Response to New York Times article "U.S. Needs ‘Long-Term Presence’ in Iraq, Gates Says"

Article located here.

The U.S. Defense Secretary is considering "a very modest U.S. presence with no permanent bases, where we can continue to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq and help the Iraqi forces." The U.S. currently has four bases, one in each quarter of Iraq, that are similar to permanent U.S. bases elsewhere, and that the anti-war movement in the U.S. fiercely opposes keeping troops in Iraq. One of the major reasons for invading Iraq was to move the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia to new bases in Iraq, in order for the U.S. to maintain its military presence in the Middle East. The Bush administration refuses to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq because it would either have to completely withdraw U.S. forces or explain why it wants a continued presence. The rhetoric against withdrawal and in favor of continued occupation is partially because the administration does not want to admit failure, but also so that the public is more likely to agree with an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.