World News
Secret US plan for military future in Iraq is no secret at all.
By Seumas Milne (Guardian) with Axis of Logic commentary
Apr 8, 2008, 08:44
|
|
Editor's Comment: The "Secret US Plan", as The Guardian puts it in the article below is not now nor ever has been a secret. Anyone with eyes wide open knows full well what the intention of the US government has been since the Bush I invasion and subsequent 8 years of sanctions under the Clinton Regime: colonization. The Bush II war has simply taken that plan to the next level of brutality. Either in typical corporate media complicity or simple minded naivité, Guardian's writer, Seumas Milne, concludes this article with the following statement:
"Both Clinton and Democratic rival Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain troop levels until the country is secure."
Not so fast, Milne. The Democratic Party has supported the US war and occupation in Iraq from the very beginning. What makes you think they would change their position now? Campaign promises? Please! Note Hillary Clinton's clever response to the Bush regime's plan for permanent occupation and colonization: "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection by US forces." So if she or Obama are elected president, will they be blaming Bush for continuing the war and occupation, saying their hands have been tied?
Barack Obama, who now claims to be the anti-war candidate, voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005. We've seen too much of their hypocritical rhetoric and voting behavior to believe that either one of them will get the US military out of Iraq when elected president. If the U.S. electorate falls for this gambit, they will be sorely disappointed. The time for the U.S. voter to wake up to the bad cop/good cop routine of the Republicans and Democrats has long past. The only response that will bring the "war on terror" to an end will be a full revolt by the people in US streets. You think that can't happen? Don't be so sure. The collapsing US economy and the world's growing hatred for Washington could be the double-bit in the horses mouth.
- Les Blough, Editor
The Guardian (UK)
Secret US plan for military future in Iraq
By Seumas Milne
Document outlines powers but sets no time limit on troop presence
 |
| US troops conduct a foot patrol along the Tigris river south of Baghdad, Iraq. Photograph: David Furst/AFP/Getty images |
A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.
The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.
The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.
Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.
Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the year.
One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."
It is also likely to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection by US forces.
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic Congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.
Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."
Significantly - given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter's close relations with the Iraqi administration's Shia parties - the draft agreement specifies that the "US does not seek to use Iraq territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states".
General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, is to face questioning from all three presidential candidates on Capitol Hill today when he reports to the Senate on his surge strategy, which increased US forces in Iraq by about 30,000 last year.
Both Clinton and Democratic rival Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain troop levels until the country is secure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
Top of Page
| 
