Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

the ugly scoop on the agreement being negotiated between the u.s. and iraq...

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

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 29,000ft 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.

i posted this video clip last week of an al jazeera interview with david satterfield, a senior iraq advisor at the u.s. state department, categorically denying any u.s. intent to have permanent bases in iraq...



they're liars, every last one of 'em...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The U.S.-Iraq security agreement sails into troubled waters

as well it should... look at what the u.s. is asking for... no wonder the iraqis are pissed off (see my post from saturday)... it's even uniting the sunnis and the shiites in a common cause...

juan cole...

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis have united to reject the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States. A high-level Iraqi source told the pan-Arab London daily that one point of dispute is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited. The Americans are said to be seeking to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. The US wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. Washington desires the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission. The US wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.

The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack. Likewise it is not offering to safeguard the democratic regime in Iraq [emphasis added].

Iraqis for their part are demanding a recognition of Iraqi sovereignty.

geeeeez... can you even IMAGINE another country trying to impose these conditions on the u.s...? yeah, right... in your dreams...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

These Iraqis don't want the U.S. to stay

they don't want maliki and bush to force through the status of forces agreement...

from juan cole...

Thousands of followers of Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr peacefully protested across southern Iraq on Friday, according to McClatchy. They prayed and then stood silently in solidarity against the security agreement being negotiated by PM Nuri al-Maliki with George W. Bush.

Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa


Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa

more from professor cole...

On both the Iraqi and American side, this agreement is being characterized as a mere understanding between two executives. It is not being categorized as a treaty and there is no plan to submit it either to the Iraqi parliament or to the US Congress. It seems that the Bush team hopes it will take on the force of law just by virtue of existing and having been signed by the two leaders.

[...]

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that there is broad Sunni and Shiite uneasiness with the agreement, even inside Iraqi governing circles.

Al-Hayat says that those familiar with the current draft of the agreement says that it speaks of the establishment of 400 US military sites and bases through the country, of legal immunity for American troops and citizens, and an abrogation of any undertakings previously made, to share in the reconstruction of the country.

Another source told al-Hayat that US Ambassador Ryan Crocker is pressing for language permitting permanent US bases, and removal of other language forbidding the US to attack a third country from Iraqi soil. (This source does not sound reliable to me. US officials have repeatedly said they do not want "permanent" bases, and the provision disallowing the use of Iraqi soil as a launching pad for one country to attack another is in the Iraqi constitution.

so, if ambassador crocker is pressing for u.s. bases, listen to senior iraq advisor at the u.s. state department, david satterfield, categorically deny it in this al jazeera interview...



somebody's lyin' through their teeth and, given the past seven-plus years of the bush administration, i'm not inclined to point the finger at al-hayat...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

More so-called "news" on Iraq that we've known for a very long time

but only now is our so-called "government" getting around to formalizing it in their usual fashion, secretly...

A draft agreement between the United States and Iraq shows that the two countries are including a provision for an open-ended American military commitment to the war-torn country, The Guardian reported Tuesday.

Citing a copy of the draft strategic framework agreement dated March 7 that it obtained, the newspaper said that the document is designed to replace the current United Nations mandate, which expires at the end of the year.

According to The Guardian, the agreement allows the United States to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without including a time limit.

It also does not put any limits on the number of American forces allowed in Iraq, the weapons they can use, the legal status of US troops in Iraq or the powers they hold over Iraqi citizens.

The document states it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred."

"Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."

sometimes it's really hard for me to fully comprehend that i am governed by compulsive liars, cheats, criminals, and murderers...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hmmm... I wonder how Darth's handling an Iraq with cojones...?

i have to give vent to a bit of rueful laughter here, since the u.s. started building those permanent bases immediately after saddam's government was toppled... do ya suppose that since the construction is fairly well advanced, the iraqis figure it's time to re-possess...?

from think progress...

The Iraqi government has “put the U.S. on notice” that they do not want permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, CNN reports today. The message was “delivered directly to Vice President Dick Cheney at the White House” by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, who told CNN that Iraqis say, “No, big fat no, N-O for the bases in Iraq”:

The people of Iraq, the parliament, the council of representatives and the government of Iraq, they all say no, big fat no, N-O for the bases in Iraq. No military bases for Iraq because we believe that is in direct encroachment to our soveriegnty, and we don’t need it.

it ought to be fun to watch THIS one play out...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The fraudulence of the "War on Terror"

nothing we don't know already...

The fraudulence of the "War on Terror," however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:

• In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist. Offers by the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden were ignored, and he remains at large to this day.

• In Iraq, when the United States invaded, there were no al Qaeda terrorists at all.

• Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.

• The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.

• A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11. If the "War on Terror" is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure.

• Today two American and two British oil companies are poised to claim immense profits from 81 percent of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. They cannot proceed, however, until the Iraqi Parliament enacts a statute known as the "hydrocarbon framework law."

• The features of postwar oil policy so heavily favoring the oil companies were crafted by the Bush administration State Department in 2002, a year before the invasion.

• Drafting of the law itself was begun during Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, with the invited participation of a number of major oil companies. The law was written in English and translated into Arabic only when it was due for Iraqi approval.

• President Bush made passage of the hydrocarbon law a mandatory "benchmark" when he announced the troop surge in January of 2007.

but it never hurts to keep things like this exposed to the full light of day...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Tom Tomorrow on our endless ability to be distracted

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush is still getting the headlines he wants

any discussion of troop cuts is simply a distraction from the cold, hard fact that, as a country, we have been positioned to remain in iraq forever...

robert parry...

Let it be noted that the morning after George W. Bush announced an open-ended – possibly permanent – military occupation of Iraq the premier U.S. newspapers ran headlines about the President ordering “troop cuts,” itself a troubling reminder of how the American people got into this mess.

The New York Times’ lead headline read: “Bush Says Success Allows Gradual Troop Cuts.” The Washington Post went with: “Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back ‘Surge.’”

[...]

So, Americans bustling past newsstands on their way to work would get the superficial impression that Bush was finally moving toward the Iraq exit door when he really was doing all he could to paint the country, and his presidential successor, into a corner.

While the newspapers played up Bush’s relatively modest troop cuts – 5,700 by year’s end and another 20,000 or so by July 2008 – the more significant point was that the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq would still exceed the 130,000 or so who were in Iraq last November when anti-war sentiment led to the defeat of Republicans in Congress.

In his televised address, Bush also made clear that he foresaw an indefinite U.S. military commitment to Iraq reaching “beyond my presidency,” with any possible future de-escalation tied to Bush’s new slogan, “return on success.”

So, the headlines after the Sept. 13 speech could have read: “Bush Vows Indefinite U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq.” Indeed, if Bush’s speech is remembered historically, it will almost surely be for that reason, the clearest indication yet of his imperial impulse in the Middle East.

it's all about permanent war... permanent war means permanent rivers of cash flowing into the pockets of the chosen ones and the means to permanently continue to gain power over the world's population...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

When a prof at the Naval War College says the war is lost, should we listen?

if a professor at the naval war college falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear him, does he make a sound...?

Christopher J. Fettweis, an assistant professor of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.

[A]s any sports fan can tell you, the only thing that feels worse than a loss is an upset. An upset demands explanation and requires that responsible parties be punished.

The endgame in Iraq is now clear, and it appears that the heavily favored United States will be upset. Once support for a war is lost, it is gone for good; there is no example of a modern democracy having changed its mind once it turned against a war. So we ought to start coming to grips with the meaning of losing in Iraq.

The consequences are likely to be profound, throwing American politics into a downward spiral of bitter recriminations the likes of which it has not seen in a generation. It will be a wedge that politicians will exploit for their benefit. The Vietnam syndrome divided this country for decades; the Iraq syndrome will be no different.

[...]

Were our founding fathers here, they would surely look on Iraq with horror and judge that the nation they created had fundamentally lost its way. If the war in Iraq leads the United States to return to its traditional, restrained grand strategy, then perhaps the whole experience will not have been in vain.

Either way, the Iraq syndrome is coming. We need to be prepared for the divisiveness, vitriol, self-doubt and recrimination that will be its symptoms. They will be the defining legacy of the Bush administration and neoconservatism's parting gift to America.

i stew daily over our continuing, essentially unaddressed, constitutional crisis, but it's impossible to ignore our other unfolding u.s. disaster - iraq... why, why, why, can't we just get the hell out...? oh, yes, i know, the intent has NEVER been to leave... we are there for the oil, for the power, for the permanent bases we are building there to assert our hegemony in the middle east... still in all, we need to get out... we need to stop sending people to be killed for nothing but the greed of the power and money-hungry elites... we urgently need to figure out how to put a stop to letting those people rule our lives...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why aren't the permanent bases in Iraq being addressed?

construction on the permanent bases began almost immediately after the invasion which says that the plans almost certainly existed well prior to march 2003... some serious investigative journalism (HA!) could turn up when those plans were created, and would add a significant piece to the national debate... i won't hold my breath...

a guest post on juan cole's site...

Gerald B. Helman "was United States Ambassador to the European Office of the United Nations from 1979 through 1981" and was among the coiners of the phrase "failed states."

[T]here remains the question of the permanent bases, a concept now being floated by the Administration but one which must have been in the minds of the White House and our military planners from the time when these massive installations were first projected. Congress should probe this one very carefully and insist that the Administration' s plans should be on the public record. Whatever their purposes, and certainly there has been little candor on the part of the Administration as to what these are, the bases will never be accepted either by the Iraqi people, of whatever faction (except the Kurds). It will violate every concept of independence, national pride and Arab identity that have been the hallmarks of the post-colonial period. Any Iraqi government that supported it would not only fail, but would be despised. Such bases might have the dubious benefit of uniting all Iraqis in opposition. Only a US Administration that expected to be greeted with flowers by the Iraqis could convince itself that those same Iraqis will tolerate such bases and that such bases could survive in hostile territory, with long and endangered supply lines.

you know, i know, we ALL know that those bases are intended to REMAIN in iraq, and WERE intended to remain in iraq from day one... both the bases and the over-the-top embassy complex clearly demonstrate that, if the u.s. has its way, iraq is and will remain a puppet state... why this issue has not figured more prominently in national discussion is a mystery to me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration

marjorie cohn speculates on the new excutive orders...

One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq. It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq's oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration.

it's a question i frequently ask myself... it's a question we should ALL be asking...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Suspicious of establishing a long-term presence in the Middle East? Ya THINK...?

i've read enough of dan froomkin to know that he's not making the statement in the last paragraph of this snippet as a blinding glimpse of the obvious...

The White House, long irritated by the frequent use of Vietnam as a metaphor for Iraq, embraced its own analogy yesterday: South Korea.

[...]

It's troubling because American troops have been in South Korea for more than 50 years -- while polls show the American public wants them out of Iraq within a year.

[...]

And it's telling because it gives credence to persistent suspicions that establishing a long-term strategic presence in the Middle East was a primary motivation for this misbegotten war in the first place.

anybody with two brain cells to rub together could have figured out that we went in to iraq to stay, and every single thing that's happened since has borne out that conclusion... i am with atrios 110%, we are going to be in iraq forever, as long as this crowd and their republican and democratic enablers in congress continue to have their way...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hunter on Iraq: This is a situation that is impossible to win. (But he's not saying what you think.)

i've read hunter's posts for a couple of years now, and i respect his ability to articulate very complex perspectives in an intelligent and logical way... however, i find the following to be among the most despairing, defeatist things i have ever read from him or any other progressive writing on iraq, and i'm not sure i can put into words the depths or even the sense of those feelings... i've excerpted below what i found to be the parts of his post i have the most difficulty with... i'll offer them to you, and if you have any thoughts, i'd be happy to hear them... as for me, i'm going to let the whole thing simmer on the back burner for a while, let the emotional adrenaline work its way out of my system, eat a decent dinner, and maybe come back to this later...

Let me offer some grim predictions as to the outcome of American involvement in Iraq:

1) There are going to be American troops in Iraq for the next ten years, though the numbers will be substantially reduced.

2) There are going to be permanent American bases in Iraq, just as the neoconservatives had desired.

3) Iraq is going to continue to be in a period of instability for years, and become a true haven for terrorism and religious strife, and there is very little we can do about it.

[...]

America made this mess, and America bears responsibility for the bloody aftermath -- whatever that aftermath turns out to be. If leaving the current troop levels in place could truly prevent another 100,000 Iraqi deaths, then it would be our duty to do it. If Petraeus' plan had a reasonable chance of working, it would be our obligation to try. A miserable truth, yes, but a moral truth nonetheless.

[...]

I suspect the odds of a complete troop withdrawal from the country to be vanishingly small.

[...]

[A] Vietnam-style abandonment of the country seems extraordinarily unlikely. American forces may retreat to fortified bases in the country and leave most day to day operations to the Iraqis, but I find it hard to conceive that any president, Republican or Democrat, would abandon the already-built major bases in an extremely turbulent portion of the world threatening at constant collapse, unless circumstances crumbled so badly that even those positions became utterly untenable.

It would require a metaphorical abandonment of the country: impossible for this president, unlikely for others. It would require a physical abandonment of the country: equally unlikely. It would require a reshaping of Mideast policy such that those bases, located in the middle of a region of unstable nations, were considered less liability than strategic advantage: absurdly unlikely, regardless of whatever future American policy morphs into.

[...]

Short version: this is a situation that is impossible to win. Having Democrats in charge doesn't change that, and the answers on how to fail the least catastrophically are not easy. That is, after all, the definition of quagmire.

what he seems to be saying, if i am understanding him correctly, is that, owing to the disaster we have created, there cannot be other than a lose-lose outcome, and he is laying out what he believes to be the MOST likely and the LEAST disastrous of the possible scenarios... am i getting that right...? anyway, comments appreciated...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments