Do you think that the American govt has any desire to leave Iraq permanently, based on past results.
I just read http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318955 thread and I started thinking about US bases around the world. The bases in Germany, Japan and the Phillipines eventuated from WW2 (and probably others that I just didn’t think about).
50 years later will the US still have bases in Iraq? Why does the US still have bases in WW2 sites. Why do those countries allow them and why are they needed?
Probably the wrong forum, but will the US still have troops in Iraq in 50 years?
This’ll probably be moved, but yes, I think we’re going to be in Iraq for a long, long, long time. I’d say that we’ll maintain a “strategic presence” for at least the next 50 years. Unless of course we end up getting into WWIII with a united group of Arab nations, then all bets are off.
I understand that a lot of the overseas bases were not necessarily for the domination of the country, but for the protection of the country after WW2. There was certainly an initial need for a stable government after a devastating war, but there was also a need to fill a power vacuum after the overthrow of a previous regime. AFAIK they weren’t there so much as a colonising power (eventually) but rather by invitation.
Will the USA be in Iraq in 50 years? Hell if I know. I rather doubt it. And if I’m wrong, I won’t be around for anyone to tell me.
Japan is officially protected by the US–so there is little mystery to an American presence here.
Germany, my guess would be that we kept military there through the Cold War to have a location close to Russia–no idea why the West Germans allowed that though.
I would imagine we will keep bases active in Iraq for as long as there is something nearby that we want to have a military base local to. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we’ll still be overlooking Iraq in 50 years, though.
Japan is pretty strategically important. Okinawa is located near China and Taiwan, bases on the home islands can be used to provide close support to the Korean peninsula (as they did during the Korean War), and could possibly cut off the Russian warm-water port of Vladivostok. Plus, with the fall of the Nationalist government in China, we were in need of a Cold War ally in East Asia.
Japan allows US military bases in their nation because they are vital to Japan’s defense. The Japanese Cold War strategy was to concentrate on economic growth while leaving the protection of Japan to the US. Japan reasoned that the US would not allow them, the chief American ally in East Asia to fall to the communists, and that by remaining (largely) unarmed, they had the perfect excuse for remaining uninvolved in American interventions such as those in Korea and Vietnam.
Obviously, things are changing with the end of the Cold War. The US is no longer as willing to selflessly defend Japan (the security alliance was severely strained by Japanese unwillingness to act during the 1994 N. Korea crisis) and increased belligerence by N. Korea has led to a growing willingness on the part of the Japanese government to rearm and become a “normal” nation as well as an awareness that they have to do more to maintain American goodwill (witness Prime Minister Koizumi’s stanch support for Bush re: Iraq).
Who has America been protecting Japan from. I suppose Korea is the easy answer, but was Korea a threat when the American bases were established. No. America must be paying through the nose now.
Germany? I’m sure they had no choice just after the war. America must be paying through the nose now.
Are the bases in Germany, Japan and the Phillipines finishing anytime soon?
Just look at a map – of course the U.S. wants to keep bases there. But in response to your question – we left Vietnam, so we might just leave Iraq too.
America was protecting Japan from the USSR and China, both nations which Japan has not historically had great relations with. As Japan’s economic fortunes brightened, America successfully put pressure on the Japanese regarding the cost of the bases, and I believe that most all non-salary costs are currently paid by the Japanese government.
The U.S. bases in the Phillipines, Clark Air Force Base and Subic Naval Station have been closed for about fifteen years now.
The U.S. is planning to evacuate some of its bases in Germany, but the German communities hosting them are trying to keep them open because they have become reliant on the economic contributions of the bases.
Until Japan decides to arm itself in a meaningful way, you can expect there will continue to be a U.S. presence there.
As for Iraq, It’s really hard to say what the future holds. There is a good chance an anti-American government will take hold of the nation and force the U.S. out.
America and its allies should have left Iraq immediately after bagging Saddam. Iraq’s problems are Iraq’s to resolve, not the America’s. Iraq is an artificial construct anyway, courtesy of the British.
Since going into Iraq was mainly a political decision with little actual justification for military reasons, the exit will also be a political decision. So the timing will depend on who the next PotUS is. If someone like Jeb Bush, the war continues. If someone that’s not a neo-con/Bushite, then something like a year after being sworn in. The Pentagon would love to have unrestricted bases in a friendly country on the Gulf, but they probably know that Iraq won’t ever fit the bill.
As to Japan, one of the main reasons for US bases is so that Japan doesn’t significantly re-arm. I.e., we are protecting Japan from Japan.
This hasn’t been the case since at least 1950. The US government has consistently pushed for Japanese rearmament ever since Truman sent Dulles to negotiate the peace treaty ending WW2.
Most Iraqi cities still don’t have safe water or reliable electric power. However, 14 permanent US military bases have been completed. There is still a lot of profit to be made in Iraq, so we’ll be there a long time.
