White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence

[solvs]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004772.php

-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.
Please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it does.

[Blue Velvet]

Please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it does.

You don't think that huge bunker in Baghdad that purports to be an embassy was merely to cosset diplomats? Strategic presence for the foreseeable future, neatly slap-bang in the middle of some of the most valuable assets known to humanity, with the ability to militarily influence Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Turkey, protect the Straits of Hormuz, and not forgetting flanking forces in Afghanistan.

No wonder the Russians are getting antsy about the Caspian Sea states. Permanent interests, not permanent friends.

[Marble]

And they say imperialism is dead.

[toontra]

I can't get beyond the thread title on this one. To combine the notion of "principles" with the US invasion, occupation and subjugation of Iraq is beyond a joke.

[bartelby]

Hands up who DIDN'T see this coming...


I love the title on the Whitehouse site:

U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation

[pseudobrit]

Obviously a sign of how much winning we're doing. Maybe there's time yet to win even more in other Middle Eastern territories.

[leekohler]

As most of us suspected, this was always the plan. A permanent presence means cheap oil for a very long time. Unbelievable.

[pseudobrit]

A permanent presence means cheap oil for a very long time.

Cheap ain't the idea. Making a profit off of it is, and $100/bbl works quite well for that notion. It's just about who's making the profit.

[leekohler]

Cheap ain't the idea. Making a profit off of it is, and $100/bbl works quite well for that notion. It's just about who's making the profit.

That too. This has been so transparent for anyone who was paying attention since the beginning. I hope the pro war crowd is pleased with themselves.

[SMM]

That too. This has been so transparent for anyone who was paying attention since the beginning. I'm hope the pro war crowd is pleased with themselves.

Lee, of the many problems is, al-Maliki is not able to guarantee his part of the bargain. Without a deal like this, many were speculating the man's days were numbered. We really do not care who is in there, as long as he is able to stabilize things and get the oil moving. By signing this action, we have legitimized him as the 'grand pubah'. That has the potential for disaster written all over it.

[Swarmlord]

As most of us suspected, this was always the plan. A permanent presence means cheap oil for a very long time. Unbelievable.

I'll believe it when I see oil start flowing in from there. They owe us a couple billions worth.

[leekohler]

I'll believe it when I see oil start flowing in from there. They owe us a couple billions worth.

They do? Really? Can you please tell me why? Did they ask us to invade their country? I'd say they don't owe us one damn thing.

[Swarmlord]

They do? Really? Can you please tell me why? Did they ask us to invade their country? I'd say they don't owe us one damn thing.

Every violation of the 17 UN resolutions against Sadaam was an "invade me now" invitation.

[leekohler]

Every violation of the 17 UN resolutions against Sadaam was an "invade me now" invitation.

Hmm...have we never violated UN resolutions? Maybe someone should invade us.

You keep trotting out that tired excuse when you know it holds no water. Iraq was no threat to anyone and you know it.

[iTwitch]

I'll believe it when I see oil start flowing in from there. They owe us a couple billions worth.

That was one expensive **** sandwich they ordered.:rolleyes:

[Thanatoast]

Hands up who DIDN'T see this coming...


I love the title on the Whitehouse site: U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation


Was that tidbit released by MiniPax?

To leekohler: MiniTruth has noted your ungood statements and general disdain for Big Brother, I mean, Fearless Leader, no wait, the Unitary Executive and will be contacting you regarding re-education shortly.

To Swarmlord (for serious): Our decision to invade based on Saddam's "invitation" has cost the US $800 billion and rising, 3500 soldiers' lives, a un-broken army, the world's respect, our influence in matters of state, and held forth the theory that "might makes right" - to much ridicule, regarding our "success".

That's not counting what our invasion has so far cost Iraq in terms of lives, infrastructure and civil society.

Has it been worth it? Did we get what we wanted? Did we get what we wanted for the Iraqis? Do we even know what we wanted? It seems our leaders wanted Saddam's head on a pike, and they got it. Now we're ending up paying for all the **** that came down with that decision, **** that our leaders weren't bothered to think about before making their decision. I submit: "This is war, stuff happens" and "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want".

[solvs]

As most of us suspected, this was always the plan. A permanent presence means cheap oil for a very long time. Unbelievable.
Yeah, but they have no credibility left, little support, and very little time left in office. So they had to do something. Of course it was the plan the whole time. Most of us knew, or at least thought, that. We were called paranoid, and reminded that we still have soldiers in place like Japan and Vietnam and Korea. But this is a whole 'nother ball of wax. And of course, we're still hearing excuses and people defending it as if it was a good idea for everyone involved.

And I'm guessing you meant cheap for the oil companies, because it's only going to get more expensive for us, but they'll still be raking in record profits.

That has the potential for disaster written all over it.
So has everything else about this war, but they just keep going.

Iraq was no threat to anyone and you know it.
It was a threat. To the oil companies. Remember the first thing the insurgents did was start blowing up the oil fields and pipelines. From the very beginning, they knew it too. Of course, now it's a disaster area and a real threat, so we obviously have to stay longer to make things worse. Because while we overstretch our military even further, we're almost to 2003 violence levels. As long as we change the rules for how we count deaths and injuries. Makes perfect sense.

Has it been worth it?
Of course not, but that won't stop people from repeating the same old tired lines over and over again to try and defend this cluster****.

[skunk]

Iraq was no threat to anyone and you know it.On the contrary, Iraq was an imminent threat to the petrodollar. A permanent US presence will certainly defer that threat for a while.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Has it been worth it? <snip>

History will tell, but anything breaking up the axis of Islamic power in that region is something that will pay dividends for centuries - for us at least.

[hulugu]

History will tell, but anything breaking up the axis of Islamic power in that region is something that will pay dividends for centuries - for us at least.

I don't see how the Iraq invasion broke an "axis" of power. First, because I don't think one existed, and second because I submit that the Iraq War has been a boon to the Iranians, who have ascended to the status of regional power.

[mactastic]

History will tell, but anything breaking up the axis of Islamic power in that region is something that will pay dividends for centuries - for us at least.
In the same way deposing the Shah paid dividends we're reaping only now? Or the same way breaking up the axis of Soviet power in Afghanistan by arming and training bin Laden and others is paying off? Oh yes, those are fantastic dividends.

You just don't get that these acts you advocate don't produce the long-term results you profess to seek. Either that, or you just don't care about long-term results as long as your ideology wins right now.

[solvs]

History will tell
History is telling us right now where this is headed, and it ain't pretty. You think it's going to suddenly become sunshine and lollipops and everyone will thank GW? Even if things do get better, especially if it's after we leave, history will not judge this war or this President kindly. No matter how many times you repeat that talking point.

but anything breaking up the axis of Islamic power in that region is something that will pay dividends for centuries - for us at least.
You're kidding right? We didn't do that at all. If anything, we've done the opposite. Especially in Iraq, where it's become more theocratic, such as with women actually losing rights they once had under the secular Saddam regime. But the rest of the region is getting worse as well. The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan, Pakistan is getting worse even while we continue to support their leadership, Iran became more of a threat the more we threaten them, the leadership gaining support among it's people because of our rhetoric, Hezbollah has gained support in the region, we're still creating more terrorists than we kill, and SA, one of the biggest offenders, is still our buddy for some reason. How can you possibly say that seriously?

We took a powder keg and threw dynamite at it, creating an uncontainable quagmire we still can't clean up, still trying to start more fights in places like Iran and Syria, and you actually still think we've done a good job? :confused: Really? Name one thing that's better.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan, <snip>

Really? News to Karzai I'm sure. A couple fanatics pop their heads back up and they're suddenly back in charge?

[skunk]

Really?Yes, really.
Afghanistan 'falling into hands of Taliban'

· Frontline getting closer to Kabul, says thinktank
· Aid not going to those who need it most, warns Oxfam

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday November 22, 2007
The Guardian

The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into Taliban hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.
Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when ... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2214994,00.html

Do try to keep up, Swarmlord.

[Swarmlord]

Yes, really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2214994,00.html

Do try to keep up, Swarmlord.

Not like the reporter is a little bit alarmist. I think I'll trust the reports of the troops I personally know over there over this reporter.

[skunk]

Not like the reporter is a little bit alarmist. I think I'll trust the reports of the troops I personally know over there over this reporter.How predictable. :rolleyes:

[Blue Velvet]

Not like the reporter is a little bit alarmist. I think I'll trust the reports of the troops I personally know over there over this reporter.

You haven't read the article. I think I'll trust the reports on civilian infrastructure and stretgic from Oxfam and The Senlis Council rather than some grunts on the ground who are dodging bullets.

Or alternatively:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The White House concluded in a recent secret report that the war effort in Afghanistan has not met strategic goals set this year, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The newspaper, citing unnamed US officials, said the report was prepared earlier this month by the National Security Council.

Its main conclusion was that while individual military battles against the Taliban have been successful, other areas remain wanting, reports said.

...

"There doesn't seem to be a lot of progress being made ... I would think that from (the Taliban) standpoint, things are looking decent," the paper quoted the intelligence official as saying.


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwGVpoR5JHyGR4M07-FmDzp41y5Q

[mactastic]

Not like the reporter is a little bit alarmist. I think I'll trust the reports of the troops I personally know over there over this reporter.
Nothing like mimicing an ostrich to keep one's world view intact...

Should we all trust the reports of the troops we know? Isn't that sort of a self-selecting viewpoint?

[hulugu]

Not like the reporter is a little bit alarmist. I think I'll trust the reports of the troops I personally know over there over this reporter.

Links?

[takao]

Every violation of the 17 UN resolutions against Sadaam was an "invade me now" invitation.

the same UN which voted 7-8 times overwhelming for a resolution against the US trade embargo of cuba only to get vetoed down every single time in the security council by the US ;)

[Thanatoast]

"History will tell..." is an ingenious Rove-ism that removes we, the people from the decision making process. It says "let us do whatever we want, and in fifty years you can say whether it was a good idea". It's ********. We know it when we smell it and we don't need a historian fifty years from now to tell us we've stepped in it.

It also conveniently removes consequences from the people currently making the ****** decisions. We're supposed to let history decide whether Bush, Cheney, et al should've been impeached? No. For the Republicans it's a dodge and for the Democrats it's an abrogation of their responsibilities to keep the government looking out for the best interests of the country and punishing malfeasence.

I can't believe you'd bitch about people not taking control of their own lives when it comes to healthcare or poverty and then give the government a pass when they so obviously **** up. It's a testament to the sorry state of our society that not only has personal responsibility for one's actions flown out the window but that we hold our government to the same pathetic standard.

You can sue windex if you spray window cleaner in your eyes and get a check for your trouble. Apparently you can also spend eight hundred billion dollars based on intelligence known to be false and get a free pass.

And you let them do it.

[mactastic]

Every violation of the 17 UN resolutions against Sadaam was an "invade me now" invitation.
Is this the same UN that has previously been declared "irrelevant" by many a righty?

Funny how the UN becomes relevant so quickly when it can be used to your advantage, and dismissed so quickly when it cannot...

[solvs]

Really?

Yes, really.

I thought this was common knowledge. :confused: Of course we're losing the 'stans. We pulled resources to go to Iraq before we'd barely started there. While the city areas may be under gov rule, the surrounding areas are run by local warlords. Really, this is all common knowledge for anyone paying attention.

And where is that darn "irrelevant" (according to Bush) Bin Laden guy? :rolleyes:

[Swarmlord]

I thought this was common knowledge. :confused: Of course we're losing the 'stans. We pulled resources to go to Iraq before we'd barely started there. While the city areas may be under gov rule, the surrounding areas are run by local warlords. Really, this is all common knowledge for anyone paying attention.

And where is that darn "irrelevant" (according to Bush) Bin Laden guy? :rolleyes:

I suppose you're suggesting we invade Pakistan to get him?

BTW I got a nice chuckle out of your statement that "of course we're losing the 'stans." Rolls off the tongue so easily for you guys.

[leekohler]

I suppose you're suggesting we invade Pakistan to get him?

BTW I got a nice chuckle out of your statement that "of course we're losing the 'stans." Rolls off the tongue so easily for you guys.

What we are saying is that it would be nice if we were actually paying attention to what's really going on with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and addressing those issues, rather than playing around in places that had nothing to do with 9/11. I don't know why you continue to think invading Iraq was a good idea, unless of course you have tons of stock in oil companies.

[Thanatoast]

I suppose you're suggesting we invade Pakistan to get him?

Only Bushies think we need to invade a country to catch a criminal.

elint, humint, a small team or two and some quiet diplomacy would've solved the problem 5 years ago.

Our current attitude is... inefficient.

AND ****ING STUPID.

[mactastic]

I suppose you're suggesting we invade Pakistan to get him?

BTW I got a nice chuckle out of your statement that "of course we're losing the 'stans." Rolls off the tongue so easily for you guys.Easier than "Welfare Queens" rolls off yours? :eek:

[solvs]

I suppose you're suggesting we invade Pakistan to get him?
Of course not. Nowhere close. Not that we could if we wanted to, we're already stretched too thin thanks to Iraq. But as usual, right to the strawman argument, completely missing the rest of my point. :rolleyes:

BTW I got a nice chuckle out of your statement that "of course we're losing the 'stans." Rolls off the tongue so easily for you guys.
Maybe because it's true. Unless you'd like to say we're winning there. Preferably with more proof than "the soldiers I know". Because, for one, the soldiers I know still say the opposite. My Cousin doesn't talk about it much, but he doesn't paint a very rosy picture. And for 2, both skunk and BV have already proved you wrong. I can also get you more links, besides my "soldiers I know" anecdotes, but why do I have a feeling they'll just fall on deaf ears and you'll either just make a snarky comment or completely ignore it, only to repeat your same claims in another thread?

Not that any of that changes the rest of what I said, nor that we're still fighting for a permanent base in Iraq, which you have no problem paying for for some reason.

[Swarmlord]

<snip> I don't know why you continue to think invading Iraq was a good idea, unless of course you have tons of stock in oil companies.

Of course I own energy stocks, but that's not the whole reason I supported the invasion of Iraq. It should have been invaded and Sadaam arrested after Gulf War I.

[leekohler]

Of course I own energy stocks, but that's not the whole reason I supported the invasion of Iraq. It should have been invaded and Sadaam arrested after Gulf War I.

Really? Daddy Bush seemed to know exactly why that would be a bad idea. Now we know he was right.

[solvs]

Of course I own energy stocks, but that's not the whole reason I supported the invasion of Iraq. It should have been invaded and Sadaam arrested after Gulf War I.
K. Then why aren't you angrier that they've screwed up the aftermath? I know you're ok with the billions, soon to be trillions, we're spending (for some reason), but how does wanting him removed automatically mean you support the people who've made of mess of things since, and you're support of that mess itself? Surely you can't be arguing that it isn't a mess?

[obeygiant]

Of course I own energy stocks, but that's not the whole reason I supported the invasion of Iraq.

Any stock picks for us? :)

[mactastic]

Of course I own energy stocks, but that's not the whole reason I supported the invasion of Iraq.
Modern conservative philosophy in a nutshell folks... It's OK to burden the taxpayers with untold billions in future debt as long as my energy stocks are doing well.

Nothing like an "I got mine" argument to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

[solvs]

Nothing like an "I got mine" argument to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
I can see how someone might have supported the original invasion, even if they don't own any stock, especially if they were mislead by the reasons. What still perplexes me is why people not only still support it, but also still support those who have screwed it up so badly. Shouldn't they be the most upset? And worse, now that we have them coming right out and saying what many have been saying all along, that this is all about building permanent bases (and yes, I realize the posters who called those who said such things paranoid are now silent), "I got mine" seems to be about the only thing that fits.

We weren't supposed to be there forever, and now that we apparently are, I really can't get why some people are still ok with that.

[hulugu]

We weren't supposed to be there forever, and now that we apparently are, I really can't get why some people are still ok with that.

Well, yeah we were, and we will be. Anyone who had cracked open a history book could see that foreign occupations require a serious investment in blood, treasure, and time. There was a small subset of people in the administration who apparently hadn't bothered to study a single instance of occupation and were thus naive enough to think it would be a short sharp fight. These people happened to have rather loud voices and managed to get many others to abjectly agree with them.

I said it before the invasion, our occupation of Iraq would appear easy as our initial forces crushed the Iraqis paper army, but the long-term needs of holding the country, protecting the people and the infrastructure, especially against the numerous groups that Saddam had ruthlessly kept in check.
I gave the war a few months and the occupation 10 years. Oh and we need more than twice the number of troops according to a few back of an envelope calculations.

[Swarmlord]

Any stock picks for us? :)

Wouldn't be right to mention specific ones, but I invest primarily in mutual funds and currently have a lot in energy sector funds.

[Swarmlord]

Modern conservative philosophy in a nutshell folks... It's OK to burden the taxpayers with untold billions in future debt as long as my energy stocks are doing well.

Nothing like an "I got mine" argument to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Yeah, the limosine liberals are working so hard with their own money to help the poor rather than invest in things like energy stocks.

[obeygiant]

Nothing like an "I got mine" argument to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

The "'I got mine' argument" isn't really an argument at all, its the way it is. Unless there is a "I forgot to get mine can I have half of yours for free" argument.

[hulugu]

Of course I own energy stocks, but that's not the whole reason I supported the invasion of Iraq. It should have been invaded and Sadaam arrested after Gulf War I.

emphasis mine

Modern conservative philosophy in a nutshell folks... It's OK to burden the taxpayers with untold billions in future debt as long as my energy stocks are doing well.

Nothing like an "I got mine" argument to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Yeah, the limosine liberals are working so hard with their own money to help the poor rather than invest in things like energy stocks.


So, you partially supported the invasion of Iraq so your stocks would go up? Yes, the limosine liberals (another meaningless phrase that happens to roll off the tongue) are hypocritical, yadda yadda yadda.

Except according to your own words you supported the invasion and put our troops in harms way for your own stock portfolio. I'm really hoping you just were being unclear.

[solvs]

Yeah, the limosine liberals are working so hard with their own money to help the poor rather than invest in things like energy stocks.
Limousine liberals? Really? That's your response to all of this? :confused:

Last I checked, they wanted to raise their own taxes as well. Meanwhile, the people you're supporting have decided that borrow and spend is a good fiscal policy. So since you have no real defense of the topic, as usual, you have to obfuscate and bring up something that, well, doesn't really make any sense. Are you saying that liberals aren't really helping the poor, or that buying energy stock and prolonging the war to make them go up is better than helping the poor with that same tax money?

Or you could just talk about the subject at hand and why we're building permanent bases in a place we weren't supposed to still be.

Well, yeah we were, and we will be.
In reality, sure. This probably has been the plan the whole time, they just thought it would go more smoothly. But that's not what they told us. And anyone who said otherwise was a paranoid tin foil hat wearer. But there it is, and all some people can do is talk about how good their stocks are doing because they have no excuse for the quagmire they're supporting.

I actually am a little surprised, because I didn't think they'd have the guts to try this, especially in such an obvious way, with everything just going so terribly there and still no political reconciliation in sight.

The "'I got mine' argument" isn't really an argument at all, its the way it is. Unless there is a "I forgot to get mine can I have half of yours for free" argument.
Some of us realize we are a society, not islands, and should be there for our fellow man. It's great to have money and all, but money isn't everything. If you think it's really that simple, that there are no such things as accidents, injuries, illness, disabilities, providers who die or take off, the elderly who lose their pensions due to things out of their control, or that children should suffer because of the mistakes of or bad things happening to their parents, I don't know what else to tell you. God forbid anything bad ever happens to you or yours, but if it did, I'd want to be there for you to help you out. Apparently the feeling isn't mutual, and I'm completely on my own if something happens to me.

[hulugu]

The "'I got mine' argument" isn't really an argument at all, its the way it is. Unless there is a "I forgot to get mine can I have half of yours for free" argument.

There's a difference between standing up on your own two feet and using someone else's neck to get a leg up.

Little story:

I went to Rome and during my stay I visited the Monumento Nazionale a Vittorio Emanuele II. In front of this massive stone building is a huge traffic circle. And, while I sat on the steps, I watched buses, cabs, bikes, and cars weave in amongst each other, rapidly switching lanes, slowing, accelerating, all the while tourists darted across. Now, you'd expect utter chaos, but what I saw was cooperation, a dance of motives and adjustments, so that everyone got through without having to slow or honk or fight for their scrap of asphalt.

Weeks later, I was driving home from the airport and ran into construction along the Aviation Highway corridor. Total furball. While in Italy dozens of drivers had managed to negotiate at speed, the people ahead of me couldn't merge from three lanes to two without a complete mess. Everyone was fighting for their scrap of road. Rather than a simple and neat merge, people were rushing ahead to wait, while others were refusing to let anyone ahead of them. It took so much time to get through a few miles of this constriction and it was all because people couldn't simply merge.

There's a need for competition and cooperation in a civil society, we gain by helping people, we lose by fighting for our little scrap, when two of us could make so much more.

Analogies and anecdotes fall under the weight of 270 million people and their independent desires, but anyone who pretends they're an island who lives in this society is deluding themselves and just rushing to the front of the line, taking advantage of everyone who merges, creating an atmosphere where everyone wastes just a little bit for time for a few feet of asphalt they'll immediately pass by.

[hulugu]

...

In reality, sure. This probably has been the plan the whole time, they just thought it would go more smoothly. But that's not what they told us. And anyone who said otherwise was a paranoid tin foil hat wearer. But there it is, and all some people can do is talk about how good their stocks are doing because they have no excuse for the quagmire they're supporting.

I actually am a little surprised, because I didn't think they'd have the guts to try this, especially in such an obvious way, with everything just going so terribly there and still no political reconciliation in sight.

Well, I think a bunch of White House pencil-pushers were genuinely surprised, but they're useful idiots. Then, there's another group that knew they were lying, but they figured it would work out through blunt-force or magic fairy dust. They are morons.
Then, there's a group who knew it would be a disaster, but also knew it would give them an opportunity to make great heaping gobs of money. These guys are the real danger, they knew they were lying, they knew the administration couldn't tell win a game of Stratego much less a complex internecine war, and practically salivated for their profit projections.