‘More abominable than the occupation’
McClatchy News Service reports that the permanent occupation treaty the Bush administration is trying to force on Iraq includes rights to 58 U.S. military bases. Currently, our military forces in Iraq operate out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts.
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq — Mounting a Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) to an A-10C Thunderbolt II.
Another U.S. demand: the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Iraqi lawmakers said they fear this power would drag their country into a war between the United States and Iran.
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops. Unbelievably, the Bush administration is also demanding immunity (really extraterritoriality) for foreign private mercenaries in Iraq. Can colonialism really make a comeback?
“The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,” said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. “We were occupied by order of the Security Council,” he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. “But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.”
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make “absolutely clear” that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
UPDATE: Iraqi politicians seem to be under the illusion that Iraq is a sovereign country, according to an article in the Washington Post. “The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq,” said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament’s foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman points out the obvious– “Everything Bush is now doing bolsters bin Laden’s propaganda.” Those permanent bases will cost many American lives.
UPDATE: Senator Joe Lieberman claims that vehement Iraq opposition to the Bush administration’s permanent occupation plans is “a sign of our success in Iraq.” Wow.
Previous One Utah posts:
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under permanent US occupation (June 5, 2008)
It’s Official: We’re In Iraq Forever (November 27, 2007)
How to Redeploy Out of Iraq (August 29, 2007)
June 10th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric said Monday the status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in Iraq.
Imagine if the French had insisted on permanent bases in the U.S. at the end of the Revolutionary War.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
or if the US had insisted on permanent military bases in Japan and Germany at the end of the Second World War….
…the HORROR….
June 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Funny, all the Bush supporters I’ve argued with for years said there would NOT be permanent bases in Iraq. Have the GOP talking points been changed?
June 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
What’s you’re point, Richard?
Are you suggesting that when you spoke with the spokesmen of the Bush Supporters (you have a name, don’t you?) they lied to you? Surely you took their opinion to be worth what you paid for it, no?
Why do you insist that these are GOP talking points? Have the Democrats insisted that troops be withdrawn from Iraq? What are they doing to realize that aim?
Ya see, Richard, you, McClatchy, MMoore, Cliff, Larry…it’s all just a circle-jerk where your opinions reflect and amplify and soon enough, you start to believe the crap you are saying.
From an anthropologist’s point of view, it’s all pretty fascinating.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Let’s get some answers, jd:
(1) Are you now in favor of permanent bases in Iraq?
(2) Did you ever repeat the previous talking point that there would be no permanent bases?
(3) Have we always been at war with Eurasia?
(4) Did you ever say we were at war with Oceania?
June 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Richard -
1) It depends on you define “Permanent” - but generally, YES.
2) No
June 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Do you remember hearing, for the last five years, that there would be no permanent bases– that this was a fantasy cooked up by the anti-Bush crowd?
Rumsfeld: ‘I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting’ (April 21, 2003)
Permanent US bases in Iraq a ‘typical Middle East conspiracy theory’ (February 3, 2005)
Tony Snow: we have no desire for permanent bases (June 15, 2006)
Bush pledges no permanent bases in Iraq (February 10, 2008)
U.S. ambassador: No permanent Iraq bases (June 5, 2008)
June 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Oh GOD….you’re right, Richard.
And now Maliki is saying the same thing.
Well, at least I know that I can get the truth from Al Jazeera.
Phew….
So who, in the administration, is saying that the bases will be permanent now?
Honestly - I could care less. I think a long term presence is a good thing.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
jd:
Don’t laugh and self deprecate - just admit you were betrayed by the Bush administration. It’ll be a load off your shoulders!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
This link suggests the basing issue is really about attacking Iran.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“…there will be many other Iraqis, almost certainly a majority, who will see this agreement as showing that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US. It will delegitimize it. It will lay the basis for a further deepening of the war in Iraq. So it’s an extraordinary—you know, Iraq is full of spurious invented turning points, but this really is a turning point for Iraq.”
June 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Leo, thanks for the link. Patrick Cockburn also said:
June 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Betrayed? How?
The administration did exactly what it said it would.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
jdberger:
What are you talking about? Bush said he was not a nation builder to get elected/selected. He did exactly the opposite of what he said. He betrayed you.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Haaaaaaa
Haaaaaaa!
Stop it Jd, yer killin’ me up! My funny bone ain’t what it yousta be!
June 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Of course, you’re right, Larry.
But you see, it isn’t his fault. The time-travel portal that we usually use was down for maintenance that week. Some sort of compatability glitch with Windows ME, if I remember correctly.
He couldn’t see a year into the future.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
jd:
Back to showing your true colors, again: a Bush apologist!
And on father’s day weekend, too. Good for you!
June 14th, 2008 at 12:22 am
non-sequitur, Albert.
Unless you are suggesting that Bush could see a year into the future?
How was that? 88 mph in a DeLorean?
jd
June 14th, 2008 at 5:13 am
jd:
Bush didn’t have to see anything in the future to know what a disaster it would be to invade Iraq, nor did anyone else who was thinking at the time.
Gee, for someone so studied about the 2nd Amend., you sure pull into the station running on fumes re the decision to invade Iraq.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Ok JD, Now I need to tear into you. But I will not be sarcastic.
You are clearly NOT a well-informed generalist.
Pretty much every expert on the middle east predicted what would happen if we invaded Baghdad. Even Dick Cheney said it during Gulf War I.
Bush did know, and it was his plan all along. Colin Powell summed it up well when he made the famous Pottery Barn comment; “You break it, you own it.”
And thats exactly what they intended…to own it.
I realize now JD, while you think like an old codger, you must be quite young because no one in the military over 40 would be so self-deprecating as to reveal such ignorance.
Under the porch with you too.
June 14th, 2008 at 8:46 am
The Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.
June 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
[...] related One Utah posts: ‘More abominable than the occupation’ Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under permanent US [...]
June 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Regarding seeing into the future, we were discussing this statement:
It may be fashionable among some to claim that the campaign in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, folks on the ground beg to differ. Casualty counts are down, Al Queda honchos are being killed or captured, suicide bombings are almost non-existant, Kurdistan is readying for new elections as is the rest of Iraq, Federalism is winning the day, infrastructure is being repaired…
Of course, those who root for failure in order to validate their disdain for the current administration only illustrate how myopic they are.
But think of how proud you’ll be when you tell you grandchildren how you bravely stood “Against the War” with folks like Code Pink and International ANSWER.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
jdberger:
That statement I made is exactly right. You bring up 911 and try to make the case that Bush couldn’t have known we were going to be attacked so brutally a year after taking office, but at least three different very credible people exposed the fact that the administration had plans to invade Iraq the day they “took” office.
If you look at any dollar bills you have in your wallet, there’s a good chance you’ll see the signature of one of these people. Billionaire Paul O’Neil was the Secretary of the Treasury before writing his book “The Price of Loyalty” which is one of the sources I’m talking about. The other two men are Richard Clark and Bob Woodward.
911 changed everything, but it didn’t change the plan to Invade Iraq months or years BEFORE 911. Think PNAC.
You have been betrayed because you had the right to know, and the people of the United States had the right to debate the particulars of nation building. Take the Goddamned yellow ribbon off your SUV and wake up!
June 15th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Oh geez, not this crap again, Larry. We also have plans to invade China and Greenland.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Jd, that is one of the beautiful aspects of the set-up our country has adopted. We very likely DO have contingency plans to invade China, Greenland, and quite possibly every other country on the planet. That’s who our planners have become. You can never be too afraid…of ‘them’.
As for code Pink, Answer and other ‘America-hating’ proponenets of Peace, (like unaffiliated ME) they may just be a little ’soft’ for your tastes, but in the peace / war ‘game’, are respectable and certainly not without peer (think Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Jesus). It is the Bushies who hold the minority view, though there’s lots of money in it. I hope you will be proud for your stand WITH people the world will most certainly view as war criminals.
It’s been rich, Thanks for playing.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:27 am
jd says:
Root for failure? That is a most pathetic and unsupported statement, straight from the Rovian playbook. Just how, pray tell, is stating the obvious construed as rooting for failure?
I had come to expect a little more depth from your posts, jd, but as of late, this type of comment is part and parcel of what you bring to the table: Rovian talking points. You truly do symbolize the stupid and susceptible among us. Congratulations!!
June 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Ok Mr. Prove it…
Prove it.
Last I checked, “folks on the ground” - you know, the ones wearing the uniform - by a large majority, KNOW Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
I believe every poll since last fall shows an increasing majority of officers AND rank and file think Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
Where on Earth do you get your information?
JD, are you so Machiavellian as to be willing to lie to advance your sick agenda?
Here’s a question punks like you refuse to answer; How many American deaths are you willing to see before you can say enough is enough?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Cliff,
Same question to you regarding gun control.
Gun Control is working as well as Alcohol Prohibition did in the 20’s. How many American deaths are you willing to see before you can say enough is enough?
June 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Bob S (and jd)
You answer my question to JD first.
I know JD currently works as a pogue at the Travis AFB. And I am quite sure he is among the “85% [of military personnel who say] the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”
btw: Here’s my proof JD is smokin crack.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Well, Cliff and Albert - I guess that we probably differ in what we think is the purpose of the Iraq war.
That might explain why points which you think are obvious and so damning to my arguments, I find inconsequential.
How many lives? How many lives is it worth to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East? How many lives was it worth to free ourselves from Britain? Stop Napolean? End Fascism? Stop Communism? It’s not much of a question as far as I’m concerned.
Albert, criticising the war is not necessarily rooting for failure. Criticising the war and refusing to acknowledge any of the successes or progress is rooting for failure. It illustrates “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.
As far as my proof about folks on the ground? I can only provide anecdotal evidence from folks I know. These are people working in NGOs repairing infrastructure, folks involved in Carter Center type election monitoring operations and people wearing uniforms involved in combat operations.
Finally, Cliff? Your Google-fu is crap, again….. I’m not in the Air Force. I don’t work at Travis AFB and I’ve never even been there.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
“Criticizing the war and refusing to acknowlege any of its successes = rooting for failure”
Well, ya got me there. Dylan said, “There’s no success like failure and failure’s no success at all”. I say that success in such overarching imperialism has been established by convention to be crimes of war, and that failure is the only successful outcome if this nation is ever to regain any higher ground unprotected by the massive and continuous use of arms.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Thank you for your honesty, Cav.
Though I disagree with your premise (that this is imperialism), at least you’re honest about why you wish for the results you do.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Jd, exactly what premise makes torture, mass murder, etc, permissable and or correct? Does it have any thing to do with Haliburton profits?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Jd, correct me if I’m wrong: We’re building 58 military-cities (bases) in Iraq for the ‘terrorists’ to war on, so they don’t have to destroy equivalent cities over here.
Is this a great country (entirely lacking in imperial ambition), or what?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Cav
To quote a great movie:
imperial (or empire)
June 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’m not sure I understand these questions, Cav.
Are you asking me if it is Ok for the the government to torture people to assure profits for Halliburton? Is that a rhetorical question?
Or, are you suggesting that the government and military is engaged in “torture, mass murder, etc” to ensure profits for Halliburton? - That’s a pretty offensive assertion, Cav.
I still don’t understand your point about the military bases. Do you also suggest that America exercises imperial power anywhere it maintains a military base? Japan? Germany? Panama? Greenland? South Korea? Italy? The Phillipines?
Do you perhaps discount the above posts and bases because they don’t fit neatly into your assertion about American “Imperialism”?
June 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Having lived in the Philippines, I can state with confidence that we no longer maintain military bases there. Right now there are only about 450 American members of the U.S. military in Mindanao, more than half of them U.S. Army Special Forces.
But the larger point is correct, there are American military bases in 120 countries. Not because we’re imperialists or anything. No way.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Correct, Richard - I was thinking of Clark and Subic. My error.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Jdberger raises a good point–that we have “permanent” bases in places like Germany and Japan–and then proceeds to agree that it’s good American policy to have such bases. I completely disagree.
Whatever logic that may have tempted us to leave our troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. in the first place is long gone. Likewise, there is no logic to leaving US troops in Iraq (except perhaps to counteract the wrongheadedness of environmentalists who block our ability to become energy independent).
It’s become a faux axiom that the United States has never occupied any nation or territory that it conquered. Bullcrap! We OCCUPY about 130 countries now besides our own.
At some point we need to bring our troops home from Iraq (they–I among them–should have never been there in the first place). In recent days as al Maliki and the Iraqi military have begun to show themselves capable of kiboshing both al Qaeda and al Sadr, I think the time is now to make an end to the Iraqi occupation.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Say it’s not so, Frank! Success? In Iraq? ;-)
While you have an excellent point re bases in Japan, Germany and Korea and the reasoning behind maintaining them, I’m of two minds on the subject. True, the original reasons for keeping the bases there have ended with the Cold War. However, force projection also has some resonance against potential post Cold War antogonists. Of course, in some ways, this validates the “Endless War” conspiracies.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’ll be happy to contradict Frank. Iraq is a failed state with no national government worthy of the name, and no national military forces. Governmental power is mostly divided among the United States, Kurdistan, Iran, the Sadrists, and a motley collection of Sunni Arab militias– most now on the U.S. payroll and also supported from Saudi Arabia. Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army is the largest single provider of services and humanitarian aid in Iraq.
Maliki nominally controls the Green Zone, but I think even there the Americans can veto anything he decides. Nonetheless, he understands that the jig is up if he agrees to the permanent occupation treaty Bush is pushing for. That’s the end of any pretense of legitimacy for him and his cronies in Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Council. Not only are the Iraqi people adamantly opposed, his patrons in Tehran don’t like it either.
As for al Qaeda– they are in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and gaining ground.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Anon, might you be suggesting that the U. S. of A. is but a subsidary component of a larger, more global enterprise? Carlyle, Haliburton, or perhaps a mix thereof plus some?
It is possible that there’s another word for what I’m trying to establish, if you can put that word to it, feel free. I’m fairly certain it’s not in the constitution.
Jd Yea, something like that. Dispute it all if you care to. In even the most outrageous lie there’s often a small grain of truth - even in our most nightmarish policies may be found some small neat rational, call it ‘crazy-talk’ and your services will no longer be needed. I appreciate your efforts.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Cav,
That was me posting as Anon, need to get the morning caffeine started sooner.
I’m not suggesting that the USA is part of a larger global enterprise, but showing that the USA shows very few of the requirements to be an “empire” or that we have “Imperial” ambitions. If anything the US is a reverse empire, instead of taking control of the resources we often give away our own resources.
How much money, time and effort were spent rebuilding Germany and Japan after the war? How many times have we built “permanent” bases only to turn them over to the host nation. The Philippines is a great example of that.
How many times does America send humanitarian aid instead of conquering soldiers?
The concept you are trying to express, I believe, is a multinational corporation. And yes, some of them exhibit signs of being a factor in the global economy and politics. I think that sooner or later, multinational corporations will become an political entity separate and apart from the country that allowed them to incorporate.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
USA = Coke
USA w/Obama = New Coke?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Hey! I just had to look up “pogue” because I didn’t understand it in the context of “Air Force Speak”…
Apparently, in the Air Force, a “pogue” is what the Army and Marines would call a REMF.
Which brings me to my question…
Since so few members of the Air Force are actively involved in combat operations (pilots, FACs, PJs, SAR crews - I’m sure I’m leaving some out) - aren’t 95% of the AF “pogues”?
In other words, Cliff? Did you get the facts all bolloxed up again?
Is there anything you can do right, Cliff Lyon?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Thanks everyone, it occurs to me that some of the ‘corruption’ we need to address might be placed at the feet of Multinational Corporations, whose allegiance is not with any country, but more to their own pocket-book. Is it possible that they are big enough to resist governmental constraints? That the money they accumulate can effectively purchase world ‘leaders’ as pocket puppets? Jeese, my head’s about to ’splode.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:05 am
You just figured that out, Cav?
On the bright side, countries that have McDonalds in them don’t war with each other.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Actually, I’ve had it figured out for a while, I just can’t for the life of me understand why the American people have come to accept the rule of corporate overlords. I say revoke thier charters, and get back to one man one vote.
Can you tell me which group umbrella’s Coke and McDonalds? May wanna purchase me some stock (if they aren’t mixed up in cluster bombs as well).
June 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Coke and McDonalds are owned by lots of different organizations, funds, etc…. TIAA-CREF is one of them IIRC. It’s part of a balanced portfolio.
An old friend once said to me, “If you think a company is screwing you, buy stock in them. At least you’ll get some of that money back.”
June 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
[...] clear that the Bush administration wanted to stay in Iraq forever– in recent negotiations, they sought to perpetuate the occupation indefinitely with a treaty that granted 58 permanent bases, extraterritoriality (immunity from Iraqi law) for [...]