Iraq & US: Together Forever
|
Posted By: R. D. Briceland Posted on: Jun. 5, 2008 at 10:34 AM |
0.0 / 5
Based on 0 ratings.
|
The quasi-secret deal is currently being brokered by none other than the Vice President himself. It will mandate the establishment of 50 permanent US military bases in the country. An unconditional term of agreement stipulates that US soldiers, privatized soldiers and government officials will not be forced to obey Iraqi laws. We will still of course be able to arrest and prosecute all suspected terrorists without Iraqi government interference.
This ploy should not come as a surprise to anyone. This, after all, was the ultimate goal of the Bush administration. Liberating the Iraqi people from the grips of an evil dictator and protecting the world from potential W.M.D.'s were mere selling points. The long-term occupation of a sovereign country for strategic economic and military purposes was always the end game, it has always been the true definition of victory.
Why is the Iraqi government considering a deal to keep American forces in the country when an overwhelming majority of the people want them out? Politics and power. It appears the US has convinced the political elite of all three religious sects in Iraq that they need the US.
The majority Shiite government - which gained power after the ousting of Sunni affiliated Saddam - wants to stay in power at all costs. They will accept a US occupation if it means their government positions are safe. Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr, who is not part of the government but controls an entire city and is the commander of a militia, has vowed to fight the occupation.
The once empowered Sunni coalition must believe that the presence of the US will offset the power of the Shiite government. They fear that an unchecked Shiite government will run rampant after decades of mistreatment. The Al-Qaeda influence inside this sect is another force that will not accept occupation no matter what.
The Kurds, who represent 1/5 of the population, are in favor of the US staying because its presence will protect / buy their northern region produced oil fields.
Ryan Crocker, the white haired, fair faced boyish Iraqi ambassador has been trying to push through this "strategic alliance" ASAP in an obvious attempt to render Barack Obama's withdrawal plans obsolete. People may remember Crocker sitting next to Gen. Petraeus during the Senate committee hearings. Funny how the American public was never privy to this vital information then.
As much as I disagree with the war, the lies and the occupation I must admit that seeing progress in a long term solution is somewhat satisfying.
If the separate Iraqi factions agree to this "strategic alliance" then a case can be made that 4,000 soldiers lives weren't sacrificed for nothing. If a long-term occupying agreement can be made, then Iraq will be forever linked to the US and the soldiers lives will optimistically benefit the greater good. (It is still to be determined if a strategic alliance will be for the greater good.)
However justified this agreement may be, the motives of the Iraqi factions will not meet the will of the people, Crocker is not willing to let the proposal be put to a vote, hence the secrecy, but the will of the American people will not be met either. It is a clear government-only relationship.
The US government thinks permanent bases in Iraq will secure access to oil and create a new frontier of defense. Both will presumably allow all Americans to afford Hummers, but not because we may need them in battle.
The Iraq governments need the US in the country to stave off a bloody civil war. Ultimately it is up to Crocker and Cheney to convince the Grand Ayatollah Sistani that Iraq is better off with a permanent US presence.
Comments:
|
Jun. 5, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM
|
||
| Not sure where you're comin' from RD: RE: Why is the Iraqi government considering a deal to keep American forces in the country when an overwhelming majority of the people want them out? Politics and power. It appears the US has convinced the political elite of all three religious sects in Iraq that they need the US. Reuters reports: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday." Al-Maliki is scheduled to discuss the agreement with the Iranians this weekend and one of Iran's most powerful politicians, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, told a gathering in the holy city of Mecca that the United States is trying to enslave Iraqis through the deal and vowed that the Islamic world would stop the agreement. |
||
|
Jun. 5, 2008 at 09:28:18 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by June on Jun. 5, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM]
June
Jun. 5, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM Not sure where you're comin' from RD: RE: Why is the Iraqi government considering a deal to keep American forces in the country when an overwhelming majority of the people want them out? Politics and power. It appears the US has convinced the... View this Comment Hey Brain surgeon... We have many of these around the world. They are the same "deals" that allow us to operate bases around the world. You might not have noticed, but there is a pressing reason for us to have a presence in Iraq long term, just as we have been in: www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm#United%20States%20Marine%20Corps |
||
|
Jun. 5, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jun. 5, 2008 at 09:28:18 PM]
Average American
Jun. 5, 2008 at 09:28:18 PM Hey Brain surgeon... We have many of these around the world. They are the same "deals" that allow us to operate bases around the world. You might not have noticed, but there is a pressing reason for us to have a presence in Iraq long term, just... View this Comment Hey Scarecrow - guess you never heard the "pressing" parable of the uninvited guest who stayed for dinner or OBL's justification for the 9/11 attacks, hunh? To quote from the article in the Independent which RD cites: "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... "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 feet 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... "Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing... "The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence. "The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord." This may be business as usual for bullies like you, BAA Boy, but it gives diplomacy a bad name! |
||
|
Jun. 6, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by June on Jun. 5, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM]
June
Jun. 5, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM Hey Scarecrow - guess you never heard the of the uninvited guest who stayed for dinner or OBL's justification for the 9/11 attacks, hunh? To quote from the article in the Independent which RD cites: "A secret deal being... View this Comment When did OBL start dictating our foreign policy? This is the biggest fault of the liberal agenda. You can not lead while following those who will lead you to your end. You might also remember that OBL's decision to attack followed Clinton's piss poor withdrawal from Somalia after the Black Hawk incident... But you don't care. I don't approve (not that I was asked) of everything in this deal. What would your answer be June? This is your chance for a real discussion. |
||
|
Jun. 6, 2008 at 01:45:01 AM
|
||
| You seem so enamored with the sight of your words in print, BAA, that, as usual, you need to get real. Sorry, I won't rise to your Socratic bait - you bullies have no more understanding of the gravity of Rafsanjani's position than you do of OBL's rationale for the 9/11 attack, yet they're part and parcel of why the U.S. should never have attacked Iraq, why the surge hasn't achieved the objectives Bush set forth and why our occupation of Iraq will continue to drain American blood and traesure so long as we have troops there! Why has the majority of the Iraqi Parliament appealed to Congress to stop the deal? Why is Bush so committed to a binding agreement that will force his succesor to violate its terms in order to withdraw our troops - a measure supported by both the Iraqi and American public? How does the UN resolution fit in? Why does this have Cheney's fingerprints all over it? Never in history has the US militarily elbowed its way into another sovereign country, blasted it to hell - literally and with promises - then set up a permanent occupation force above the law! Migawd man, this isn't Germany, Japan or Korea and any comparison is nonsense - regardless of what Bush or McSame says! And, this agreement has nothing to do with oil - scheez, lookit where the fantasy of "keeping the pipelines and the Strait open" has gotten us! Not even Bush's handholding and pleading with the Saudi princes or Cheney's energy policy has had any impact other than to cause petro-profits to skyrocket! Until you can address these questions, a meaningful discussion just ain't possible - you're shootin' blanks from the hip again, BAA Boy! Go do some research then try to convince me that this agreement makes sense! |
||
|
Jun. 6, 2008 at 12:12:47 PM
|
||
| Exactly my point June. What would you do differently if you were given the power to do so? As I said, I am not happy with the entirety of the plan. So... what should we be doing? There is not gotcha being set up here June, just a real question. |
||
|
Jun. 6, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM
|
||
| Hah! As usual, after sniping at Clinton, you have nothing substantial to offer, do ya, BAA? Well, chew on this one: we convene a UN meeting of Iraq's neighbors and affected Middle Eastern parties to enlist their assistance in a Murtha-type withdrawal. We have the contingency plans so all we need is their cooperation - then we can assign timelines. |
||
|
Jun. 6, 2008 at 05:19:05 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jun. 6, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM]
Average American
Jun. 6, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM When did OBL start dictating our foreign policy? This is the biggest fault of the liberal agenda. You can not lead while following those who will lead you to your end. You might also remember that OBL's decision to attack followed Clinton's... View this Comment When did OBL start dictating our foreign policy? When George W. Bush became President. Let us review. When OBL stated the reason he attacked the USA on 9-11, he cited our military bases in Saudi Arabia as a reason. So, what did Bush do? Withdrew. So, not only did Bush let OBL dictate or foreign policy he was an APPEASER to Terrorists! link:[news.bbc.co.uk] |
||
|
Jun. 6, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM
|
||
| Point of fact, the first bombing of the WTC, was on Feb 26, 1993. Operation Gothic Serpent, aka Battle for Mogadishu, aka Blackhawk Down occured on Oct 3 and 4, 1993. It would be impossible in the universe we occupy for the later event to spark, incite or induce the prior one. It would be like blaming Geo. W Bush's Faith based policies for the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. It could not have happened. What the Al Queda nutjobs claimed as their reasons for both the 1993 WTC bombing, the 9-11 attacks and Al Queda's existence is (from Imperial Hubris, by Anonymous/ Michael Scheurer) 1- US and Western nations occupations of, and violence against Muslim nations. 2- The USA's support of Israel, and Israel's support of the US. 3- The USA's support of modern, secular dictators in Islamic lands, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Turkey. Al Queda originally consisted of 12 guys from the Mujahadeen, in 1989. It's first expansion was their franchising the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and then transforming the Mujahadeen into the Taliban in Afghanistan. |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


Seems that more than a few Iraqi's lawmakers think that any agreement between Bush/Cheney and the Iraqi leadership would be null and void.
link:[www.politico.com]
This is very interesting.
Report Abuse