Skip to content or view screen version

There is no plan to leave Iraq

posted by mouse | 03.05.2007 10:14 | Iraq

Why there was no exit plan

By Lewis Seiler, Dan Hamburg
There are people in Washington ... who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they're looking for 10, 20, 50 years in the future ... the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region, and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that 10 years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq. -- former President Jimmy Carter, Feb. 3, 2006

04/30/07 "SFGate" -- -- - For all the talk about timetables and benchmarks, one might think that the United States will end the military occupation of Iraq within the lifetimes of the readers of this opinion editorial. Think again.

There is to be no withdrawal from Iraq, just as there has been no withdrawal from hundreds of places around the world that are outposts of the American empire. As UC San Diego professor emeritus Chalmers Johnson put it, "One of the reasons we had no exit plan from Iraq is that we didn't intend to leave."

The United States maintains 737 military bases in 130 countries across the globe. They exist for the purpose of defending the economic interests of the United States, what is euphemistically called "national security." In order to secure favorable access to Iraq's vast reserves of light crude, the United States is spending billions on the construction of at least five large permanent military bases throughout that country.

A new Iraq oil law, largely written by the Coalition Provisional Authority, is planned for ratification by June. This law cedes control of Iraq's oil to western powers for 30 years . There is major opposition to the proposed law within Iraq, especially among the country's five trade union federations that represent hundreds of thousands of oil workers. The United States is working hard to surmount this opposition by appealing directly to the al-Maliki government in Iraq.

The attack upon, and subsequent occupation of, Iraq can be seen as a direct result of the 2001 National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as vice president Cheney's energy task force) that was comprised largely of oil and energy company executives. This task force -- the proceedings of which have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of "executive privilege" -- recommended that the U.S. government support initiatives in Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sector to foreign investment." As Antonio Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International wrote last month in the New York Times, "One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve."

The people of the United States have indicated, in the national election last November and in countless polls, that they no longer support the Bush administration's war. The Scooter Libby trial revealed that top administration officials, including the vice president, "cherry-picked" and distorted intelligence in order to sell a "pre-emptive" war to a spooked public. The squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars, some billions of which, according to Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker, is being siphoned into "black-ops" programs being run out of Cheney's office (a stunning redux of Iran-Contra carried out by many of the same actors), has also strained the patience and credulity of the American people.

Another betrayal is the "contracting out" of "war-related activities" to corporations such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Chemonics and Blackwater. Halliburton, Vice President Cheney's previous employer, calls itself an "energy services company" but has tentacles reaching into nearly every aspect of the war (originally dubbed Operation Iraqi Liberation until some bright bulb among the Bushies realized that "OIL" might not be the best handle for this venture). Halliburton has also profited handsomely from no-bid government contracts awarded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the construction at the national embarrassment known as "Gitmo," and most recently, from the fiasco at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, all this corruption, mayhem and death are good for some (or it wouldn't go on).

The U.S. military budget, larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world's nations combined, continues skyward, even without all the "supplementals" passed regularly by Congress to fight the "war on terror."

The question we must ask as citizens is this: Is the United States a democratic republic or an empire? History demonstrates that it's not possible to be both.

Lewis Seiler is president of Voice of the Environment. Dan Hamburg, a former U.S. representative, is executive director.
Copyright San Francisco Chronicle

posted by mouse

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Totally Correct

03.05.2007 11:39

You're right. They want to establish permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iran, in order to monopolise the oil industry. It's that simple. They don't care about who dies, as long as they're safe and they win some profit. For once everyone else is dead they will have the planet to themselves, so nobody to trouble them with moral questions any longer.

It's all lies. If you still believe in a word of old George W. Bush then you are blind to the truth.

And still you people sit around and complain. As if it wasn't possible to boycott the use of cars, take direct action against the worst offenders and design a life for yourself built around self sustainability.

The people of the west are a fat joke. Ignorant hypocrites gullible to all deceit.

angry


Dont be

03.05.2007 15:09

Its not like people aspire to live in a world where oil and other resources arent made use of. Most of us aspire to continue to use cars, ships planes etc in our system of choice. Its a matter of how these resources are being used and for who. It's like saying that we shouldnt buy clothes or shop from supermarkets coz anti capitalists dont do that. Whatever you believe even if us few anti capitalists boycotted all to do with capitalism it wouldnt make a difference. The main action one can take right now is to 'educate' people. I dont use that word in a condescending manner i just mean offering them an alternative theory for why things are the way they are. Basically what 'democracy' has failed to do.


P.S when you say people of the west.....does that mean that societies in the north south or east are in fact engaging in a massive campaign of boycotting?? If so where is that. Id be interested in taking a look at the situation.

...