presidential elections in 2008.
“We’re likely to see continued bloodshed and instability inside Iraq,” Cronin said a news conference during which the institute issued its annual report on the world’s military forces.
“This is a long-term proposition, and I would expect the next U.S. administration to have forces inside Iraq at a fairly large number for some years to come.”
Cronin gave no figures on the force levels he thought likely.
While the high turnout for Iraq’s constitutional referendum was encouraging, U.S. efforts to train Iraqi forces to take over security duties are moving slowly, the institute said.
Anyone think this won’t be an issue in the 2008 elections?
I’m not sure why there is so much hoopla over how long US soldiers will be in Iraq. We have soldiers in Germany and Japan still, 60 years after WW2.
Same as Okinawa, our base(s) in Iraq are permanent, to maintain a permanent US presence in the Middle East as long as the American Empire can hold them there.
This may well have been one of the reasons to conquer Iraq, since by doing so we can sharply minimize our presence in religious-sensitive Saudi Arabia.
I don’t think it will be an issue in the ’08 election for the same reason it wasn’t in the ’04 election: Neither side has anything to gain by going against the status quo.
Two words: “Well, duh!”
What, you think Hillary is just going to tell them all to pack it up?
That was a joke, btw…