Quote:
Originally Posted by Splum
No we went to war against Saddam and to protect our interests in the middle east has nothing to do with those dirty ragheads.
|
"REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia,"
"...fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"
".., American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large nmbers."
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
"With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed"
"It would be wise to reduce the frequency of carrier presence in the Mediterranean and the Gulf while increasing U.S. Navy presence in the Pacific."
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Taken from a report prepared in Sep 2000 by people closely tied to Bush.
9/11 was the "Pearl Harbor" event and it allowed the administration to begin all these transformations. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam or WMDs or anything like that. It's purpose was to fullfill these requirements and more.