Jenny’s Pennies

In the light of the Condoleezza Rice interview discussed in this post, this becomes even more … no I’m at loss for words.
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.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

This is their desired end state!? Permanent occupation, more political sectarian violence, more money being spent on the occupation, more soldiers sent to Iraq (how many people do you need to man 50 bases?), more people killed on all sides? That is a victory?
How is permanent occupation a victory? How is forcing a puppet government into signing a contract which means their subjugation to the foreign occupier a victory? How is a a less stable Iraq - which a deal like this will inevitably lead to - a victory? How is something which will make the United States less safe a victory (remember that one of the reasons stated for the 9/11 attacks was the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia). How would this end the war?

(Really, I’m not as surprised as it may seem. I knew, like all sane people, that the war wasn’t about peace and liberty and justice for all.)

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pm and is filed under Middle East, Politics, The "war on terrorism", USA, War and military. 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.