Report: Bush Administration Negotiating ‘Secret Plan’ To Keep Troops In Iraq ‘Indefinitely’
Report: Bush Administration Negotiating ‘Secret Plan’ To Keep Troops In Iraq ‘Indefinitely’
Today, the UK Independent has a troubling report on a “secret plan” for U.S. occupation in Iraq allegedly being pushed by the Bush administration:
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.
This strategic framework seems even stronger than one reported by UK Guardian in April, which was described as “temporary” and said that the United States “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq.”
Perhaps reflecting growing concern over the new plan, Iraqi government officials have said that they will miss a July target for negotiating an agreement on future relations with the United States. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) has also released a letter from 31 Iraqi legislators saying that they oppose a long-term security agreement “if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.” Yesterday, Iraqi parliament member Nadeem al-Jaberi testified to the House that the U.S. occupation is highly unpopular with the public:
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): What percent of the Iraqi people would agree with us leaving under those circumstances? [...]
AL-JABERI: The majority of the people of Iraq are with the withdrawal. … Perhaps even about 70 percent. with approximately 70 percent of Iraqis favoring a withdrawal.
The Bush administration has repeatedly denied any interest in permanent bases, even blaming the misunderstanding on a sloppy Arabic translation. One Iraqi source interviewed by the Independent, however, replied, “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is also “believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh great, another “Secret Plan”. This wort in the white house had better not get the chance to put any more of their “Plans” into effect. We the People have seen quite enough of this administrations planning ability.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:21 amNone of this should surprise us or the rest of the world. BushCo has been very clear about this occupation from the beginning. When you build a fortress “embassy” bigger than some countries, you are NOT planning on leaving any time soon. It will look a bit like West Berlin during the Cold War when it was surrounded by high walls and the rest of the Communist East Germany.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:23 amBush Administration Negotiating ‘Secret Plan’ To Keep Troops In Iraq ‘Indefinitely’
– - Does the stealth technology extend to materiels and uniforms as well as military human beings, cuz otherwise I think the Iraqi people may be on to this scheme.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:24 amThe only resolution to this madness is the U.S. Congress. Since my senators are Kyl and McCain, I have no hope of a voice in overturning this proposed illegal occupation of another country.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:27 amWrite to you congressmen and get this on the front burner.
Nice to know the Iraqis are voting on this? How about us, in our Great Democracy?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:28 amWhich makes it sound like what Blackwater has in place right now!
It also sounds like Marshal Law, and maybe it could happen here in the US, too……..Oh, wait, it already does.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:29 amI’m very curious about this “mistranslation.” Far as I can tell, it’d be pretty difficult to confuse “security assurances” and “permanent bases”:
Security assurances – ?????? ?????
Permanent bases – ????? ?????
As any fool can plainly see, the words are not even remotely similar.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:29 amlol owned by Unicode:
Security assurances – ضمانات الأمن
June 5th, 2008 at 11:31 amPermanent bases – قواعد دائمة
There will be a special place reserved in the most inner circles of Hell for this President
June 5th, 2008 at 11:36 amIt was made very clear long ago that the U.S. would not be leaving Iraq until that pesky “oil revenue sharing law” was passed.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, about terrorism, spreading democracy, overthrowing a dictator, stabilizing the Iraqi government or whatever “arguement du jour”. It has always been about oil and securing American oil company interests (read: profits) in Iraq.
PEACE
June 5th, 2008 at 11:37 amAs a Native American, when Christopher Columbus landed and said that they were just there for ’security assurances’, how were we to know??
June 5th, 2008 at 11:38 amUS 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…
A permanent presence in Iraq has always been the plan, even if things had gone well after deposing Hussein. The whole point of the invasion was to create U.S. hegemony in the region.
Continued occupation will be destabilizing because authoritarians like Bush can’t comprehend that imposing your will on other people will always cause resentment and distrust. Close to 70% of both Iraqis and Americans want to end the occupation but Bush won’t even consider it because democratic principles such as the “will of the people” are utterly foreign to him.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 5th, 2008 at 11:38 amCongress, as well as the Iraqi parliament, should block any attempt for a “long-term” plan until this administration is out of office. If Bush and Maliki sign such an agreement, without agreement by both the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi Parliament, it should be considered non-binding and null and void after Jan. 20, 2009 as it would be ILLEGAL!
June 5th, 2008 at 11:39 amMaybe I’m a little confused, but doesn’t the shrub have to seek approval from Congress before he signs anything like this?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:41 amSummary: Bush wants to sacrifice even more troops just to ensure his legacy.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:46 amMy real fear about all this is that the administration will sign an agreement that removes military troops from Iraq but leaves a permanent mercenary force in Iraq. No doubt there are multiple loopholes in the Iraq laws that Jerry Bremer rubber-stamped that will allow Blackwater and others to have a permanent presence in the country, and complete immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:47 amThe only reason this is happening is because PELISO doesn’t have the balls to IMPEACH. She is complicit in this crime.
Pelosi and the Democrats will be held responsible for this and the attack on IRAN if they don’t stop it now.
The only way to stop these bastards is to IMPEACH them NOW!
Democrats – replace PAL-osi NOW before it’s too late to do ANYTHING about this.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:51 amWell, how else are we going to guarantee a limitless supply of oil for decades to come?
As long as oil tycoons run the USA, this is what we have to look forward to.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:52 amMr Maliki, meet Mr Rock and Miss Hard Place!
June 5th, 2008 at 11:57 amAlso don’t forget that the NeoCons need a permanent base to help defend the 51st State, Joe L’s Israel.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:57 amIggy, according to Cheney, we can all go fu(k ourselves, this is being done with an executive order.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:58 amjunior has all the negotiating power of a jellyfish, the vertical leap of a slug and the I.Q. of stuffed animal.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pmGet him the hell off the payroll now.
I don’t pay my taxes to fund a War Pig’s adventures.
Great point made on Prof. Juan Cole’s site today
“Former Iraqi finance minister Ali Allawi weighs in on the security agreement. He sets the current negotiations in the historical context of the humiliation Iraqis felt over the 1930 treaty imposed on them by the British Empire as it prepared to give Iraq nominal independence but retained bases and continued to intervene in Iraqi politics. Allawi is a voice of reason and wise US officials would pay special attention to what he has to say here.”
More here
June 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
Maybe I’m a little confused, but doesn’t the shrub have to seek approval from Congress before he signs anything like this?
Yes…he does, legally, have that obligation. However, he and some of his supporters have claimed it isn’t necessary. In addition, the Iraqi Constitution mandates that any such agreement much be approved by the Iraqi Parliament.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm“Iraqi legislators saying that they oppose a long-term security agreement “if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.”
Why are the Iraqis trying to legislate defeat?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI REALLY hope this was sarcasm!
June 5th, 2008 at 12:16 pmMan…
Well, I can’t imagine there is any arrangement made by Bush that Obama won’t be able to reverse. Bush has said this treaty is an “administrative arrangement” and so it doesn’t have to go through Congress. Hence, a new administration can scrap it.
Toasterhead, now we have the answer to what is behind the dispute between Maliki and the US. We have got to be smart enough to support him without forcing him to sign away his sovereignty. Maybe after January.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:16 pmLyingest administration ever is once again saying “trust me”.
Fat chance crocker.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pmCan’t Congress pass a pre-emptive law rendering any secret negotiations with Iraq not only null and void, but also illegal?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pmas per the usual bushco-bizzarro-world operation:
Crocker denied the claim today,
therefore it IS true…
saying “that the U.S. presence will not be forever”
therefore they WANT to be there forever…
and that “agreements will be public and free of any secret provisions.”
therefore they will TRY to keep the plans secret…
TRY…
thank you, UK Independent…
June 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pmMy #31 should’ve read….secret deals.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pmIt is long past the point that liberals wake up to the fact that this is what the savior of the Democratic party and the nation, Barack Obama, wishes to do, by his proposal to leave 80,000 troops in Iraq or in the region, even after his phased [not immediate] withdrawal of U.S. forces is finally completed. Not exactly the best way of supporting those troops, now is it? Yet one would be hard pressed to see anyone in the mainstream media point this out to the American people. Apparently the last thing that this middle of the road candidate wishes to seem to Americans is that he is anything but a politician who is still feeding from the trough of militarism.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pmThere will be a new Commander-in-chief in January 2009 and he will become the “Decider-in-chief” so any deal that the boy Bush negotiates now can be changed and probably will be changed. The US Government can change any agreement at any time. Just ask the Native Americans.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pmExit Stage Left Says:
——————————————————————————–
Can’t Congress pass a pre-emptive law rendering any secret negotiations with Iraq not only null and void, but also illegal?
You would think…and I suspect BOTH McCain and Obama would vote for it. Obama because he believed in it and McCain because he would have to or else have another Bush millstone hung around his neck.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pmtoasterhead said:
Who would be paying for the mercenary force, the tax payer? If that’s the case, Congress can stop signing the paycheck for the mercenaries and that will put an end to that.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pmGood thing Congress can modify or repeal such laws:
June 5th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Following up on Keltoi’s post, #28, just how would this deal be legally binding on the next Administration?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm#17- Hussein toasterhead
This is also what Obama is proposing, which is to leave a substantial number of mercenaries behind in Iraq even after his phased withdrawal has finally been completed. This will practically ensure that the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people will never be won over when they see American forces still on their soil. Like so many American politicians, Obama is unwilling to sever the knot of American militarism.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pmErrol, I am not doubting you, but do you have links to this plan of Obamas? I am a news junkie and I have never heard this mentioned in context of Obama before. All I hear is “I will get us out of Iraq.” If this is his actual plan and no one is reporting on it…well, you’d think the media was covering for him!
June 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pmLike so many American politicians, Obama is unwilling to sever the knot of American militarism.
And if we use Obama’s point of view in this, we must then begin the discussion by acknowledging Bush’s illegal invasion has brought us to this place.
That is always the missing point within these discussions: We have limited choices because the disaster in chief left us with so few. If the dimwit would have kept his codpiece dry, we wouldn’t have to grip about Obama’s limited choices.
This is Bush’s war, not Obama’s.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pmStratRat Says:
This is Bush’s war, not Obama’s.
Well, maybe, but it will be Obama’s to deal with, assuming he wins.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pmjust heard this story on the XM167 – AP radio news…
it wasn’t on the google news front page yet, but a quick search
(permanent bases, crocker) turned up 6 true hits, which quickly
auto-refreshed to maybe 100s… it’s picking up legs…
could it be? the SCLM is trying to do it’s job?
June 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pmErroll Says:
#17- Hussein toasterhead
This will practically ensure that the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people will never be won over when they see American forces still on their soil. Like so many American politicians, Obama is unwilling to sever the knot of American militarism.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
_______
I don’t think it’s a matter of “unwilling” as much as “unable.” Obama has sponsored legislation to regulate private military companies, though he has opposed the outright ban of them. As he has explained, the problem is that thanks to the BushCo “privatize everything” policy, we now don’t have the DipSec or military personnel to replace the contractors. It’s no more possible to immediately teleport all the contractors out of Iraq than it is to immediately teleport all the troops out of Iraq. They will need to be drawn down together in a gradual and timely process.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pmtoasterhead said:
My real fear about all this is that the administration will sign an agreement that removes military troops from Iraq but leaves a permanent mercenary force in Iraq.
maybe, but, you’d think if they knew they were going to have to
June 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pmLIVE there, they would’ve built them better…
not?
Breaking: Air Force Chief, Secretary Resign
In the halls of the Air Force’s chiefs, the talk has been largely about the threats posed by China and a resurgent Russia. Gates wanted the service to actually focus on the wars at hand, in Iraq and Afghanistan. “For much of the past year I’ve been trying to concentrate the minds and energies of the defense establishment on the current needs and current conflicts,” he told the Heritage Foundation. “In short, to ensure that all parts of the Defense Department are, in fact, at war.”
June 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pmI was watching ‘Iraq – 5 Years Later’ on CNN a couple of weeks back. The film footage showed Jerry Bremer arriving in Baghdad.
Guess who’s face was first on camera?…Gen. David Petreaus.
He was smiling ear to ear, vigorously shaking hands with politicians, & just kind of being a doormat.
Doormat. That kind of describes him, eh?
June 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pmC’mon folks – I cant stand Bush and don’t trust him, but there is no way that one President can create a policy that cannot be undone by the next one. This is just silly.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pmNotice how NONE of the US nutbag media have picked this up???
This could effect the U.S. for CENTURIES but NO, race horse story is more important…..
June 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pmI find that a comment that I have posted has been “moderated.” I have no idea why this would be since my comment was in no way vituperative. Nor did I engage in any ad hominem attacks against anyone. This procedure would seem to be what one would expect from a far right blog than from a progressive web site.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pmErroll Says:
I find that a comment that I have posted has been “moderated.” I have no idea why this would be since my comment was in no way vituperative. Nor did I engage in any ad hominem attacks against anyone. This procedure would seem to be what one would expect from a far right blog than from a progressive web site.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
______
That happens to all of us on occasion. Don’t take it personally…
June 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pmErroll Says:
——————————————————————————–
I find that a comment that I have posted has been “moderated.” I have no idea why this would be since my comment was in no way vituperative. Nor did I engage in any ad hominem attacks against anyone. This procedure would seem to be what one would expect from a far right blog than from a progressive web site.
Weird. Was it the link I requested?
June 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pmWhat! Bush&Co in “secret” deals? OMG there must be a terrible mistake — our American government would never do that! It’s not democratic!
Besides, “forever” is not the same as “indefinitely” in the Bush White House.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:51 pm#50 – Correct a policy can be undone, however, the harm cannot be undone and if bush/cheney have their way we will be destroying yet another country. How many years, how many lives, how much money will it take to undone what this administration has done ?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pmWhat does it take to keep a military force viable – FUEL,GASOLIINE,JET FUEL – you don’t have this and you don’t viable military period. This is why no one in the higher reaches of government (administration, congress – either party), have been yelling for removal (and those that did were quietly sent to the back of the room). When Obama makes President, my bet is we will keep forces there, to protect the oil, because he is likely not to have any choice.
Remember we have the biggest stick in town (by far and away), and we are not about to diminish that, especially with the economy about to tank world wide and all ills that will bring.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm#58-Bb says that Obama “… will keep forces there [in Iraq], to protect the oil…” I strongly suspect that move will not exactly win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, now will it? After all, it is not as if it is their country and their oil, now is it? Unless he is stating that Iraq has now become the 51st state of the United States.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pmupside99 Says:
——————————————————————————–
DigDug Says:
“Iraqi legislators saying that they oppose a long-term security agreement “if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.”
Why are the Iraqis trying to legislate defeat?
I REALLY hope this was sarcasm!
I was :)
June 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pmTypically the United States maintains a military presence in countries that it defeats in military conflict. Not sure why Iraq would be any different.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pmThere is time to impeach this thug.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:37 pmThe 104 Acre American Embassy tells the world that the United States will be in Iraq forever, and is a symbol of that Occupation seen daily by the Iraqi people.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:01 pmI’m just not so sure that this report has got it right because al-Maliki will go to Iran this month to consult with their top leaders regarding this security agreement and that is a clear indication that Iraq has grave reservations about the American proposal. Word has it that al-Maliki thinks he needs the Americans to prop up his administration so al-Maliki is looking for other ways to wean Iraq security away from the Americans and that apparently includes buying sophicated weapons from France so he can crush is political opposition. The problem here is what will Iran do should he go after the political opposition militas, hence the talks with Iran for a feel on how far he can go for now.
This region, thus, is far too complicated for this simplistic report, making me not trust its accuracy.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pm