|
Secret Security Pact Will Ensure Permanent Iraq Occupation
Election of new U.S. president will not change policy
|
|
|
Details of the secretive U.S.-Iraqi security pact, leaked to the
media in the past few days, confirm an agenda that many critics
of the Iraq war have been shouting from the rooftops for years.
The neocons in the White House are pushing for permanent
occupation of the country and the right to launch pre-emptive
military strikes on any country from inside Iraq.
The London
Independent reports:
The terms of the impending deal, details of which
have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive
political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord,
under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct
military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi
law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and
lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. [...]
Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans
would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq.
American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi
law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry
out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without
consulting the Baghdad government.
Further details have emerged from senior
Iraqi military sources who have detailed the wish
on behalf of the White House to control Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft
and secure the right to launch military campaigns against other
countries from inside Iraq:
The military source added, "According to this agreement,
the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi
territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the
Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base
in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to
the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base
in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."
Naturally, the details have provoked
strong reaction from the Iranian government. Iraq's
most revered Shia cleric Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has stated that he will
not allow Iraq to sign the deal with "the US occupiers"
as long as he was alive.
The Bush administration, primarily Dick Cheney's office, is pushing
the Iraqi government to sign the deal by the end of next month.
It is thought that the Iraqi government will do so as it is effectively
powerless without U.S. backing and would almost certainly be ousted.
(Article continues below)
Even both Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama have previously asserted that the Bush
junta is trying to lock a new president into a long-term presence.
The security pact would mean any proposals to withdraw troops
from Iraq by Obama, should he be elected, would effectively be
scuppered.
The neocon militaristic approach to globalist domination
of the region would therefore continue into a Obama presidency,
whether his own power brokers and kingpins, such as Trilateral
Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, liked it or not.
Bush-a-like John McCain's views on the occupation
are now legendary thanks to his "100 years is fine"
comments.
Earlier this year, White House Press Secretary Perino provided
an example of the administration’s incredible doublespeak
on permanent bases, arguing the White House does
not view any U.S. military installations overseas as being “permanent”:
“The United States, where we are, where we have bases,
we are there at the invitation of those countries. I’m
not aware of any place in the world — where we have a
base — that they are asking us to leave. And if they did,
we would probably leave,” said spokeswoman Dana Perino.
[…]
Top aides to US President George W. Bush have countered that
the strife-torn country’s government could ask US forces
to leave at any time, meaning that bases are not technically
“permanent.”
Administration officials have keenly
used the words "continuing" or "enduring"
in reference to bases, rather than "permanent" bases.
Though Congress
voted to ban permanent bases in Iraq last year, the
administration effectively ignored the ruling as the President
issued
a "signing statement" claiming he reserved
the right to disregard a section that bars funding for permanent
bases as he signed the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization
bill into law.
Defense
Secretary Gates commented in January "I think
it is pretty clear that such an agreement would not talk about
force levels. It would not involve -- we have no interest in permanent
bases,".
Back in February, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice wrote
in the Washington Post, “nothing will authorize
permanent bases in Iraq (something neither we nor Iraqis want).”
Despite this empty rhetoric, the Pentagon continues
to spend
billions
on the construction
of permanent bases. And still the military continues
to deny that it has plans for any permanent military
bases.
Many analysts have documented the desire to establish a long-term
military presence in Iraq as one of the primary reasons behind
the 2003 neocon led invasion. Joseph
Gerson, a historian of American military bases, said:
"The Bush administration's intention is to have a long-term
military presence in the region ... For a number of years the
US has sought to use a number of means to make sure it dominates
in the Middle East ... The Bush administration sees Iraq as
an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for
years to come."
Zoltan
Grossman, a geographer at Evergreen State College
in Washington, said:
"After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon
has left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never
before had a foothold. The new string of bases stretch from
Kosovo and adjacent Balkan states, to Iraq and other Persian
Gulf states, into Afghanistan and other central Asian states
... The only two obstacles to a geographically contiguous US
sphere of influence are Iran and Syria."
Former
President Jimmy Carter has also spoken of the plan
for permanent bases in the region:
"[T]here are people in Washington … who never intend
to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they’re looking
for ten, 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
ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United
States in Iraq."
Congressman Ron Paul also highlighted the ongoing effort to establish
a permanent occupation during the presidential debates last year
when he said:
“They attack us because we’ve been over there.
We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … We’ve
been in the Middle East,” Paul said in explaining his
opposition to going to war in Iraq. “Right now, we’re
building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican.
We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here
if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico?
We would be objecting.
We have previously covered
in depth the documented Pentagon programs to stoke
violence and civil war in Iraq as a pretext to stay there, build
permanent bases and dominate the region.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was never about the "democracy
crap", as one unnamed official so succinctly
put it. The neocon architects of the invasion always intended
to gain total control over the country in order to secure a permanent
ability to launch attacks and military interventions anywhere
in the region, be it Iran, Syria, or any other nation who might
challenge the new world order President H.W. Bush so proudly announced
in 1991.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex
Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Now Added To The Infowars Radio Show
For Members
Click here to get your subscription today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
