5 June 2008
Permanent Iraqi Occupation at Hand
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: World Affairs .
It worked in Germany and Japan so why not Iraq? The cultures are far too different. Muslim extremism will increase tremendously if we occupy their land that they consider sacred. When it becomes obvious that there will be permanent US control, subversives will begin to foment anger. It may not explode in a year or two, but I predict that it will ignite a firestorm eventually and we will reap a severe consequence.
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
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 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.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
8 Comments so far...
Matt Says:
5 June 2008 at 9:58 am.
I agree Joy. Look at all the problems the tensions have caused with the Palestinian issue. Iran and Syria would make a big deal out of occupation not to mention the Iraqis. It would lead to so much hatred that a massive war would be inevitable.
Hawk Says:
5 June 2008 at 10:03 am.
I disagree. Our crack down has worked and things are calming down over there. We would be staying to keep stability, not take over the country. It would give Arabs time to learn that Americans are mostly good warm hearted people.
Benjamin Says:
5 June 2008 at 10:39 am.
Hawk, lots of Arabs who have lived in America hate us. Your personal perception colors how you see things. When people get stirred up with a mob mentality then they don’t see things as they are. We have seen lots of evidence that they see us and our culture as satanic. I totally agree with Joy on this.
Mac Says:
5 June 2008 at 11:36 am.
I am torn about permanent bases. Maybe if we stay there we can be a strong presence to discourage terrorists. If we leave Iran could come in and take over or Iraq could split into three groups. It is a very complicated issue.
Tony Says:
5 June 2008 at 2:10 pm.
matt that massive war is on its way if we like it or not, its called armagedon.
hawk if the iranians moved over here and started making permanent bases would you think they were warm hearted? just a thought…
Nalvy Says:
5 June 2008 at 2:18 pm.
Tony I agree with you.. I would not think they were warm hearted.
I do not think putting permanent bases would be a good idea..end of statement.
SGS Says:
5 June 2008 at 4:10 pm.
Hawk, we have been in Kuwait since we drove Saddam’s army out. We have been in Saudi Arabia even longer. Nothing has come out of our staying there in either country, either good or bad. True, we have ensure that the leaders from Iran or other do not block the Gulf region, allowing us to have access to the oil, but culturally, it really did not do anything. I do not see our staying in Iraq would influence it either way. I personally am for cost cutting, and the military bases certainly is one of most costly military items.
T. Fan Says:
5 June 2008 at 4:16 pm.
Nobody made an issue out our staying in Kuwait since we were asked there. The Saudis are more or less our friends. Terrorists are making a big deal out our staying in Iraq and that is the problem. I think it will cause a lot of problems in the future. I also think Tony is right and all of this is leading up to Armageddon. The only question is how long it will take.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.