The Long-Term US Occupation of Iraq is Formalizing

[boutons_]

US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence

Bush-Maliki Deal Sets Framework for Long-Term US Presence in Iraq,
Details to Be Worked Out

BEN FELLER
AP News

Nov 26, 2007 14:14 EST

President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.

The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

"What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them — all these things are on the negotiating table," said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush's adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

( dubya is building 5 HUGE bases, does it matter to the negotiations wherther thye are required or not? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

The proposal underlines how the United States and Iraq are exploring what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. It comes as a Democratic Congress — unsuccessfully, so far — prods Bush to withdraw troops faster than he wants.

Bush and al-Maliki signed the new U.S.-Iraq "declaration of principles" during a secure video conference Monday morning.

Al-Maliki, in a televised address, said his government would ask the United Nations to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time with its authorization to end in 2008.

The U.S.-Iraq agreement will replace the present U.N. mandate regulating the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Maliki said the agreement provides for U.S. support for the "democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers."

( and of course for protection of corrupt, ineffectual Maliki himself, whose life depends on US protection )

It also would help the Iraqi government thwart any attempt to suspend or repeal a constitution drafted with U.S. help and adopted in a nationwide vote in 2005. That appeared to be a reference to any attempt to remove the government by violence or in a coup.

Al-Maliki said the renewal of the multinational forces' mandate was conditional on the repeal of what he called restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty introduced in 1990 by the U.N. Security Council to punish Iraq for invading neighboring Kuwait.

The new agreement would not signal an end to the U.S. mission here. But it could change the rules under which U.S. soldiers operate and give the Iraqis a greater role in determining their mission.

( http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif The US military willl do whatever fucking misson they want, as long as that oil is secured and flowing http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue say Iraq's government will embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership. The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive, said U.S. military and diplomatic representatives appeared generally favorable, subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments.

( there it is again. Dubya's Iraq war is exclusivley about the oil business for US oilcos )

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

The framework Bush approved outlines broad principles, such as that both countries will support Iraq's economic institutions, and help its government train Iraqi security forces to provide stability for all Iraqis. Lute said "all major national leaders of the existing Iraqi government" have committed to it.

"The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," said Lute, who rarely holds televised briefings.

He said it is too soon to tell what the "shape and size" of the U.S. military commitment will look like, including military bases.

( but it's certainly going include the 5 bases dubya has been building, plus a $1B US embasssy, all defacing Iraq )

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

[AZLouis]

GD Congress. If they didn't rush President Bush into this, would we even be discussing a long term presence in Iraq?

[BradLohaus]

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Read General Butler's short book here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html



What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

[boutons_]

James Boyce: When Will The Senate Vote On The Treaty Signed With Iraq Yesterday?

from HuffingtonPost

Let me see.

Looks like a treaty.

President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home -- how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long. from AP story

It smells like a treaty.

The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence. from AP story

I think it is a treaty.

The U.S.-Iraq agreement will replace the present U.N. mandate regulating the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Maliki said the agreement provides for U.S. support for the "democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers." from AP story

A treaty is defined as:

1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

2. the formal document embodying such an international agreement.

3. any agreement or compact.

And, according to the Constitution of the United States Of America (just checked my passport, it says US on it)

The Constitution also grants the president the authority to make treaties with other nations. However, to limit abuse of this power, the Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.

So here's my suggestion.

Harry Reid: put the treaty up for a vote.

====================

[boutons_]

Bush-Maliki Agreement Defies US Laws, Iraqi Parliament

By Maya Schenwar
t r u t h o u t | Report Friday 30 November 2007

Monday's "declaration of principles" between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki indicates the US will maintain a "long-term" presence in Iraq and involve itself closely in the Iraqi oil trade, backsliding on rules made in this year's two largest defense laws.

The 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, which Bush signed into law in mid-November, bars the United States from establishing permanent bases in Iraq and from exerting control over Iraqi oil. The 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which has passed the House and Senate and is expected to be sent to the president sometime in the next few weeks, contains similar language.

Under both acts, the US is forbidden "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq." Although when Bush approved the Appropriations Act, he released a signing statement exempting himself from several of the law's provisions, the proscription against permanent bases was not one of them.

Considering the terms of Monday's agreement, the US will likely retain about 50,000 troops in Iraq over the long term, according to Iraqi government officials.

Joseph Gerson, author of "The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of Foreign Military Bases," said that the rule preventing permanent bases in Iraq can be easily dodged. It's a question of language manipulation, according to Gerson.

"The question is, what is permanent?" he said. "Does it have to be for all eternity? Our bases in Korea have been there for 60 years. Are they 'permanent'? We're living in an Orwellian era."

The phrasing of the Bush-Maliki agreement, which paints the US-Iraq relationship as a cooperative effort between "two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests," provides another defense against the ban on permanent US bases, according to Gerson.

"The trick is to build a military base with a host nation," Gerson said. "Then the base is ostensibly given to the host nation while the US military stays there."

Such "cooperation" scenarios have taken place before. In 1991, the US military was expelled from the Philippines, but, by building bases "for" the country, extended its stay indefinitely.

US-operated bases in Saudi Arabia function under a similar pretense of Saudi control, according to Gerson.

Retaining forces in a host country under the guise of that country's nominal control can prove risky, noted P.J. Crowley, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who served in senior positions at the White House during the Clinton administration.

"After the first Gulf War, we kept a lot of forces in Saudi Arabia," Crowley said. "From a strategic standpoint, there was nothing wrong with that. From a military standpoint, that became part of Bin Laden's justification for 9/11."

The Bush-Maliki agreement does not solidify the shape or size a continuing US occupation would take, according to Crowley; it sets the stage for future negotiations.

However, the agreement narrows the terms under which such negotiations will operate, according to Sameer Dossani, director of 50 Years Is Enough: US Network for Global Justice.

"It's beginning the conversation by saying the US is never going to leave Iraq," Dossani said. "You're starting with a conclusion."

The "declaration of principles" includes a goal of July 2008 for completing negotiations, meaning the grounds of the occupation may be laid before the Bush administration ends.

In addition to foreshadowing a protracted military presence in Iraq, Monday's agreement points to long-term US domination over Iraqi oil resources, according to Dossani.

The agreement directs the US toward "facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments" and "supporting Iraq's development in various economic fields, including its productive capabilities, and aiding its transition to a market economy."

Since oil is Iraq's major export, these terms clash with a section of the Appropriations Act, which forbids the US "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

However, in the context of our current economic relationship with Iraq, that caveat is basically meaningless, according to Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant for the American Friends Service Committee. Since no legal definition of "control of the oil resources" is provided in the act, it can be interpreted to exclude virtually any practice.

Although US dominance over Iraqi oil is nothing new, the declaration of principles confirms and further codifies it, according to Dossani.

"Maintaining the status quo is what they're after," he said. "The status quo is pretty bad, though."

Neither the US Congress nor the Iraqi Parliament were asked to review the declaration of principles before it was released. Since the document was termed an "agreement" instead of a "treaty," it avoided the requirement of ratification by the US Senate.

Iraq's Constitution specifies "international treaties and agreements" must be ratified by two-thirds of its Council of Representatives. However, Gen. Douglas Lute, assistant to President Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan, said in a press briefing that the declaration of principles did not "rise to that level of negotiated document," and "there was general agreement" among Iraqi national leaders that the declaration was a "positive step."

According to Jarrar, the majority of the Iraqi Parliament stands firmly opposed to a continuing US presence in Iraq. Only the policymakers who basically agreed with the US government were party to the negotiation, he said.

Circumventing Parliamentary authority is a risky precedent to set, according to Erik Leaver, policy director for the Institute for Policy Studies' Foreign Policy In Focus project.

"What is amazing is that the Iraqi Parliament is being frozen out of much of the discussion," he said. "This is very dangerous as the current Iraqi government has very little legitimacy and the deal that is being proposed will likely be rejected by the Iraqi public. The result will likely increase the possibility of further fighting inside the fragile nation."

On the American side, the exclusion of Congress from this important agreement may portend a change in ratification policy, according to Gerson, who just returned from a Washington DC conference of scholars, activists and Congressional staffers, where the prospect was discussed.

"At the moment, many of the agreements that underpin the presence of the more than 800 US foreign military bases around the world are not called treaties, but agreements," Gerson said. "What we envision is legislation that would more clearly define what military base agreements are in fact treaties requiring Senate ratification."

For now, the conference's attendees will focus on drafting a bill to oppose permanent military bases in Iraq - a bill that avoids the loopholes of the appropriation act's provisions.

[Extra Stout]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Read General Butler's short book here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Smedley Butler also was the whistleblower on a plot by American tycoons to overthrow FDR's government and institute fascism in the United States.

These tycoons were folks like the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Mellons, the Chases, the Johnsons, etc.

[BradLohaus]

Smedley Butler also was the whistleblower on a plot by American tycoons to overthrow FDR's government and institute fascism in the United States.

These tycoons were folks like the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Mellons, the Chases, the Johnsons, etc.

Yeah I had never heard of him until you mentioned that a few months ago - thanks. I think Prescott Bush may have been involved as well.

I wonder why we weren't taught about General Butler in our high school U.S. history classes. :lol

Seriously though, he was the most highly decorated Marine in U.S. history at the time of his death.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

boutons it is well known fact that through sheer genius and devastatingly cunning tactics Dubya has already established the precedent that he can do whatever the fuck he wants, in whatever situation he wants, irregardless of anything previous to his administration (U.N. Charter, International Laws, U.S. Constitution, etc)

Each and every one of us should be ashamed that we breathe the same air and share the same country as people so incredibly stupid that they see no wrong in stuff like this, only "progress" in the "war".