Condo Rice made a statement yesterday saying the US has no plans for permanent bases in Iraq. Of course, we know she is a serial liar. We also know the US has already built permanent bases in Iraq....thats where our GI's are hunkered down most of the time. When Bush announced weeks ago that he was going to make a long term deal with the Iraq "government", I called for both Obama and Clinton to immediately announce they would be bound by no such agreement absent Congressional approval. (If the tables were turned of course, Bush wouldn't ever be bound by Congressional approval). Did either make a concrete statement? And today, both of them should tell this al-Rubaie guy to stuff it.
The embassy is the least of our troubles. If only that were the extent of the occupation and our costs.
The Iraqis better start understanding that their "calling" for withdrawals of our occupation force are not going to end anything. The US doesn't care what the colonists want.
McCain will never leave Iraq---100 years in Happy Safe Iraq. How much clearer can he be? Most of the "serious" foreign policy boyz think that the US military needs to remain in Iraq in some significant force for years, if not a decades, including the brass.
I frankly doubt that Iraq war enabler and "I didn't make no mistakes" Hillary will actually pull the troops out, either. And no one is calling for a "rapid" withdrawal as far as I can tell.
One might say: It's the oil, stupid. That's the only explanation for McCain's 100 years war comment, and unfortunately I think that this is what's behind the "elite" establishment thinking in America. And why we invaded.
As I say, the Iraqis better start getting a clue. Relying on the US electorate and failed American politics to return their country to them is a fool's game. They're floating on a Sea of Oil as global peak oil hits. And the greatest oil guzzling militarist nation on Earth is well aware of it, and thinks nothing of a policy of lies and resource aggression.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 12:55 PMal Rubaie is the same wart that took the cellphone pictures of Saddam's hanging, I believe.....he wears sharp suits but he'a a nobody...al Sadr will determine how long the US stays..he's the reason the surge appears to have some success...if he flips the US will have few options...imo.
Posted by Goyo at February 15, 2008 12:55 PMGoyo nails Mowaffaq al-Rubaie (al-Dawa, Bremer quisling, separatist).
That embassy is the Mahdi Army's future headquarters, if they want it.
sadr's various "truces" have permitted the MSM and American Right to declare "We're Winning!", whatever "winning" an occupation might mean.
I guess we need to ask the Israelis.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 01:26 PMal Rubaie wants US out so that Shia leadership in the current Iraqi government take over the country and declare it an islamic state on the lines of Iran. Bush knows that he made a complete mess in Iraq by removing sunni Saddam who was a force against shia Iran. Now Iran is flexing its muscles because they have an opportunity to control Iraq through its Shias and thus control a very large oil resource in the world.
It does not matter who is in the whitehouse, leaving Iraq to fall in the control of Iran is not going to be good for US. We are going to be there for years to come.
Posted by suresh at February 15, 2008 03:10 PMTurkana, I agree with you nearly 100%. A few observations/points of information:
Ar Rabae`i has always been one of the biggest American sycophants among the opportunists who road in clinging to their tanks, so I would not take anything he says at face value. There is a reason he is saying what he is saying, and it isn't because that is his sincere view.
If you listen carefully in detail to everything Hillary and Obama have said about their "withdrawal" plans, you will find that they would end up with a lot more than a few thousand troops to guard the Imperial Regional Command and Control Center - sorry, "embassy" - in Baghdad. Both have said they would begin withdrawing "combat troops" fairly soon (Hillary after 60 days), and withdraw them at the rate of one or two brigades per month throughout the rest of 2009. That would leave around 40,000-70,000 troops in Iraq at the end of 2009.
And now comes the really good stuff. Hillary believes the United States should continue its "military as well as political mission" in Iraq indefinitely. So, what the hell does that mean if not continuing the occupation at a level less visible, and therefore more tolerable to the American people (and, to the degree that it may be less intrusive in their lives, perhaps to many of the Iraqi people). To put it in a more accurate way, it means continuing the imperial project in Iraq.
She has named specifically some of the "missions" for which it would be necessary to keep troops in Iraq for an indefinite period. They include fending off Iranian influence (meaning keeping Iran from challenging U.S. dominance, a mission that would almost certainly involve some combat, and possible incursions into Iran), protecting the Kurdish minority (would inevitably involve combat, and in any case unnecessary), preventing a failed state (read using military violence or the threat of it to enforce U.S. political domination, could involve combat), supporting the Iraqi military (without doubt a combat role), and pursuing the "continuing mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq" (obviously combat, and unnecessary if the U.S. withdrew completely).
Here it is in her own words: “What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region – the ones that are going to remain for our anti-terrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.” If that's not a continuation of the occupation, then I have some lovely ocean front property in Baghdad that you will not want to pass up!
I have not seen Obama get this specific, but as he has moved pretty much in lockstep with Hillary on most other Iraq issues, you can bet it will be similar.
So, Bush doesn't need to make it difficult for them to withdraw, because they really do not intend to do so.
Posted by Shirin at February 15, 2008 08:28 PMObama publically opposed the Iraq war and is without question the candidate most likely to actually want to end (completely) the Iraq oil occupation. He is basically the only chance we have our ending this Bushco scourge of oil imperialism.
As Shirin demonstrates, the Clinton triangulation scheme involves talking (now) about immediate drawdowns while demanding a (later) permanent occupation for "security" reasons---in other words, the DC Imperial Establishment view, what a surprise.
Hillary is an author of (and subscriber to) the deeply disingenuous politics of Clintonism, DLCism and Triangulation, which the TLC community used to be able to acknowledge was a grievous mistake for our party and country. Not anymore, alas.
Posted by euzoius at February 16, 2008 06:27 AM"Obama publically opposed the Iraq war..."
And did not cast one single vote or introduce one single bill or amendment in opposition to its continuation. So, talk is very, very cheap. Why didn't he put his votes where his mouth was?
"and is without question the candidate most likely to actually want to end (completely) the Iraq oil occupation."
Evidence, not speculation, please.
"He is basically the only chance we have our ending this Bushco scourge of oil imperialism."
Have you asked yourself what he plans to do with the 100,000 troops he intends to add to the U.S. military if he plans to 1) withdraw fully from Iraq, and 2) end the age of American imperialist wars? There appears to be a disconnect here.
"As Shirin demonstrates, the Clinton triangulation scheme involves talking (now) about immediate drawdowns while demanding a (later) permanent occupation for "security" reasons---in other words, the DC Imperial Establishment view, what a surprise."
Nothing Obama has said is any different. He, too, intends to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq indefinitely.
They are two peas in a pod those too. There is not a significant difference between them in terms of foreign and military policy plans, except that Clinton has spoken openly about using nukes, and Obama has spoken openly about bombing the territory of a very fragile ally.
Posted by Shirin at February 16, 2008 09:22 AMObama has stated that he will begin withdrawing combat troops immediately and will "remove all combat troops within 16 months". Believe it or don't. That seems clear to me, but apparently isn't enough for you. It's the best we're gonna get is my point, and it's better than Hillary's vagueness and DLCism.
The call for additional troops in the "defense" budget is a crappy policy, but it may happen because both parties seem committed to it, based on the current exhaustion of forces. I question whether it will really be able to be accomplished, given the upcoming budget meltdown.
But there's no reason to see Obama as a committed imperialist based on his statements.
Posted by euzoius at February 16, 2008 12:09 PM"Obama has stated that he will begin withdrawing combat troops immediately and will "remove all combat troops within 16 months"."
Yes, and he has also said that large numbers of troops will have to remain "for an extended period" to fulfill certain specified missions. Among those missions include but are not limited to
1. "protecting logistical supply points". It should be unnecessary to point out that this role would be completely unnecessary if he were to do the right thing and withdraw ALL troops within 16 months, and, of course, "protecting logistical supply points" IS a combat role.
2. protecting "American enclaves like the Green Zone". Do I need to point out that "American enclaves" are part of the imperial project, that the Green Zone is the headquarters of the American imperial project in Iraq, and the fact that he plans to maintain that as well as other "American enclaves" is an enormous red flag? To put it concisely, if he planned to dismantle the American imperial project, the first thing he would do would be to dismantle all the "American enclaves".
3. "acting as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists." This is by definition a combat role. So, how is he going to simultaneously withdraw all combat troops and keep combat troops there to perform this and the other missions he has specified?
He (and you) can't have it both ways.
"Believe it or don't."
Oh, I believe what he has said. The difference is you may have started cheering a bit too soon and drowned out the rest of the story. Hillary has also made statements that sound as if she intends to withdraw completely, but when you put together everything she has said, you realize that there is no way she is going to.
"That seems clear to me, but apparently isn't enough for you."
The difference is that you don't have all the information you need to understand what he really intends to do.
"It's the best we're gonna get is my point, and it's better than Hillary's vagueness and DLCism.
First, Hillary has not been any more vague about Iraq than Obama has. In fact, if anything she has provided more complete and specific information. Second, there is not a significant difference between them when it comes to Iraq. In both cases we will see an indefinite continuation of the occupation and a continuation of combat, but at a level presumably reduced enough to be less visible, and therefore more tolerable to the American people, and, they hope, also to the Iraqi people. We will continue to see the United States trying to dominate Iraq politically and economically. And as for their pledge that there will be no permanent bases, where do you think they are going to house the 40,000-70,000 troops military analysts insist they will need to keep in Iraq? Does anyone seriously believe they are going to pull them out of the cushy permanent bases that are already there and make them live in tents in the desert?!
"The call for additional troops in the "defense" budget is a crappy policy, but it may happen because both parties seem committed to it, based on the current exhaustion of forces."
Look, the current exhaustion of forces requires replacement, not augmentation by adding 100,000 more.
But the important question to ask, and no one as far as I know as asked it so far, is why do they need to greatly increase the number of troops in the military. Some military analysts have pointed out that there is only one reason, and that is to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and to continue to increase the U.S. troop presence in foreign countries.
"I question whether it will really be able to be accomplished, given the upcoming budget meltdown."
Beside the point. The point is that they both intend to do it, and they both have reasons. That those reasons have nothing to do with defense is obvious when you consider how long it has been since the United States has used the military for defense.
"But there's no reason to see Obama as a committed imperialist based on his statements."
That is not what I said. What I said was that based on his statements there is every reason to believe that he will continue the American imperial project in Iraq.
Posted by Shirin at February 16, 2008 12:43 PMThat's not Obama's position as currently stated at his site or literature. It is Hillary's position, and you are committed to believing they both have the exact same position, so have it your way.
He has said there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. Again, it's fine to refuse to believe him, and I can't "prove" anything about the future. And yes, with no massive bases, substantial numbers of US troops will not be able to continue their occupation. They won't be living in tents.
Every US embassy on earth has troops on the compound, defending the embassy. If all we end up arguing over is the troops sitting in the embassy and green zone, then that will be a huge victory.
Endless calls for ever more troops are a standard practice in our hyper-militarist country, the Prussia of the 21st century. All part of the ordinary pot boiling of America. This is a military empire after all, and no one person is going to be able to change that.
We have almost no politician in America who calls for substantial, sustained reduction in the size and expense of the US military, you are well aware of that. If you think that the bloated US military will be more dangerous to the world under anti-Iraq war, Iran diplomacy Obama than blanket AUMF-loving, Kyl-Lieberman cheering Team Clinton, again that's a judgement you'll have to make.
In our crappy politics of bellicose militarism with a vicious conservative right wing and corporate controlled press, one votes for chances, not certainties. If you see them as two peas in a pod on foreign policy, then I guess there's no point in playing the game, or trying to read the tea leaves.
Posted by euzoius at February 17, 2008 08:03 AMEvery US embassy on earth has troops on the compound, defending the embassy.
this is the largest embassy in the world. it will cost us well over a billion dollars a year to maintain. it is a military base. anyone claiming we can end the occupation and keep the "embassy" is not being honest.
Endless calls for ever more troops are a standard practice in our hyper-militarist country, the Prussia of the 21st century. All part of the ordinary pot boiling of America. This is a military empire after all, and no one person is going to be able to change that.
thank you. no wonder obama isn't change i can believe in. maybe it's why campaign rhetoric doesn't impress me.
In our crappy politics of bellicose militarism with a vicious conservative right wing and corporate controlled press, one votes for chances, not certainties.
i vote for pragmatics, not pretty words.
"That's not Obama's position as currently stated at his site or literature."
Pardon me, but Obama's or Hillary's official P.R. literature is the correct place to see what their P.R. teams are putting out to beguile the voters. It is not the place to see what their full and true positions are.
It is, in fact, his stated position IN HIS OWN WORDS as he put it in interviews, in debates, and in public discussions. The words I placed in quote are his own words, not mine.
"It is Hillary's position..."
No, actually Hillary's position is a bit different. She has, in fact, been more specific than he has. If anything, I dislike her position more than I dislike his, but in fact I dislike both of them enough that I don't plan to vote for either one, and voted for Edwards in the primary, even though he had already withdrawn.
"you are committed to believing they both have the exact same position, so have it your way."
I am committed to nothing of the sort. I wish like hell that they were not so similar. I wish like hell that I could feel comfortable about the position of one of them or the other. Unfortunately, based on what they themselves have stated, I cannot.
"He has said there will be no permanent bases in Iraq."
And so has Hillary, and yet they both have also said that they will need to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely to do this and that and this and that, which, when you add it all up and factor in the timing and their stated withdrawal rates of one to two brigades a month, comes, according to military experts, to their keeping somewhere in the area of 50,000 troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. And based on the missions which each has specified for those troops, they will be keeping then there mainly for combat, or combat-related purposes.
Both of them, in fact, have said that they expect to still have a significant force of troops in Iraq through 2013 and beyond. Now, you tell me. Are they going to move those tens of thousands of troops out of the cushy permanent military bases that George Bush built for them there, and make them live in tents in the desert?
"Again, it's fine to refuse to believe him, and I can't "prove" anything about the future."
Oh, I don't refuse to believe him any more than I refuse to believe Hillary. I absolutely DO believe both of them based on the totality of their statements, and the totality of their statements add up to tens of thousands of troops remaining in Iraq in largely combat, or potential combat roles for the foreseeable future.
"And yes, with no massive bases, substantial numbers of US troops will not be able to continue their occupation. They won't be living in tents."
I am not clear what you are talking about when you say "with no massive bases". Surely you are aware that the massive, and cushily appointed bases are already there, and are largely completed. They have been building them for the last five years. They exist, complete with all the amenities you can expect to find in American towns, including gyms, miniature golf courses, cinema theaters, American fast food chains, and even in at least one of them, a car dealership!
"Every US embassy on earth has troops on the compound, defending the embassy."
No US embassy on earth is even remotely like the so-called "embassy" (in reality an imperial command and control center) in Baghdad. Embassies are not huge, self-contained American-cities-within-compounds completely cut off from the country in which they serve. And for god's sake, embassies do not need their own missile defense systems, and in fact they do not need to be defended. At most a few hundred troops are required to guard an embassy, not thousands of them to "defend" it. Furthermore, Obama did not speak of needing troops for the embassy, he spoke of troops needed to defend the Green Zone - the entire Green Zone - of which the "embassy" is only one small part. And he also spoke about "American enclaves" in general.
Let me tell you something. One of our neighbors in Baghdad was an employee of the American embassy and his family. They lived next door to us on the right. They were the only non-Iraq family on our street or in our neighborhood. They used the same water supply we did. They used the same electrical source we did. Their phones were on the same phone system ours was. True, they had access to a commissary where they could buy American food products, but their cook bought the meat and vegetables and fruits and rice and other things they ate from the same markets we bought ours. When they moved into the house they had a little girl of about three years, and the wife was pregnant. She gave birth to their son at the same private maternity hospital used by our family, attended by Iraq doctors, midwives, and nurses. They could have lived closer to the embassy in an "American neighborhood" that was not a walled compound of any kind, but was just an area where a lot of expats lived. Instead they chose to live in an Iraqi neighborhood, which they were free to do.
I have been in quite a few embassies throughout the world, American, and otherwise, including numerous times the American embassy in Baghdad, and the American embassy in Tehran. Nowhere in the world is there an embassy like what they are now jokingly calling an embassy in Baghdad.
"If all we end up arguing over is the troops sitting in the embassy and green zone, then that will be a huge victory."
You could call that a major improvement, but not a victory. As long as that Imperial Command and Control Center is operational, and as long as there are "American enclaves" that need to be defended, there will be no victory.
"This is a military empire after all, and no one person is going to be able to change that."
Nice attempt to rationalize Obama's (and Hillary's) plans to continue to enlarge the military. And what would be their purpose, if not to continue to maintain and build the empire, which is exactly what I have been saying that they will do.
"We have almost no politician in America who calls for substantial, sustained reduction in the size and expense of the US military..."
Beside the point. The point is that we have two presidential candidates, both Democrats, who are calling for a major increase in the military. The critical question that no one is asking them is what they think they need this greatly enlarged military for.
"If you think that the bloated US military will be more dangerous to the world under anti-Iraq war, Iran diplomacy Obama than blanket AUMF-loving, Kyl-Lieberman cheering Team Clinton, again that's a judgement you'll have to make."
Have you forgotten that Obama, while making noises about diplomacy, has also stated that attacking Iran "to bring them into line" is a open option for him (and "into line" with what? Iran has done nothing it does not have every right to do, nor has it ever in all its history, attacked another country. The "Iran crisis" is manufactured exactly as the "Iraq crisis" was, and for exactly the same reason. So why is Obama buying into it so readily?)? And have you forgotten, also, his outrageous statement that he would attack Pakistan, a very, very fragile, potentially very dangerous ALLY if Musharraf (whose approval rating is down to about half of what Bush's is!) does not comply with his wishes?
And let's take a good look at Obama's actual record on Iraq as opposed to his talk about it. He has never seen an Iraq spending bill that he did not like. He has refused to vote for anything that involved any kind of commitment to a withdrawal timetable. Furthermore, his own history of statements on Iraq are far more equivocal than he would have people believe. He has stated repeatedly that he might, in fact, have voted for the AUMF had he been in the Senate at the time, and on at least one occasion he has said that his position on Iraq was pretty much identital to Bush's.
Sorry, but Obama doesn't come across any better than Hillary does as an anti-war candidate.
"In our crappy politics of bellicose militarism with a vicious conservative right wing and corporate controlled press, one votes for chances, not certainties."
No denying that, and based on the totality of the available information, I see the chances with either Hillary or Obama are, when it comes to Iraq in particular, and foreign and military policy in general, to be about the same, and neither looks good to me.
"If you see them as two peas in a pod on foreign policy, then I guess there's no point in playing the game, or trying to read the tea leaves."
I'm trying to avoid the tea leaves approach by being as fully and comprehensively informed as I can be.
I'm considering writing in Kucinich, or possibly Edwards.
Posted by Shirin at February 17, 2008 04:21 PM