A few nights ago, Gwen Ifill noted, on the News Hour, that the US and the Iraqi government were at loggerheads in a contentious negotiation over a continuing security arrangement, but she did not elaborate.
That's odd, I thought -- I wonder what they could possibly be disagreeing about? It was just one sentence, but contentious negotiations seem to indicate that one side wants something the other side doesn't.
The Bush Administration continues to maintain publicly that there are no permanent American bases in Iraq and that they have no plans for permanent bases in Iraq -- even as we've constructed fourteen permanent bases, and a sprawling, fortress-like "Embassy" compound that is larger than Vatican City.
But the Independent UK reports that the Bush Administration is trying to force the Iraqis to accept a permanent security arrangement that establishes fifty permanent US bases, gives the US control over Iraq's airspace, and indemnifies all US personnel -- including private contractors -- from any legal repercussion for their actions in the country.
Call it the Blackwater State.
You could also call it "permanent occupation."
It's reminiscent of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the US has overrun England and turned it into Airstrip One, a launching-off point for air strikes against its continental foes, Eurasia (Russia) and Eastasia (China) ... against which it competes for the resources of the Middle East. It's also a brutal totalitarian state.
Iraq essentially becomes America's base in the Middle East, a bulwark against Iran (a job we used to pay Saddam Hussein to do), and of course, to protect the oil.
Er, that is, to fight the terrorists.
You know, the ones CIA Chief Michael Hayden said last week were pretty much defeated -- in Iraq, as well as next door in Saudi Arabia.
(But who knows how much merit to give Hayden's claims? He made them the day after Scott McClellan's book confirmed that the Administration was waging a massive propaganda campaign against the American people to maintain support for the war in Iraq).
Speaking of Scott McClellan, he's the guy who confirmed that Bush's core intention in Iraq was to do what his Dad failed to do: win a second term.
Bush is working overtime to ramrod this permanent security arrangement -- against the will of the Congress, and to tie the hands of the next President -- to cement his own legacy, and as part of the permanent campaign McClellan writes about -- this time designed to ensure the election of his handpicked successor, "Hundred Years" McCain.
The thing is, the Iraqis don't want this deal.
That said, they do want US protection -- just not that much protection.
To re-cap:
The Iraqi government doesn't want this deal.
The Iraqi people don't want this deal.
The American Congress doesn't want this deal.
The American people don't want this deal.
And we know what that means in Bushworld.
0 comments:
Post a Comment