By
Aditya Ganapathiraju
June 23, 2008
The details of a “security pact” between the Bush administration and Iraq were recently leaked to the British press, revealing new heights of cynicism by Washington, D.C.
If Americans knew the full details of this agreement, “they might be shocked at its provisions, ashamed about its naked sadism,” wrote Gary Leupp, a professor at Tufts University, in an article in Dissident Voice.
The proposed agreement will grant the United States the right to occupy Iraq with more than 55 permanent military bases, conduct operations within Iraq and use it as a base to launch attacks outside their country without approval, arrest and detain any Iraqi without consultation, extend immunity for U.S. troops from Iraqi law, control Iraqi airspace and more, according to an article by Patrick Cockburn in The Independent.
Can you imagine if Russia or China had launched an aggressive invasion against the United States-occupied our country for the last five years, leading to the deaths of more than a million of our citizens, the creation of more than 2 million refugees and millions of internally-displaced people, and then if they wanted us to submit to a humiliating agreement like this one?
What nation of self-respecting people would ever agree to such an outrageous pact? Leupp asked.
But in the end, Iraqi leaders might be “pressured” into the deal by the $50 billion of Iraq’s money that the United States is “holding hostage” in the Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y. from the lethal sanctions regime of the 90’s, wrote Cockburn.
The powerful Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called for weekly demonstrations, asking his many followers to demand that this security pact be put on a nationwide referendum. His opposition is echoed by most other Iraqi clerics and parliamentary leaders, not to mention the overwhelming majority of Iraqis opposed to a permanent occupation.
Of course, Washington, D.C. is “adamantly” opposed to such a referendum, “suspecting that it would be voted down,” wrote Cockburn.
Looks like another victory for democracy. We should put this latest insult to Iraq’s injuries in context:
“The American occupation has been more disastrous than that of the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the thirteenth century,” journalist Nir Rosen wrote in Current History. “Iraq has been killed, never to rise again.”
Two years ago, Iraq veteran Kevin Tillman, brother of fallen Army Ranger Pat Tillman, observed on www.truthdig.com that “somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.”
4 Comments
#1 Ryan J.
on June 24, 2008 at 10:06 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Grow up, this is the world we live in. We have to have bases in the middle-east and this is a perfect place to have the ability to launch counter attacks against terrorist and terrorist friendly nations. I do not get how people can just tell the military to leave, and do what? Let Iraq tear it self apart AGAIN? Then in about 5 years, crazy liberals will scream for the violence to stop in Iraq and want the government to do something about it, which is an ironic slap in the face. The situation is dangerous, but we have to stay in Iraq, for as long as possible. An established democracy in an area not friendly to democracy has been proven through political science to eventually lead to democratic ideals and political freedom. Give it time, people die in war, deal with it, support their families. We have national interests in the area: OIL. Do not give me that bull shit about we should not care about oil because that is just imcompetent. Your argument about Russia or China invading is laughable, atleast use something realistic like Israeli, where we have fudamental ties.
And for real?, what self-respecting people of this nation would allow the passage of this act? I could give you a couple of states that would. What you don't get is that Iraq was complete shit, what did we destroy? Culture? Who gives a shit about that in the grand scheme of things. If you want to base your international agenda on preserving a countries culture, you might as well be France (pussies).
Last but not least, stop talking shit about my country, to call the president of the United States, "imcompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious, and criminal" should get you shot in most countries. Have alittle respect, all you are doing, if you are American is talking shit about yourself. Being the world power, and the single world power mind you, people won't like you, what we don't need is people from within degrading our attempts at preserving national interests and world peace.
#2 Aditya G.
on June 25, 2008 at 9:47 p.m.(Kenmore, WA)
Ryan,
In response to your letter, yes there are a "people" telling the military to
leave,a few of them. Namely, the overwhelming majority of the American public, retired military leaders like outed CENTCOM
commander Admiral Fallon who wanted a rapid draw down of troops from Iraq, or General Sir Michael Rose, former commander of the British Army's SAS, who has said the US should withdraw immediately, the countless government officials who resigned in protest like Colonel Ann Wright, former CIA officials like 29-year analyst Ray McGovern, Middle East case officer Philip Giraldi, and countless others. But what do they know? After all, we only have one Decider and we all need to shut our mouths and do what he says, right?
In regards to terrorism, it is widely known in policy circles the invasion of Iraq has INCREASED the threat of a terrorist attack. Terrorism analyst Peter Bergen and Paul Crukshank have documented a 700% increase in worldwide terrorist attacks since the 2003 invasion. Moreover, on the eve of the invasion, the head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA Michael Scheuer warned officials in the administration repeatedly but to no avail that the Iraq invasion would "break the back" of their counterterrorism efforts. And it has. You can read more about his analysis in his book "Imperial Hubris," in which he calls Bush "bin Laden's indispensable ally."
You wrote, " The situation is dangerous,
> but we have to stay in Iraq, for as long as possible. An established
> democracy in an area not friendly to democracy has been proven through
> political science to eventually lead to democratic ideals and political
> freedom. Give it time, people die in war, deal with it, support their
> families."
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the administration's
motivating factors and the effects that this war will have. Also interesting is you claim that 'political science' has 'proven' democracy in an area will lead to political freedom. If Iraq were to have a functioning democracy, it would have a Shia majority aligned closely with Iran, again your goal I presume.In 2006, the Hamas faction won in the Palestinian Territory, this I assume is ok by you then, as it was a free election.
One of those reasons Bin Laden declared in his 1998 fatwa was the occupation of their holy land in Saudi Arabia by tends of thousands of US troops. What kind of effect do you think a permanent occupation of
hundreds of thousands of US of Western troops in the Middle East will have? Do you honestly think this will decrease terrorism? As Scheuer and others have concluded, two of Al Qaeda's main strategies against the US is the "bleed to bankruptcy" tactic and stretching America's resources so thin across the world that she will be vulnerable at home. In light of these sentiments taken straight from Al Qaeda readings and releases, Scheuer's title of "indispensable ally" seems quite fitting.
#3 Aditya G.
on June 25, 2008 at 9:54 p.m.(Kenmore, WA)
I'm also glad to see that you so openly recognize that oil is a
primary motivating factor and appreciate your honesty in advocating
the use of large-scale state violence to acquire those ends. I can
only presume that you are currently serving in some capacity to
further the efforts of the 2% of this country that will gain most
heavily in terms of profits from access to that oil, or, that you will
enlist in the armed services and stand ready to give your life or limb and/or leave a
traumatized family behind as a means to those same ends.
As for your "People die in war" comment-- you are correct here, people
most certainly do die in war, in this case a war we initiated, and
moreover a war of aggression, which, as Supreme Court Justice Robert
Jackson said at Nuremberg is the "supreme international war crime." By
most credible estimates, over one million Iraqi deaths have resulted
from the invasion and occupation. There are two to 5 million refugees
in neighboring countries. Where you think the orphans, the brothers,
the cousins, and those affected by the war will be in 10 years, the Peace Corps? Do you think they will just forget? Would you ever forget if a foreign country invaded us and
killed someone that you knew, someone in your family? Wouldn't you
spend the rest of your life seeking vengeance? Can
you imagine how many new bin Laden's there are in the world as a
result of this war?
Ultimately, I don't think rational arguments will make a difference to
you judging by your notion that "people," presumably me, should get
shot for criticizing the president. It's distressing to find such authoritarian thinking so subservient to and uncritical of power outside of totalitarian governments. In North Korea, people (whom we laud as freedom fighters)are indeed shot for criticizing Dear Leader, so I assume that this is the model you would hope to see instituted here judging by your words. I do find it alarming nonetheless that you would advocate the death of not only me but of Mr. Tillman, a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq with the Rangers, who lost his brother in Afghanistan for expressing his First Amendment right.
Besides, our noble and benevolent "attempts at preserving national interests and world peace" presumably means that people like me and anyone else who might share in my criticism need to shut the hell up and follow the leader, correct? After All, that's what democracy means. You do what you're told and you listen to your leaders. Otherwise, you can just leave and go France, Right? That's how democracy is supposed to work, right?
Aditya
#4 Bruce
on December 14, 2008 at 8:02 p.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
We invaded Japan in 1945 and we still have bases there. Also Germany. That seem to have worked. Both still a democracy.
I went to Iraq, 2 tours. Afghanistan one tour. Most Iraqis and Afghans were glad we were there and do not want us to leave. Our complete departure would throw the whole region into turmoil and wars beyond our belief.
These people have been killing each other for milliniums and only join together when they are killing others. They are uncivilizied and barbaric. It will take a long time to see a change in these ways. They have acuumulated vast wealth but have not matured to a level that is acceptable to modern civil standards. If we are to have a future that includes a rich arab world we need them to become stable. We need them to respect other culutures and religions. Right now they are capable of killing mass qantities of their on people. Someday they will be able to kill many more. We need a change there before that happens. A change that is less self destructive and more responsible to the rest of humanity.
To have an opinion thats valid you need first to go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia Iran and Turkey. I have been there. You need to talk with the masses first hand to understand their anger, frustration, hopes, dreams and extemeism. Then you can better form an opinion not influenced by the ignorance of those who do not know what these people are about. By those that form opinions from the reports gleened from a point under the media microscope.
For the most part these people of the middle east are honest simple people who work hard and want a future for themselves and their children as we do. Unfortunely most of those people are not the people running things.
In our world salvation sometimes shows up wearing a gun.
Post a comment