Secret US Plan Outlines "Open-Ended" Occupation of Iraq

By Farol

In a story that (sadly) should come as no surprise to anyone who's been following the ongoing U.S. occupation, The Guardian reports that the Bushies are planning for an "open-ended" (read: permanent) military presence in Iraq:

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

Needless to say, the administration does not intend to submit this plan for congressional approval. And—also needless to say—this Congress probably won't do anything besides whine about that.

At this point, it should be increasingly clear that the entire purpose of the "surge" was not to create enough stability for political reconciliation (as we were told), but to lay the groundwork for a permanent U.S. presence in the region, the better to control its oil resources and launch other wars of aggression. (The plan assures us that the U.S. doesn't intend to use Iraq as a base to attack other countries. Right. The peace-loving USA would NEVER preemptively attack another country!)

But, with the war becoming ever more unpopular at home, the administration is resorting to increasingly desperate scapegoating to keep popular support afloat. In his latest article for Salon.com, Gary Kamiya notes that the Almighty General Petraeus has been accusing big, bad Iran of supporting the Sadr army in the recent intra-Shia clashes. Kamiya debunks this as falsehood, and demonstrates that its purpose is to provide a new Grave Threat to justify the ongoing occupation:

It's blame-blame-blame, blame-blame Iran. We've heard this song before. The Bush administration warbles it every time it needs to justify its failed Iraq policies and rally a skeptical public. Evil Iran, our archenemy, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, is killing American troops, and we can't leave Iraq, or Ahmedinejad and his cronies will take over the whole country. It's an updated version of the Cold War "domino effect" argument, with Iran taking the place of the communist menace. And in the latest version, Muqtada al-Sadr, the vehemently anti-American cleric, is portrayed as Public Enemy No. 1, an Iranian tool fighting the good guys in the Maliki government. U.S. troops have been fighting Sadr's militia in Baghdad's Sadr City in the last few days, making it even easier to portray him this way.

There's just one problem with this story: It's nonsense.

The truth is that the Maliki government and its allied Shiite faction, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly known as SCIRI), are much closer to Iran than the Sadrists are. Maliki's campaign against Sadr isn't a noble crusade by the good Iraqi government against the bad Iranian-backed Sadrists, but a battle waged by a weak Shiite leader backed by one militia, ISCI's Badr Corps, against another, stronger Shiite leader, Sadr, with his own militia, the Mahdi Army. Not only that, the "good" militia, the Badr Corps, was created in Iran by Iran's Revolutionary Guard -- the same organization whose Quds Force the United States notoriously declared to be a "terrorist organization" last year. The maraschino cherry on this sundae of absurdity: It was the head of that Quds Force, an Iranian general, who bailed out Maliki after Maliki's assault on Basra ignominiously failed, forcing him to send officials to Iran to broker a truce.

It's the same, endless cycle of lying and scapegoating used to justify more imperialist aggression. I wonder when we'll ever get bored with it. On second thought, maybe we've already become too bored with it.