The status of forces agreement has been hailed as the end of the neocon dream in Iraq. If only that were true
A Great Comment and Highly Recommended Reading
Sami Ramadani
guardian.co.uk, Friday November 28 2008
"Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's "sovereign" parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the US. The one that has captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). The much more important pact, the strategic framework agreement (SFA), was slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy of it was not available even to the US congress......The pacts were nodded through after days of murky behind-the-scenes bargaining between the corrupt leaders of the pro-US sectarian factions within the government.....
The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the US militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less. And in case one is pleasantly surprised by the sentence in the Sofa stating that all US forces would withdraw by end of December 2011, reality takes a firm hold in an another sentence, this time in the all-embracing SFA pact, stating that the US would not seek or request a "permanent" military presence or bases in Iraq. It is the word "permanent" which lets the cat out of the bag. How long is non-permanent one wonders? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused?.....
If one considers that the SFA allows the US to "defend" Iraq in case its security is threatened by others, the celebrated clause that the US would not use Iraq to attack other countries becomes ridiculous when one considers that the US attacked and occupied Iraq itself illegally and by trumpeting a big lie. What would stop them concocting another big lie to attack Iran or Syria? Certainly not Sofa or SFA.....
A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly "request" and "invite" the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.
Nothing in the pacts contradict what Obama has said on Iraq. In my article in the Guardian on Obama, before his election, I argued that Obama wanted to keep US bases in Iraq and some "residual forces." I stand by my analysis there.
It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of "agreements" during its "legitimised" occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.....
My assessment is that that US strategy in Iraq is still being pursued, and is blessed by president-elect Obama. It is a strategy to:
• Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad.
• Support such a government by all means possible, including using US combat forces and keeping massive military bases.
• Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces to do the US bidding and replace the US forces in fighting against anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation, but it will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested and rejected by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships.
• Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law on Iraq. Exercising control over Middle Eastern oil remains a key US objective.
• Use Iraq to back US strategy in the Middle East: escalate the war in Afghnistan/Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and the powerful resistance in Lebanon.
One achievement of the Iraqi resistance was to force the US neocons to shelve plans to attack Iran, immediately after stabilising Iraq's occupation, and to force them to freeze further "shock and awe" wars against the region's peoples. While an attack on Iran should not be entirely discounted during Obama's time in office, Iran's cooperation over Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine will be the price it has to pay to avoid being attacked........"
A Great Comment and Highly Recommended Reading
Sami Ramadani
guardian.co.uk, Friday November 28 2008
"Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's "sovereign" parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the US. The one that has captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). The much more important pact, the strategic framework agreement (SFA), was slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy of it was not available even to the US congress......The pacts were nodded through after days of murky behind-the-scenes bargaining between the corrupt leaders of the pro-US sectarian factions within the government.....
The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the US militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less. And in case one is pleasantly surprised by the sentence in the Sofa stating that all US forces would withdraw by end of December 2011, reality takes a firm hold in an another sentence, this time in the all-embracing SFA pact, stating that the US would not seek or request a "permanent" military presence or bases in Iraq. It is the word "permanent" which lets the cat out of the bag. How long is non-permanent one wonders? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused?.....
If one considers that the SFA allows the US to "defend" Iraq in case its security is threatened by others, the celebrated clause that the US would not use Iraq to attack other countries becomes ridiculous when one considers that the US attacked and occupied Iraq itself illegally and by trumpeting a big lie. What would stop them concocting another big lie to attack Iran or Syria? Certainly not Sofa or SFA.....
A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly "request" and "invite" the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.
Nothing in the pacts contradict what Obama has said on Iraq. In my article in the Guardian on Obama, before his election, I argued that Obama wanted to keep US bases in Iraq and some "residual forces." I stand by my analysis there.
It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of "agreements" during its "legitimised" occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.....
My assessment is that that US strategy in Iraq is still being pursued, and is blessed by president-elect Obama. It is a strategy to:
• Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad.
• Support such a government by all means possible, including using US combat forces and keeping massive military bases.
• Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces to do the US bidding and replace the US forces in fighting against anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation, but it will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested and rejected by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships.
• Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law on Iraq. Exercising control over Middle Eastern oil remains a key US objective.
• Use Iraq to back US strategy in the Middle East: escalate the war in Afghnistan/Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and the powerful resistance in Lebanon.
One achievement of the Iraqi resistance was to force the US neocons to shelve plans to attack Iran, immediately after stabilising Iraq's occupation, and to force them to freeze further "shock and awe" wars against the region's peoples. While an attack on Iran should not be entirely discounted during Obama's time in office, Iran's cooperation over Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine will be the price it has to pay to avoid being attacked........"
No comments:
Post a Comment