Of course some are hopeful that with a new president – especially if a Democratic president – things will be better in Iraq and we can just all move along as though nothing ever happened. We may have some form of ‘truth and reconciliation’ of sorts and then move on to repair the damaged US economy. But that is not going to happen no matter who the president because actions are being done NOW that will impact the policies of any future president and that will literally tie his hands.
The US is still trying to coerce and pressure the Iraqi government to accept the unacceptable – a new colonization that would take all power away from the current ‘government’ which already lacks sovereignty over its own land. Not only that, but there are things and deals being done that may not be reversed in the near future except at great cost to either country: such as ‘mega’ bases being built [all 106 of them] and such as contracts that have long term implications. It is for this reason that we read a week ago that the US is holding some Iraqi oil money ‘hostage’ until Iraq succumbs to its demands for control over the oil. This prompted Maliki, even though a puppet government, to reject, to the best of his puppet ability, any such demands and attempt to reject what is called the SOFA negotiations [Status of Forces Agreement and a Strategic Framework Agreement - SFA].
Tom Dispatach [aka Tom Englehart] with his usual excellent analysis, wrote a very telling article on the matter with further clarification and he calls it a ‘land grab, American style]:
After all, these giant bases, rising from the smashed birthplace of Western civilization, were not only built on (and sometimes out of bits of) the ancient ruins of that land, but are functionally modern ziggurats. They are the cherished monuments of the Bush administration. Even though its spokespeople have regularly refused to use the word “permanent” in relation to them — in fact, in relation to any U.S. base on the planet — they have been built to long outlast the Bush administration itself. They were, in fact, clearly meant to be key garrisons of a Pax Americana in the Middle East for generations to come. And, not surprisingly, they reek of permanency. They are the unavoidable essence — unless, like most Americans, you don’t know they’re there — of Bush administration planning in Iraq. Without them, no discussion of Iraq policy in this country really makes sense. [link]
He also writes:
And let’s remember one more base, though it’s never called that: the massive imperial embassy, perhaps the biggest on the planet, being built, for nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars, on a nearly Vatican-sized 104-acre plot of land inside the Green Zone in Baghdad. It will be home to 1,000 “diplomats.” It will cost an estimated $1.2 billion a year just to operate. With its own electricity and water systems, its anti-missile defenses, recreation, “retail and shopping” areas, and “blast-resistant” work spaces, it is essentially a fortified citadel, a base inside the fortified American heart of the Iraq capital. Like the mega-bases, it emits an aura of American, not Iraqi, “sovereignty.” It, too, is being built “for the ages.” [my emphasis]
More significantly, Tom writes the following:
It couldn’t have been clearer just how little they cared for Iraqi sovereignty or pride when L. Paul Bremer III, George W. Bush’s personal representative and viceroy in Baghdad, before officially “returning sovereignty” to the Iraqis in June 2004, signed the infamous (though, in this country, little noted) Order 17. As the law of the land in Iraq, among other things, it ensured that all foreigners involved in the occupation project would be granted “freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq,” and neither their vessels, nor their vehicles, nor their aircraft would be “subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the [Iraqi] Government.” Nor in traveling would foreign diplomats, soldiers, consultants, security guards, or any of their vehicles, vessels, or planes be subject to “dues, tolls, or charges, including landing and parking fees,” and so on.
When it came to imports, including “controlled substances,” there were to be no customs fees or inspections, taxes, or much of anything else; nor was there to be the slightest charge for the use of Iraqi “headquarters, camps, and other premises” occupied, nor for the use of electricity, water, or other utilities. And all private contractors were to have total immunity from prosecution anywhere in the country. This was, of course, freedom as theft. Order 17 would have seemed familiar to any nineteenth century European colonialist. It granted what used to be termed “extraterritoriality” to Americans. Think of it as a giant get-out-of-jail-free card for an occupying nation. [my emphasis].
Tom calls the Bushies the ‘me generation on steroids’:
Think of them as “the me generation” on steroids, going global and imperial. Or give them credit for consistency. They’re mad dreamers who still can’t wake up, even when they find themselves in a roomful of smelling salts.
And what are the Iraqis doing?
The Sadrists are in the streets protesting the American presence and their leader has just called for a “new militia offensive” against U.S. forces. The pro-Iranian, but American-backed, Badrists are outraged. (“Is there sovereignty for Iraq — or isn’t there? If it is left to [the Bush administration], they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs.”) The Iranians are vehemently voting no. Opinion in the region, whether Shiite or Sunni, seems to be following suit.
