"We will begin to develop the framework for an enduring relationship between Iraq and the United States -- based on common principles." --WH 'Benchmark Assessment Report'
Our lame-duck loser in the White House
told the nation last night that Iraq's leadership has asked for an "enduring relationship" with America." That wouldn't be surprising at all since it is the U.S. and our nation's defenders who have enabled the isolated Iraqi regime into existence and are probably the only barrier to a complete overthrow of the former exiles -- who've assumed power behind the sacrifices of our soldiers -- by the Iraqis the propped-up regime claims to represent.
There is an amazing contradiction to Bush's acceptance of the Iraqi leaders' invitation for the U.S. to become their permanent guardian. The problem begins with Bush's assertion last night that, "A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran."
"Iran would benefit from the chaos (following a withdrawal of American forces) and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region," Bush warned in his prime-time pitch to keep our forces in Iraq. American has a "vital interest" in countering Iran, Bush said.
Also, Bush claimed that "if we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries."
The chaos that Bush suggested would occur in the wake of our exit from Iraq might well be a legitimate point of debate about the efficacy of remaining militarily engaged if the declaration was made in some alternate universe where the occupation of U.S. forces had not been-- according to 16 of Bush's intelligence agencies -- one of the main instigators and enablers of the resistant violence which has devastated Iraq for almost 5 years.
More importantly, the notion that Iran would have any more influence in Iraq than they do right now with the Maliki regime, completely ignores the successive security and economic agreements which have been directly negotiated with the president of Iran by Iraq's prime minister, Iraq's president, and by other high-level officials in the Iraqi government's inner circle.
Iran has absolutely no reason to wage a campaign, military or otherwise, against the new Iraqi government which is headed by a sympathetic Shiite-dominated leadership. Iran is, though, actively engaged in trying to influence the Maliki regime into a military and economic alliance which runs counter to Bush's scheme to isolate the Ahmadinejad government and use them as a scapegoat for the Iraqi's increasing attacks on the U.S. troops Bush has placed in the middle of their civil war.
It's not enough for Bush to accept that Iraqis have enough resources and reason to wage their own withering campaign of resistance to Bush's increasing occupation of their country. Bush wants us to believe that Iran, who has never directly threatened our nation or our forces in Iraq, is more determined than he is to escalate the violence in Iraq. Bush's 'plan' to add even more U.S. enforcers to re-enter Iraqi neighborhoods and intimidate Iraqis into accepting the authority his cabal has chosen to lord over them, is in direct contrast to the efforts and actions of the Iranian government, who has been moving aggressively to strengthen the ties between the Maliki regime and their own controversial leadership.
It takes more than a mere suspension of disbelief to accept that Iraq's Iran-friendly regime has, somehow, requested that the U.S. military maintain their presence just wage the war against Iran that Bush is clearly angling for with his threats and condemnations of Iraq's neighbor.
Why have Bush's accusations against Iran become more urgent, even as their nemesis deepens its peaceful economic and security ties with its Iraqi neighbor's new government? Where was U.S. diplomacy amid all of the fence mending that was taking place between the two former rivals who had, themselves, lost hundreds of thousands of their own countryfolk in bitter, deadly battles between them in the past and were now ready to reconcile and live in peace?
The United States government under George Bush has been engaged in an active campaign of interference in Iran's political process to disrupt Ahmadinejad's rule and bring about regime change in Iran -- not through any valid exercise of democracy or democratic principles and practices -- but through the fomenting of unrest within the sovereign nation, and through the intimidating influence of another reckless exercise of our military forces.
The Bush regime made it clear that they intended to overthrow Iran's government when they milked the republican-controlled Congress for $20 million to establish offices to coordinate and oversee Iran regime change efforts headed by the vice-president's daughter and self-described 'democracy czar,' Elizabeth Cheney, who's ready to fly in a compliant sampling of Iranian exiles to assume power after they chase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his pals into their own hidey-holes.
Without presenting any convincing evidence of any high-level involvement from his Iranian nemesis, Bush has openly threatened and accused Iran of aiding Shia militias in Iraq who they claim are attacking our soldiers there. Never mind the years of training and supplying of many of these same Shiite individuals by the U.S. as part of the newly re-formed Iraqi police and army force as we used them to suppress the Sunni communities before, during, and after the elections Bush staged under his first increase of his occupation years back.
Never mind the Pentagon's recent decision (trumpeted by Bush) to give aid and comfort to Sunni groups for their cooperation in fighting against those Iraqis who've identified themselves with the 9-11 fugitives Bush let escape into the mountains of Afghanistan. Never mind that those same Sunni combatants who were just attacking our own forces are still pledged to kill Shiites and are pledged to actively resist the Shiite-dominated authority our troops are defending with their lives and livelihoods.
The question of Iranian interference in Iraq is even more muddled when considering the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released in February which concluded that Iran's meddling is far less than Bush is claiming. From the report: (
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf)
"Iraq's neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics." The
NYT reported in January that Iran was ready to "greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq - including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital," which the U.S. promised in 2003, but has yet to deliver. Iran's ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, also told the NYT that Iran was prepared to aid Iraq in its reconstruction in the wake of the Bush administration's decision to draw down and end their mostly ineffectual, and unaccountable efforts to repair the damage from their initial campaign of 'shock and awe'.
The Iranian ambassador also indicated to the NYT that Iran would provide the training, equipping, and advising of the Iraqi military and police forces which Bush has been promising, but has not been able to complete. The offer is made even more stark in the face of Bush's disregard of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and others that he should increase the training of Iraqi forces by introducing a contingent of advisers instead of the combat troops Bush chose instead to lead his new escalation of force.
No amount of "posturing against Iran by this discredited administration can obscure the fact that it is the Bush regime who has been the most pernicious aggressor against Iraq, and now, against the sovereign government of Iran. It's not enough for them to continue to insist that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon without any proof outside of their own duplicitous accusations. Now we are supposed to accept that the fearmongering liars in the White House who deliberately led America into war by lying about WMDs and terrorist ties to Saddam are, all of the sudden, amazingly credible in their accusations of "evidence" against Iran, whose government hasn't threatened the United States at all.
The initiatives by Iran underscore the absurdity of Bush's insistence that his invading and occupying forces are more amenable to Iraq's new government than its neighbor Iran, and undercut their claims that Iran, somehow, poses a threat to the further establishment of the new Iraqi regime. It is becoming increasingly evident that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is the most dangerous obstacle to the country's stability, and to the progress of their new regime; not Iran, who Bush is trying to saddle with his bloody failure.
The "enduring relationship" with Iraq that Bush claims the country's embattled leaders are clamoring for is less about the protection requested by Bush's Iraqi junta, than that relationship intends for Iraq to be used as a staging ground for even more opportunistic militarism in the future from the military capitalists who've been allowed to infect our government during Bush's autocratic reign. Whoever manages to become the ultimate recipient of that relationship in Iraq would, presumably, be allowed to advantage themselves of the continued sacrifices of our nation's defenders for whatever self-sustaining enterprise they can dream on.
As Iraq's appointed leadership procrastinates in completing the political reconciliation Bush promised would occur behind the protection of our soldiers, more Americans are being killed and maimed. It's not at all out of line for Americans to demand to know why our military forces are being promised to Iraqis for indefinite exploitation. "Countering" Iranian influences in Iraq -- which our very invasion have enabled into fruition and Iraq's new leadership have embraced -- is not an endeavor which should "endure."
And, any notion of "defeating" al-Qaeda with an "enduring" military presence in Iraq is completely ignorant of the dynamic in which our military aggression there is the very engine driving Iraqis to identify with the 9-11 fugitives as they engage in violent expressions of liberty and self-determination which Bush disregards as mere obstacles to the consolidation of his false authority.
The occupation should be ended; lock stock, and barrel. Anything less is a recipe for Bush's perpetual, "enduring" militarism.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
