U.S. Planning Troop Buildup In Persian Gulf

Before Congress goes spending too much of the "peace dividend" they see with withdrawals first from Iraq and then Afghanistan over the next few years, perhaps they should check with the Commander-in-Chief (President), Secretary of State and Pentagon on plans for a continued presence in places like Kuwait in the Persian Gulf.

U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world ... nk2|108617

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake....

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

So those of you who are expecting the Defense budget to drop precipitously in the next few years should check the math on how much it costs to maintain a standing army, navy and air force overseas. Unless of course you intend to hang the forces out there on a shoe string budget. We wouldn't do that would we? That would be extremely imprudent.

So yes, the President DID keep a campaign promise to get troops out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) but what he didn't mention is that he would be moving them instead just across the borders to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman.

This President acts more like George Bush every day. I have to say that the liberals must be particularly proud of the President's hawkish response to Iran's antics in the Persian Gulf. I know I am.

Bueller?........Bueller?

Not a single comment on the redeployment of US troops to other locations around the Persian Gulf? Does anyone think that the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz might have strategic importance to the US? What country do you suspect might try to block the Straits?

Does anyone find it odd that the President is planning to redeploy troops quietly to new locations while talking more publicly about the withdrawl from Iraq and ultimately Afghanistan?

Is it possible he is looking to the Conservative side for the votes to be re-elected, since he is losing favor with his base on the left?
Nah!!! That's too ridiculous even for him.

He's going to wag the dog with an attack on Iran in September or October of next year.

lionshead2010 wrote: Bueller?........Bueller?

Not a single comment on the redeployment of US troops to other locations around the Persian Gulf? Does anyone think that the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz might have strategic importance to the US? What country do you suspect might try to block the Straits?

Does anyone find it odd that the President is planning to redeploy troops quietly to new locations while talking more publicly about the withdrawl from Iraq and ultimately Afghanistan?

As one that has been through the straits many times, if we were to lose the straits of Hormuz, (Iran would love to do that) then getting in and out of the Gulf stops. The impact of that is monumental.

The US could weather a closing of the straits (we buy a lot of oil from Canada, and could continue doing so).

Most of the world could not, though.

There's a number of measures that have been taken to minimalize the disruption:
- pipelines across Arabia to the Red Sea (and Indian Ocean)
- bunker ships in the Indian Ocean
- sophisticated transportation systems across Arabia (most of the oil is in the Gulf side).

Most of the hysteria is political.

There are plenty of alternatives that would work fine in the short run.

towermonkey wrote: He's going to wag the dog with an attack on Iran in September or October of next year.

Since all we did in Iraq is make Iran more powerful an even bigger threat, you might not be far off the mark. One thing is sure, until we pull out of Iraq, we don't have enough military resources to commit to it.

I am a little suprised to read about this. I figure after the huge bills from Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Libya, you would think we would be drawing down troops everywhere, not expanding our presence in the Middle East.

bailey bud wrote: The US could weather a closing of the straits (we buy a lot of oil from Canada, and could continue doing so).

Most of the world could not, though.

There's a number of measures that have been taken to minimalize the disruption:
- pipelines across Arabia to the Red Sea (and Indian Ocean)
- bunker ships in the Indian Ocean
- sophisticated transportation systems across Arabia (most of the oil is in the Gulf side).

Most of the hysteria is political.

There are plenty of alternatives that would work fine in the short run.

These are interesting options. Do you think it would be as economical to move the oil through these measures as it is to move them using oil tankers through the Straits? Or would this have a significant impact on the volume of oil moving and therefore an impact on the cost of oil world wide?

Should we be impeding the development of an oil pipeline from Canada to the US at a time when we may have to buy foreign oil with American blood in the Persian Gulf?

Are these things related in any way? They all seem connected to me. One issue ties to another. To me, when you say we are going to fight and impede the development of oil/gas reserves and pipelines in North American while also not protecting our sources overseas.....it's the same thing as saying we are willing to bankrupt a nation that needs oil and gas right now to conduct commerce. I agree that we must find alternatives quickly...but since most of the alternatives are still being developed and are relatively unproven....I think it's insanity that we fight development here at home while also railing against protecting our interests in the Middle East.

Am I missing something here or is that the plan....to bankrupt the Western World?