Bush isn’t dreaming. This is what he intends to put in place for our next President to deal with:
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.
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 29,000ft 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. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”
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.
Can’t anyone in the Democratic Congress speak up about this? Can’t Obama? Do we really want to turn Iraq into one vast American aircraft carrier in the Middle East to ravage and bomb and threaten whomever we wish? Do we really want to lay the ground for a forever war over there?
Truly, this is the last thing we need, and someone better start paying attention before Bush craps all over our future — again.
We’ll see if Obama is in the clutches of AIPAC and will rebel against this scheme.
I just read an article about Iraqi orphans being abused, forced to turn to prostitution and forced labor and nobody cares.
I hope to God that Sistani finally tells everyone to drive the US out NOW. We don’t get to stall.
Cee, why would Obama object? It plays perfectly into his plan just as he has described it, and allows him a free pass. If that thing passes he will be able to say “sorry, folks, I wanted to make a full withdrawal, but I am bound by this agreement made by my predecessor, and am obligated to keep a force here to fulfill it.
I believe there are things that he has to say now.
If he’s elected and plans to continue to occupation I’ll be going after him too.
I don’t understand this syndrome in which supporters of a candidate take the stance of assuming their candidate will not do what they say they will do, but will actually do whatever the supporter hopes they will do.
I see it differently. When Obama says he will keep a force in Iraq without an end date either he is lying, which is really, really bad, or he is telling the truth, which is worse.
What would keep Obama from nixing the “deal” when he gets into office? Why would his hands be tied?
like this permanent. That’s beyond his power. The next administration can undo this sort of thing with a stroke of a pen.
There’s always some way to get out of a deal, especially a deal that on its face is in violation of the Constitution.
Hey, in 2009 have a hearing on it and invite the former President to come to Congress to speak on the issue, under oath.
LOL, Bush can’t ‘remember’ if he used cocaine.
Heh. You don’t even need to bring him in. You can just say “deal’s off”.
Exactly. It’s simply a matter of political will at the White House and the ability to convince Congress (which, given sufficient Dem majorities, shouldn’t prove prohibitive). The American people need educating on it too, though their apathy regarding it on the whole is probably pretty formidable. It usually is with stuff like this, ain’t it?
It’s a much bigger issue than it seems. Far from being vital to our long-term national security interests, it actually seeks to threaten them.
This is one of those roll-back issues Obama needs to lay the groundwork in tackling now.
Do you KNOW about Obama’s plan? The one he himself has described? You know, the one that will keep 50,000-75,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, and, of course, maintain the mammoth monstrosity laughably called an “embassy”? Why would an Obama White House have any will, political or otherwise, to negate such a gift?
The way to get him to have the will to take this stuff on is to push Obama in that direction. That’s why I welcome cries in the left blogosphere, like the one above, for Obama to take oppose permanent bases. Few in the MSM or Democratic party are encouraging Obama to do this. This is the important stuff Democrats should be fighting about–not identity politics.
I’m with you on this issue. I just want to approach this as encouraging an ally (Obama) to make a difficult decision to do what I (and you) think is right. It’s kind of a matter of tone at this point. It’s a bit early to be writing off the Obama administration as an absolute failure.
As much as I am a Debbie Downer about this, we DO have to try. After all, I marched, and wrote, and spoke to groups and rallies, and marched and protested and all of that stuff with no confidence that it would change anything, but the knowledge that if I did not do it I would have no right to complain. And anyway, staying silent would have been the same as giving my assent.
And I agree that the manner in which you approach it is hugely important, especially at the beginning of a new presidency.
Nevertheless, the quest for world dominance and empire trumps public opinion just about every time with just about every politician, and there is no reason so far to think Obama is any different.
Yes — there are still 25 million Iraqis in the way. The ones we buy won’t live long if the US people refuse to keep paying and dying to defend them.
They won’t. Mark my words.
Pelosi severely underestimated the situation when she took impeachment off the table.
With public opinion at its lowest for Bush now and with the public perception that Dem controlled Congress has been ineffective against a Bush veto & a unified Rep block; and since ‘politically’ seems to be more important than ‘please save our country’ – this may be the best political time to bring those contracts up to Congress for review and let CSPAN cover the debate.
When if not now?
I take another view on why Pelosi took impeachm,ent off the table.
She took it off because she,Hillary Clinton,Joe Lieberman,Carl Levin and other Israeli supporters were in on this program from the very beginning.They were complicit in the war which has led us to this stage and any open discussion of this deal would have exposed them.
When a War Crimes trial is convened at the Hague,the Democratic Party leadership should be the first ones on the dock.
When Goering stated that it works the same way in every country, he was far more prescient than a ton of historians.
And now, she can never, never put it back on the table right?
What makes you think Pelosi actually cared or cares about the situation?
well, the next administration can undo most of the crap this one has left around the world, except: the picture left in the worlds eye of the US….(picture in your mind a big stink’n pile of dog crap ; )
THAT image will last longer than a Tootsie Roll
peace out
What’s new?
It was ever thus.
Q:-“Do we really want to turn Iraq into one vast American aircraft carrier in the Middle East to ravage and bomb and threaten whomever we wish?”
A:-Yes.
This has been another in a series of obvious answers to inane questions. Next.
Phase II is out, finally. TPM has the PDF’s and an open thread for people that are reading and pulling stuff out. Damning.
Here’s McClatchy
Well, but we’ve known that a long time. When are the Congressional hearings going to begin? When will criminal charges be brought? When will our troops come home? When will the US bases be turned over to the Iraqi government? When will Iraq be given true sovereignty over its own affairs? When will US reparations to Iraq begin? Just asking.
Those are rhetorical questions, right, Leslie?
“…mostly old news. But not all. Iranian exiles may have ‘been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service to reach into the highest levels of US Govt by feeding a Pentagon/Cheney cabal bogus information”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/40080.html
Firebase Cheney
Firebase Feith
Firebase Rumsfeld
Firebase Bush
Any plans to rename the Iraqi army the ARVN?
Iraq lawmakers want U.S. forces out as part of deal
Let’s see how this plays out, and whether the media and Democratic leaders will try to ignore it. Clearly, some Dems are doing things to try to stop it.
Can someone tell me how a long-term security deal is going to work without a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq? I mean, aren’t withdrawal and this deal kind of – ummmm, welllllll – antithetical to each other?
l hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s exactly what we’ve been doing, and a lot longer than just the past 71/2 years.
they’ve gamed it all out, steven, it’s MAD redux:
it’s not pretty, and speculates that a nuclear confrontation, regardless of who starts it, would destroy just about everything there…but l’ll give you one guess who’s the most likely to be the last one standing.
it truly is insanity.
as quoted in the article, from the film War Games: “A strange game – the only way to win is not to play.”
Can’t anyone in the Democratic Congress speak up about this? Can’t Obama?
But they/he won’t.
At the end of the day we just gonna GIVE all that oil back?
Been calling this from the start – the Dems will consolidate our gains (preferred access to vital natural resource) while decrying the policy that delivered them.
This is what pisses the Right off about the Democratic leadership. They are just too good at their roll as Good Cop.
says a small, futile prayer that Obama is off-the-wall enough to do what is Right vs. what is right for the US
Bush has been planning this probably from the beginning. Congress really does need to stop it. Because the effect would be disastrous for Iraq and the US.
But, Leslie, this was exactly what the neocons went in there for. I keep saying that the purpose of invading Iraq was bigger and more malevolent than oil. It’s about cementing world domination. Oil is only a tool to achieve that.
Yes, this is true. And all that can be done right now is to try to stall Bush/Cheney out. I agree with you that Obama has been less than satisfactory on his plans for Iraq. But in terms of the politics of the election, I think he can only do so much until (and unless) he is actually elected. If there is indeed a Dem sweep in November, then it should be possible to exert mass political pressure that has some actual effect. I don’t know what other realistic options there are.
That is assuming Obama is not on board with the imperial project, which virtually every Democrat has been to o ne degree or another.
Well, the only candidates who thoroughly opposed the venture were Kucinich and Paul, who were never seriously considered, and were both lampooned by the press. If Obama turns out to refuse to consider a real withdrawal, if the political/military/industrial realities make it impossible (which I think is a real possibility) or if McCain wins, then I think we ultimately face a long, hard fall.
Obama’s plan, which he has spelled out in quite a bit of detail, is to continue the occupation indefinitely with a reduced force that will include combat troops. He has listed some of the “missions” that those troops will be assigned to. Military experts estimate the number of troops he would need to keep in Iraq at about 50-75,000. I don’t know how he is managing to sell that with a straight face as a withdrawal, but I have seen statements from some otherwise very smart very aware people that indicate their belief that he intends to make a full withdrawal. That can only mean that they have not really bothered to find out what his actual plan is.
Hillary’s Iraq plan was virtually identical to Obama’s. That is why I am unable to support either one of them. Edwards’ plan, as he described it, was to withdraw all troops except for a few hundred that would be needed to guard the citadel – pardon me, “embassy”. That is why I might have been able to support Edwards in the general election, and why I voted for him in the primary, despite the fact that he had already withdrawn. Kucinich is the candidate that came closest to my principles, but he has never had and will never have a chance in hell.
The SOFA that Bush is trying to force on the Iraqis is a gift to Obama because it would give him a cover for whatever he wants to do in Iraq.
As for “political/military/industrial realities” making withdrawal impossible, horse pucky! Either Obama withdraws on his own initiative in his own way, or he gets kicked out on the Iraqis’ initiative in the Iraqis’ way, which probably will not be pretty. Those are the realities.
NBC: Top two Air Force officials resigning – Military- msnbc.com
Senate: Pentagon concealed intel from CIA – Security- msnbc.com
I wonder if the junta is beginning to unravel just a bit. Everyone knows the music will stop soon and lots of folks are trying to stay close to a chair.