MATTHEWGOODONLINE

There are two definitions of - getting out of Iraq.

The first is the more obvious, that the United States should withdraw their forces from the country. The second is far less obvious, that by way of an accord currently being pushed by the Bush Administration the United States would establish a permanent presence in the country through which American personnel would remain beyond Iraqi law, have the authority to conduct military operations, and continue to be able to detain Iraqis without domestic interference.

How does that relate to a definition of getting out of Iraq? In short – it gets President Bush out of Iraq and puts in place legislation that would hamper Democratic promises to withdraw forces. In effect, at least in the warped minds of those currently inhabiting the White House, it would vindicate the President and turn the invasion and subsequent occupation into a success.

More from The Independent…

“A secret deal 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.”

The reality is that the United States has planned to occupy some fourteen permanent military bases in Iraq for some time, as has been mentioned in the past by numerous prominent foreign policy experts, among them Chalmers Johnson.

As Gwynne Dyer rightly pointed out some time ago, America’s adventure in Iraq has far more to do with establishing a permanent US military footprint in the region, one that is not dependant on the whims of foreign governments, such as the Saudis. The closure of US bases in Saudi Arabia has most certainly led to the need for permanent US military instillations in Iraq to be instituted. Given the rhetoric being employed by the current administration with regards to Iran, the institution of permanent US bases make sense to those who believe that confronting Iran with force is an inevitability, among them those that represent the Israeli lobby in Washington.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.