Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

[babylonsister]

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-06-05 05:10.


Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn, THE 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.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33907

[SteveM]

1. The chief reason for PermaWar in Iraq, I believe, is permanent UnitaryPresidency...

While the scramble for affordable oil during a period of slow U.S. decline is important, as are other questions of Mid-east policy, I believe the chief reason for being in Iraq is to cement-in a permanent authoritarian government in the U.S. With PermaWar, the rationale for the UnitaryPresidency is fulfilled. Long term, the leaders of the far right (and unfortunately, others) see a Caesarian presidency as the way to assert its policies abroad and to quell any disturbances at home. Bush and his people are utterly relentless in this, and brook neither tolerance for democracy nor respect for those who oppose them. Beware the last four months of Bush: his time may persist beyond January 20, 2009.

[Echo In Light]

2. K&R

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. I don't understand how this could not be undone by a future administration

If such an arrangement is approved and, assuming for the moment that the Iraqis would ever approve what seems to me like a VERY one-sided deal and of no apparent benefit to them whatsoever, does it necessarily obligate future administrations to keep our forces over there even if a President Obama orders a withdrawal as he has promised?
Also, how exactly would Bush be able to claim "victory" if this deal goes through much less "vindicate" the 2003 invasion?
If we're staying their indefinitely then how can he or anybody else claim any kind of "victory" unless, of course, the goal has been all along to subjugate the country and essentially make it our "51st state" and the ONLY way (at least in my mind) that the 2003 invasion/occupation of Iraq could EVER be "vindicated" is if we accidentally stumble onto the massive cache of WMDs that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al promised that we would be able to find once we took over the country. Of course, THAT particular rationale for the invasion has long since been discredited and the search for the existence of WMD abandoned.

Oh, and how will this boost "verge of victory" McCain?

:wtf:

The American public wants our troops OUT of Iraq NOT keeping them over there indefinitely as McCain has promised (and apparently he is o.k. with it WHETHER OR NOT we continue taking casualties).

Frankly, I'm stumped by all of this.

:shrug:

Anybody care to explain the reasoning in this article?

[babylonsister]

5. I don't think their 'secret plan' is working out; that permanent base

is troubling though. From what I've been reading, Iraqis are opposed to this for the most part. And I agree with you; even if some form of this plan was implemented, it would/could/should be overturned by our gov't (with a Dem majority come November) ASAP.

[babylonsister]

4. Report: Bush Administration Negotiating ‘Secret Plan’ To Keep Troops In Iraq ‘Indefinitely’»

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/05/iraq-secret-plan/

Report: Bush Administration Negotiating ‘Secret Plan’ To Keep Troops In Iraq ‘Indefinitely’»

Today, the UK Independent has a troubling report on a “secret plan” for U.S. occupation in Iraq allegedly being pushed by the Bush administration:

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.

This strategic framework seems even stronger than one reported by UK Guardian in April, which was described as “temporary” and said that the United States “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq.”

Perhaps reflecting growing concern over the new plan, Iraqi government officials have said that they will miss a July target for negotiating an agreement on future relations with the United States. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) has also released a letter from 31 Iraqi legislators saying that they oppose a long-term security agreement “if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.” Yesterday, Iraqi parliament member Nadeem al-Jaberi testified to the House that the U.S. occupation is highly unpopular with the public:

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): What percent of the Iraqi people would agree with us leaving under those circumstances? <…>

AL-JABERI: The majority of the people of Iraq are with the withdrawal. … Perhaps even about 70 percent. with approximately 70 percent of Iraqis favoring a withdrawal.

The Bush administration has repeatedly denied any interest in permanent bases, even blaming the misunderstanding on a sloppy Arabic translation. One Iraqi source interviewed by the Independent, however, replied, “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is also “believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.”

Update: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker denied the claim today, saying "that the U.S. presence will not be forever" and that "agreements will be public and free of any secret provisions."

[Iggo]

6. Oh, come on!

That's the worst kept secret in history!!

:rofl:

[Stellen]

7. That wasn't much of a secret.

DU ought to be required reading.