Secret Plan to Keep U.S. Forces in Iraq Indefinitely
June 6th, 2008The U.S. will never leave Iraq voluntarily. A hasty retreat, Saigon style, because of imperial overextension? Maybe. But no orderly withdrawal. Don’t be fooled by this nonsense theater.
Doubt it? What part of Superbase don’t you understand? That’s what people in the business of exploitation and death call a “geostrategic asset.” States don’t give up control of geostrategic assets because a lot of people wear Lick Bush t-shirts and write letters to the editor.
—Now Democrats Don’t Want More Troops?
Via: Independent:
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.
Research Credit: RL
the followup, also from the independent: http://tinyurl.com/58fyjk
“The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.”
It’s all for the Iraqi’s own good, dontcha know?!
Also, about this: “A hasty retreat, Saigon style, because of imperial overextension? Maybe.”
I would say “not even that”. If the Vietnam conflict was entered into based on ideological principles, then it seems understandable that after years of going nowhere, those principles became less compelling. And if we were in there just to give the MIC an economic shot in the arm, that had been accomplished. Iraq, on the other hand (as you all know), sits on top of one of the biggest caches of America’s most desperately needed and extravagantly consumed resource, and borders another country with another huge cache of that resource. If we leave that country, we abandon years of neocon planning and work; and, from that point of view, open that region up to being controlled by one of our “arch enemies”. I just don’t see it. If they need more troops, they’ll manufacture an excuse (i.e., 9/11 II) to resurrect the draft. Which will also “free us up” (note: irony) to become, as much as possible, a more completely military economy in a more perfect police state.
I agree, that the Bush Admin. plan from the beginning has been to turn the U.S. economy into a “Warfare State” economy, and to turn the nation into a police state. Donald Rumsfeld’s own top lackey stated several years ago that the U.S. economy would be so hollowed out within a few years, that the only “industry” the U.S. would have left is the Military, and that it would serve as the enforcer for the Global Economy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gagnon01252006.html