6.10.2008

u.s. plan to control iraq through the 21st century

To everyone who is excited about the Democrats, I wish you good luck. For my part, four stolen elections (two presidential, two midterms) plus an enormous expansion of executive power equals the junta's not going anywhere. People don't drastically change a legal and legislative framework to give themselves unchecked power, then turn that power over to someone else. Never mind that "someone else" is a liberal black man!

I'll be beyond happy to be wrong. I'll be ecstatic. I'll be immensely relieved. I hate the Democrats - they are at least half the reason the US is in the shape it's in - but I'll be glad to see an actual election and a change of administration. I'll also be very surprised.

Here's another scrap to throw on my evidence heap.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region.

More here.

6 comments:

Scott M. said...

Permanent bases isn't a huge deal... it's not unusual for countries to have bases for other (friendly) countries in them. We had US bases in Canada for a long time.

The thing that concerns me is that they're implying that the current President can make a committment to have troops in active battles that a future President can't rescind. How does that work? Is there a weird exception of the US constitution that ties the hands of the future executive to change their minds?

redsock said...

American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors

So continuing to commit war crimes will not have any bad consequences. Hurrah! (Of course, the entire invasion is one huge war crime.)

and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

That sure sounds like democracy and freedom to me.

Daniel wbc said...

Setting aside morality -- most Americans only seem to bring up "morals" if something offends them regarding sexual/reproductive freedom -- this does not help the people of the United States. It does NOT make them safer. It makes the standing of the U.S. worse to the rest of the world (not that most Americans care what the rest of the world thinks), further de-legitimizes the Iraqi "government", and will continue to destabilize the region, leading to even more misery and bloodshed.

Of course, those involved with this scheme only care about power, control, and resources. When will Americans stop falling for policies draped in the flag that really are only about the ruling junta (Cheney, military contractors, et. al.)?

Can you tell I'm frustrated?

redsock said...

January 2008 -- Bush Issues Signing Statement On Defense Act, Waiving Ban On Permanent Bases In Iraq

***

McClatchy Newspapers: U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say

Don't you just love this quote from U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli:

"Look, there is going to be no occupation. ... nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat. ... You can't use coercion to get them to like you."

L-girl said...

Permanent bases isn't a huge deal...

In the context of the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the extreme militaristic bent of that country right now, it is a big deal.

The thing that concerns me is that they're implying that the current President can make a committment to have troops in active battles that a future President can't rescind.

It makes more sense if you think, as I do, that the people in control now are not leaving.

Scott M. said...

It makes more sense if you think, as I do, that the people in control now are not leaving.

{Shudder}. I'll choose to be naive for now if that's the alternative.