« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Sssh! It's a Secret - Bush Wants Permanent Bases In Iraq
It's a secret!
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
A secret deal is 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.....
This story reads as though having permanant bases in Iraq would BENEFIT the President and John McCain by proving they've reached a Victory in Iraq. I don't see how they consider having more bases in Iraq as being a victory, do you?
If this is true and it happens, Americans will be furious. They want our troops home and out of Iraq - not setting up home.
It will just reinforce McCain's statement about his being willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years or more. I think this will hurt McCain.
As for Mr Bush, it might help him if he gets us so involved over there we'll 'have' to stay at some level, for years to come. He and I will be long gone by the time our men and women can come home for good.
In my view, we'll be like the Israeli Army -- constantly going after the terrorists and extremists for years to come. Keep in mind that Israel has been fighting this same enemy or one similar for decades and they still haven't rid their country of them all.
Comments (4)
My sense is that most Americans have no stomach for empire - our distaste for anything resembling empire is one of the few threads that bind conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, all of us together, peering in from the outside at the global financial elite - as Americans, as citizens united in wondering WTF did you think you were gonna be able to orchestrate here? How the hell do you get from 9/11 to permanent bases in Iraq? Only if you think we're ignorant - which, apparently, you do.
Ignorant as we are, we know what it's supposed to mean to be American in this day and age. Deny us our différence, and we're no better than any 19th century European power, and we know it. We may be loath to admit it, but we know where Teddy went wrong. Even the jingo in our gringo is all about keeping it real at home these days ... nothing more. Nothing offshore.
This is the antithesis of the "humble" foreign policy that Bush ran on, and plenty of Americans, across the political spectrum, are well aware that they've been sold a bill of goods.
June 5, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Connie, Bush and McCain and neocons have already established a permanent presence in Iraq. They know how unpopular the war in Iraq is. So they'll try and justify our presence there as part of the broader context of the "war on terror". Rather than the war in Iraq, it will be marketed as a U.S. security installation to oversee military operations throughout the middle east.
Bush has promised there would be no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. But he's parsing. They will be called permanent Iraqi bases, where we will "assist" and train the Iraqis. I really do wish congress will be more astute when it comes to semantics.
The administration has already chosen a new cause or rather a "new enemy"; Iran. Again, all this does is create a justification for a permanent presence. We've had a revolving door of enemies in Iraq-Al Qaeda, factions of sunnis, shiites, etc.
The President does plan on meeting with both presidential nominees, separately, in a month or so, to discuss national security matters. The candidates need to be careful if they're asked to sign or agree to anything.
Another example of parsing the administration will use is to blur the definitions of U.S. troops and rogue military contractors. Bush can say we'll draw down troops but he'll only be changing their classification.
June 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I agree with you, Connie. Over on this side of the Atlantic, permanent bases don't look like the politically clever move that The Independent seems to think they are.
The American people do not want to occupy Iraq forever.
Moreover, the notion that a Bush agreement would "tie Barack's hands" is absurd. Ad hoc deals can always be renegotiated. If it doesn't have Senate approval, it's not a treaty.
But what's really got me steamed at the moment is the Phase II report about Iraq intelligence on the TPM front page. I don't know why I'm feeling this wave of rage. It's not like any of this is news. But to have it all out there in the open, finally -- on the one hand, it's a relief. On the other hand, it's the saddest and most infuriating piece of news I've read in a while.
The whole project has been trumped up in order to produce this result: permanent bases in Iraq, to give Bush a legacy and the US an imperial grip on the flow of oil. No condemnation of the people responsible for this crime could be too strongly worded. From beginning to end, it has been a crass, duplicitious betrayal of American history and the American people. History will not treat this crew kindly.
June 5, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is this possibly a secret? Was I supposed to believe the 18 or so bases being built at costs upwards of $1 billion each were going to just, what, be turned over to the Iraqis when we come home?
Getting into Iraq and staying there has plainly and obviously been the strategy of the Bush/Cheney gang from the outset, and the building of permanent-style, massive bases was always one of the clearest indicators. To those paying attention, it was also an obvious warning sign to discount both the WMD claim, and the notion we are there only to "Liberate" the Iraqis (implying we would then come home).
June 5, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment