Richard WarnickIraq Index and an Update on the Permanent Occupation Treaty
The June 9 issue of The Nation has this Iraq Index compiled by David Morris, a former marine who has been embedded in Iraq as a reporter. His figures offer a stunning and concise indictment of the U.S. occupation. I added the web links for those who want more information.
Percentage of Iraqis displaced by war: 20
American cost of the Iraq occupation per second (as of March 2008): $4,563.18
Total number of Coalition personnel in Iraq at the height of the “surge” (including all contractors and civilian support personnel): 343,100
Total number of actual US combat troops in Iraq at the height of the “surge” (excluding support personnel): 38,000
Number of police officers in New York City: 37,000
Number of embedded journalists during March 2003 invasion: 775
Number of embedded journalists during March 2008: 23
Number of US killed and wounded, Hue City, Vietnam, 1968: 147 and 857
Number of US killed and wounded, Fallujah, Iraq, 2004: 104 and 1,110
Number of Iraq veterans diagnosed with PTSD: 300,000
Number of troops stop-lossed: 58,300
Number of troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001: 1,668,000
Number of troops deployed after being declared medically unfit: 43,000
Update: the Bush administration’s permanent occupation treaty
Undeterred by the U.S. Constitution or political reality in America and Iraq, the Bush administration is still pushing for a treaty to establish a permanent U.S. occupation. As we all know, the President cannot ratify a treaty without a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Also, the Iraqi constitution requires a vote in parliament.
Opposition has been growing in Iraq to the proposed treaty, which will replace the current U.N. mandate.
The text of the treaty is being kept secret, but some provisions have leaked. According to the newspaper Al-Hayat (via Missing Links):
[T]he latest version includes text relating to the establishment of 400 locations and bases [for the American forces], exemption [from Iraqi legal process] for American soldiers and citizens, and elimination of any responsibility [on the American side] for participation in the rebuilding of Iraq.
It should be obvious that every patriotic Iraqi would be against this. Indeed, Shiite and Sunni polticians are uniting to oppose the U.S. demands. IMHO patriotic Americans ought to oppose the treaty too. We want out of Iraq.
UPDATE: The Asia Times points out that there are actually two agreements being secretly negotiated: a Status of Forces Agreement, which sets up the legal basis for the presence of US troops in Iraq, and a Strategic Framework Agreement, which would include other bilateral commitments such as security guarantees. Together, the two treaties “would turn Iraq into a virtual colony of the United States.”
UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman sums up the politics:
So let’s review. Against the permanent-occupation deal are the Iraqi people and the American people. For the permanent-occupation deal are George W. Bush, Nouri al-Maliki, John McCain and Osama bin Laden. Whatever should we do?
June 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
When asked why we attacked Iraq, Richard Haass of the State Department said
Bush called the initial victory in Baghdad a “catastrophic success”. I guess even a broken clock is right a couple of times a day.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I don’t know what the verdict of history will be. One possible explanation of the invasion of Iraq goes like this: Karl Rove.
Rove calculated that Bush’s only hope of getting a second term would be as a “war president.” From day one, the Bush administration was working toward this. The Bushies never saw 9/11 coming, but they immediately tried to use it to justify an attack on Iraq (as Richard Clarke has testified). Afghanistan never got needed intelligence, troops or the strategic attention it deserved because of the focus on Iraq.
This story fits with the over-arching theme of the Bush presidency, which is that politics trumps policy 100 percent of the time.