Home

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

1 Comment

To: Hon. Jack Layton; Rt Hon. Stephen Harper;  L’Hon. Gilles Duceppe;

Hon.Stéphane Dion

 

Sent: 5 June 2008 12:40

Subject: Canada’s position is?

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

 

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

 

By Patrick Cockburn

Thursday, 5 June 2008

 

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 destabilize 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 de-legitimize 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.

 

Mr. Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

 

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

 

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

 

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi

sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

 

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

 

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

 

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favor a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

 

 

CANADIAN ACTION PARTY/PARTI ACTION CANADIENNE

LEADER, CONSTANCE (Connie) FOGAL

www.canadianactionparty.ca

Telephone Connie Fogal at: 604 872 2128

 

Five Reasons We can’t Win the War in Iraq.

Leave a comment

 April 20, 2008 – First released: March 4, 2006

Five reasons we can’t win the war in Iraq
by Leslie Davis and other sources

1.
Iraq is a guerrilla war, yet for political purposes we are discouraged from calling it a guerrilla war, so the guerrillas are called “terrorists, criminals insurgents, and dead-enders.” By the way, an insurgent is a synonym for a guerrilla. There are few effective tools to fight a guerrilla war. You can’t defeat a guerrilla army by trying to destroy every man since he hides by day amongst the populace. Rather, in a guerrilla war the objective should be to erode or destroy his base of support. As long as there is support in the populace for the guerrilla, two will rise up to replace every one you kill. When precision guided bombs, raids, and other destructive acts are used, it creates casualties among the innocent populace, increases support for the guerrillas and undermines support for us. A 500 pound bomb has a killing radius of 1,300 feet (1/4 mile). Think about what happens to your credibility when you drop huge bombs on populated areas. Everyone hates you.

2. We have no idea what motivates the average Iraqi. American leaders went to war in Iraq with a fantasy that the natives would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, and be eternally grateful for our attack on their country. At one time there may have been support and respect from the locals, but months of occupation by our military have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile. Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are futile; it is not politically correct to point out that the locals dislike us more and more, and they are growing increasingly upset and overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the real reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, politicians feed us canned reasons that do not reflect reality. We are told that the locals are not upset that a hostile, aggressive American army is occupying their country. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of our picking their government representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst made them upset.

3. The guerrillas fill their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerrilla warfare, especially when your tactics are aimed at killing guerrillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerrilla we kill with a “smart bomb” we kill and maim many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the guerrillas and less support for us. We have fallen victim to the body count mentality. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate into more recruits and more support for the guerrilla army.

4. The guerrilla lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We import everything we need; this costs lots of money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bullet and bandage becomes infinitely more expensive. Conversely, the guerrillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing very sophisticated networks for obtaining them. Further, they have the additional advantage of close support from family, friends and traditional religious networks.

5. We have consistently underestimated our opponents (a.k.a. the enemy) and his capabilities. We did it in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, and we are doing it in Iraq, Colombia and elsewhere. Our military leaders are not prepared to fight the type of guerrilla war we are facing in Iraq, and they are squandering the lives of our noble, honorable and valuable soldiers. Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind. Meanwhile the enemy has updated his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Respectfully submitted in honor of our military.

Leslie Davis
U.S. Army veteran, businessman, 
candidate for Governor of Minnesota and
president of the Earth Protectors.
Leslie@EarthProtector.org
www.EarthProtector.org
www.LeslieDavis.com

 

%d bloggers like this: