« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Permanent Occupation: The New Normal
If you're like most Americans and most Iraqis, chances are you think a normal state of affairs between the two nations is not one in which, say, U.S. troops walk the streets of Baghdad. Well, all you've done is prove your unfitness to serve in the Bush administration. Today, the administration has spun the forthcoming permanent U.S. troop presence as amounting to a "normalization" of relations.
Here's the White House fact sheet on the deal:
[T]his 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.
And here's National Security Council staffer Brett McGurk:
“It sends a signal to the region … that the United States is committed to Iraq for the long term -- that we’re not packing up and leaving,” McGurk said. “But that nature of our commitment over time will transition, as it should, and that we will have a normalized, bilateral relationship with Iraq.”
Credit the administration with a sudden candor. For the first time in four years, it's admitting that its conception of a normal Iraq is one in which the U.S. military operates there forever and ever and ever. It's not quite 6 p.m. Are there any other conspiracy theories sure to arouse anti-American sentiment in the Middle East that the administration would like to confirm before quitting time?
Comments (12)
FMArouet wrote on November 26, 2007 7:03 PM:To paraphrase the Clintonian mantra from 2000:
It's about the oil, stupid.
Has been all along.
Divide, conquer, and grab the resources--the Iraqi (and, perhaps next, the Iranian) oilfields.
It's the age-old imperial game.
And it always ends badly.
Powkat wrote on November 26, 2007 7:15 PM:Of course it has always been about the oil. They would never have denied so adamantly that it was about oil if it wasn't about oil.
And no one has occupied that patch of land successfully - going back several thousand years. The US is no exception.
FMArouet wrote on November 26, 2007 7:43 PM:Whoops. Mantra was from 1992, not 2000.
sailmaker wrote on November 26, 2007 9:59 PM:Time flies and memories flee.
Entropy is irreversible.
I wonder if anyone has seen/signed the Iraq hydrocarbon theft docs yet. I wonder how expensive, in terms of Iraqi blood and our debt, those new barrels of oil will be.
JTH wrote on November 26, 2007 10:38 PM:Bush has never ONCE said that we would ever leave Iraq, nor that it was ever his intention to do so. (Others have mindlessly filled in that premise on his behalf.)
So I felt sick today, as it's finally revealed unambiguously, what has been plain all along.
Utopia wrote on November 26, 2007 11:08 PM:"Bush has never ONCE said that we would ever leave Iraq, nor that it was ever his intention to do so. (Others have mindlessly filled in that premise on his behalf.)"
So what did "stand down when they stand up" mean? I don't see a whole lot of ways to parse that other than we will leave when they can defend themselves. In fact, Bush has used that same language before if I remember correctly.
david1234 wrote on November 27, 2007 12:26 AM:It looks like the promise that we would be in Iraq "as long as necessary, and not one day longer" really meant "forever, but not forever and a day".
Pasco wrote on November 27, 2007 2:06 AM:I bet we don't leave Iraq until after we get our troops out of Germany and South Korea.
jimijazz wrote on November 27, 2007 7:52 AM:It doesn't matter what Maliki wants. It's what the american people will not tolerate any longer. The arrogance of Maliki almost supersedes the arrogance of Bush. Maliki's going to learn the hard way - that he doesn't control U.S policy. To think that he can ignore growing anti-Iraq sentiment from this country is just appalling. And what about Blackwater? Maliki's pathetic.
midwestblue wrote on November 27, 2007 9:47 AM:Maliki better watch his back.
pedant wrote on November 27, 2007 7:57 PM:Meanwhile, the Congress continues to take vacation after vacation, interspersed with lackluster two-and-three-day sessions, while Iraq deteriorates. Neither the adminstration nor Congress cares about Iraq, except for the political gains it may give them.
Since when does the US public have any influence on foreign policy? Nobody in the US has yet stood up to the Decider. War is the best situation as Congress will always approve $$ for defense and to "support the troops" and enough $$ can be kick backed to the legislators to ensure their junkets and re-election.
31tudor wrote on November 27, 2007 10:11 PM:Are you deaf? Bush said the U.S. would protect Maliki from anything incliding a coup or takeover, FOREVER!