The United State is Still ILLEGALLY Occupying Iraq and Has Only RE-BRANDED The Occupation

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Twenty-First-Century Colonialism in Iraq

After only five months in office, the Obama administration has already provided significant evidence that, like its predecessor, it remains committed to maintaining that "access to and flow of energy resources" in Iraq, even as it places its major military bet on winning the expanding war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There can be no question that Washington is now engaged in an effort to significantly reduce its military footprint in Iraq, but without, if all goes well for Washington, reducing its influence.

What this looks like is an attempted twenty-first-century version of colonial domination, possibly on the cheap, as resources are transferred to the Eastern wing of the Greater Middle East. There is, of course, no more a guarantee that this new strategy -- perhaps best thought of as colonialism lite or the Obama Doctrine -- will succeed than there was for the many failed military-first offensives undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, in the unsettled, still violent atmosphere of Iraq, even the major oil companies have hesitated to rush in and the auctioning of oil contracts has begun to look uncertain, even as other "civilian" initiatives remain, at best, incomplete.

As the Obama administration comes face-to-face with the reality of trying fulfill General Odierno's ambition of making Iraq into "a long-term partner with the United States in the Middle East" while fighting a major counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, it may also encounter a familiar dilemma faced by nineteenth-century colonial powers: that without the application of overwhelming military force, the intended colony may drift away toward sovereign independence. If so, then the dreary prediction of Pulitzer Prize-winning military correspondent Thomas Ricks -- that the United States is only "halfway through this war" -- may prove all too accurate.

...

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175093/michael_schwartz_twenty_first_century_colonialism_in_iraq

The US Withdrawal: Rebranding the Occupation or Changing the Game?

by Laura Flanders, Jeremy Scahill, Patrick Cockburn and Kristele Younes, GRITtv

Tuesday July 7, 2009 9:00 am

The US media have reported on the withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi cities. But 130,000 troops remain in Iraq and many argue that the occupation will continue only under a different guise. Have things really changed? Or has the occupation simply been rebranded?

Jeremy Scahill, best selling author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, Patrick Cockburn, journalist and author most recently of The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq, and Kristele Younes, an Advocate at Refugees International on what the US withdrawal means.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=19766

Remember when Barack Obama made that big announcement at Camp Lejeune about how all U.S. combat troops were going to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June 30? Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their “good war” in Afghanistan.

Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama’s Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush’s table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term “Global War on Terror” while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that’s why leading Republicans praised Obama’s plan). In the real world, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…

<snip>

According to the Times, the U.S. is playing with the definition of the word “city” when speaking of withdrawing combat troops from all cities:

There are no plans to close the Camp Victory base complex, consisting of five bases housing more than 20,000 soldiers, many of them combat troops. Although Victory is only a 15 minute drive from the center of Baghdad and sprawls over both sides of the city’s boundary, Iraqi officials say they have agreed to consider it outside the city. In addition, Forward Operating Base Falcon, which can hold 5,000 combat troops, will also remain after June 30. It is just within Baghdad’s southern city limits. Again, Iraqi officials have classified it as effectively outside Baghdad, so no exception to the agreement needs to be granted, in their view.

Combat troops with the Seventh Field Artillery Regiment will remain in the heart of Baghdad at Camp Prosperity, located near the new American Embassy compound in the Green Zone. In addition to providing a quick reaction force, guarding the embassy and noncombat troops from attack, those soldiers will also continue to support Iraqi troops who are now in nominal charge of maintaining security in the Green Zone.

<snip>

http://www.alternet.org/story/138609/obama%27s_iraq%3A_the_picture_of_dorian_gray/

[Echo In Light]

1. Rec

[Kolesar]

2. Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their

“good war” in Afghanistan.

Well that's a bit much.

Herewith, my first "unrec".

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. Too much truth?

Despite Celebrated Speech, Has Obama Really Ordered an End to US Occupation of Iraq?

AMY GOODMAN: One of the main themes of President Obama’s campaign was his opposition to the war in Iraq. He heavily criticized the Bush administration for the 2003 invasion and vocally opposed the war from the very beginning, when he was still an Illinois state senator. Now, as President of the United States, Obama has finally announced his plan to pull US troops out of Iraq. In a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina on Friday, Obama appeared to spell out a clear date for a withdrawal.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As a candidate for president, I made clear my support for a timeline of sixteen months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and to protect our troops. These consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next eighteen months.


<snip>

What I found very disturbing about Obama’s speech, among other things, was the fact that he officially co-signed Bush’s major lies on Iraq. When he talked about the mission of US troops in Iraq, he said, “I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime, and you got the job done.” I’m sorry, Mr. Obama, the troops were sent to Iraq on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. And he co-signed that Bush administration lie.

He also said, “We will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life. That is your achievement,” he said to the US troops. “That is the prospect that you have made possible.” Again, no, not a better life. We’re talking about upwards of a million Iraqis that have been killed, their lives decimated, 20 percent of the country either in need of desperate medical attention, internally displaced, another 20 percent living outside of the country. And this has been an utter mess. And he talks about a better future. Iraq has never been in more shambles than it has been over the course of the US military occupation.

<snip>

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/4/despite_celebrated_speech_has_obama_really

[Kolesar]

5. Way too convoluted

<snip>

What I found very disturbing about Obama’s speech, among other things, was the fact that he officially co-signed Bush’s major lies on Iraq. When he talked about the mission of US troops in Iraq, he said, “I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime, and you got the job done.” I’m sorry, Mr. Obama, the troops were sent to Iraq on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. And he co-signed that Bush administration lie.
<snip>

[denem]

3. Not ILLEGALLY but

pursuant to an agreement with the elected government. One can argue about the legitimacy of that government, but as it is recognized by the United Nations. Ethere are no real legal issues.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. You meant

puppet government.

And yes the US invasion was/is illegal. And of course the deaths of several hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is a crime against humanity. And yes the occupation grinds on.

Hell even Kofi Annan and Richard Perle declared unequivocally that it was an illegal invasion.

[denem]

7. The 'Truman Doctrine', US Policy since 1947, asserts a right to act beyond International law.

Truman claimed a right to act militarily to protect the 'vital interests' of the United States without the authority of the Security Council, an ambit claim embraced and expanded by Jimmy Carter in 1980,

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. Do you believe the US has 'the right' to act outside international law?

What are those 'national interests'?

So the US gets to invade other people's lands and take their resources cause the US says so?

And yes you are correct in the fact that the "peace" president expanded on this.

As for Truman he left office in 1953 with a 22% approval rating. This is the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history. This is lower than Nixon’s approval rating during Watergate. Nevertheless, Truman, for the most part, is looked on as a good president by historians and in the eyes of most citizens of the US. Some have written that he is one of the ten best presidents in US history.

The Truman Doctrine created the boogie man of the communist threat to the world and has distorted US foreign policy ever since.

[denem]

13. The US claims the right to protect it's 'Vital Interests' period.

It's not a member of the ICC for good reason. The Truman Doctrine has never been renounced. It is the formulation given by just about every spokesman when questioned, including President Carter.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Oh, yes, the invasion was quite illegal. The occupation, however,

was quite legal, as it had explicit authorization from the United Nations. And current operations, which do not constitute occupation legally, are perfectly legal, as every single authority that has a legal say in it has offered its explicit authorization. If America says it's legal, Iraq says it's legal, and the United Nations says it's legal, then it's legal.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. That's a tremendous leap

The US invasion of Iraq, unauthorized by the U.N. illegal under international law.

According to the U.S. constitution, all international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate are also the law of the land, i.e., U.S. domestic law as well. The U.S. is signatory to the U.N. charter, ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Therefore not only the U.S. Executive, but also Congressional branch of the U.S. government, is complicit in breaking international law. In the case of Congress, it broke a treaty agreement that it itself had passed into law!

Furthermore as we attempt to stand on legal formality, it is extraordinary isn't it? - but typically America proves it's disdain for the opinion of humanity - we can tend to miss this central point.

Ongoing combat in Iraq is illegal under US law. As of January 1, Congress' authorization of the war expired.

The Obama Administration is now required to submit to Congress for a NEW Authorization now that he is in office. Has he done this? Perhaps I missed it.

What could possibly be the argument against this (other than that they might not win such Authority)?

Now of course the US can "legally", since it runs the place, redefine what is meant by "city" or what is meant by a "combat troop" or what is meant by "combat operations" or even what is meant by "an Iraqi" but the conditions on the ground- that's called REALITY- do not change no matter how Orwellian the language or use of terms.

Perhaps the US could redefine Iraq itself and claim it as the 51st state. Something like New Petrolistan? to satisfy the defenders of this atrocity and erase the entire memory of the truth.

[chucker47]

16. Iraq

I'm convinced nobody will win a debate with you. It's not a criticism. Just a fact as I see it. The only thing I have to add to your comments about the illegality of invading Iraq is this:
That was how many years ago? We came. We fought. It is the present we must deal with. Legal or otherwise, we are now heading in the direction of less hands-on military and more support troop activity. I think it distracts and detracts from the present day problems and their solutions to focus so much on whether we should have done after Saddam (sp) or not, or whether GWB actually beat Al Gore in the 2000 election. The time for voting on those matters is long gone. Let's move forward, I'd say move-on but the words stick in my throat.
You make excellent, well thought out and researched points. Let me be clear about that. Most of the posts I read are emotionally charged and without much fact or historical knowledge.
Nobody can, or should, accuse you of making uninformed comments. I enjoy reading them.

[followthemoney]

17. The Holocaust was legal, too.

An act most foul and despicable can be legal in a rogue state. Legality means very little to some people. And those people are not all agents of other countries in other times.

[malaise]

8. K & R

for truth

[ipaint]

10. Martin Luther King would agree.

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood."

By Rev. Martin Luther King
4 April 1967

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html

[Occam Bandage]

11. Current operations are authorized by Iraqi law, American law, and a United Nations resolution.

They're perfectly legal, in much the same way that it's legal for me to own a house despite the fact that the land my house is on was, a long time back, illegally taken from the Dakota.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality

Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality

By THOM SHANKER
Published: December 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.


But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=3

[earth mom]

18. The wars in the middle east are ILLEGAL and they are GENOCIDE.

Who are these people and who the hell do they think they are fooling?! :puke:

[maryf]

19. Iraqi officials say they have agreed to consider it outside the city

Hhhmmm, really sounds like sovereignty restored... :sarcasm: K&R

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mullard12ax7]

21. It's only been ____ months, let's move on and focus on _____.

Don't be such a "bitter and revengeful hater". "We're at war". You just want to see "Obama fail". "I guess you didn't get your pony". There's a masterful "game of chess" going on.

These propaganda talking points brought to you by The U.S. Military/Industrial Complex.

[maryf]

22. "US military (sic) did not expect the new rules to be implemented so literally"

quote from within link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8158393.stm

Tensions rise over US Iraq role
By Gabriel Gatehouse
BBC News, Baghdad

Tensions appear to be growing between the US military and the Iraqi security forces.

They have arisen over co-operation and the restrictions imposed on the movement of American forces in urban areas inside Iraq.

The Iraqi defence ministry has confirmed the limitations.

But reports suggest US commanders have been surprised and frustrated by the new rules, suggesting they could endanger the safety of their troops.

The agreement has been in place since American troops completed their withdrawal from Iraq's towns and cities.

A spokesman for the Iraqi defence ministry told the BBC there had been no joint US-Iraqi patrols in urban areas since 30 June.

According to an agreement signed between the two sides, US forces are not allowed to enter Iraq's towns and cities unless specifically requested to do so by the Iraqi authorities, except in cases of self-defence.

The spokesman said the ministry adhered to a strict interpretation of these new rules, but some in the American military appear to take a different view.

The Washington Post newspaper quotes what it says is an email written by the commander of the US forces' Baghdad division saying his troops would continue to engage in operations inside urban areas to avert, or respond to, threats whether or not they were supported by the Iraqis.

see link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8158393.stm