Iraqi legislators are falling all over each other in the race to leak details of the "status of forces" agreement the US is trying to negotiate with the Maliki government.
The latest pearl is that the Pentagon wants to maintain 58-permanent bases in Iraq. Now, what does that mean? Where's the perspective? Here's an idea. Up till now, US forces have operated out of 30-bases. 58, of course, would be just shy of double that.
The next question is why? Why would Washington want to double its military installations in another country especially when it's boasting how everything is settling down there. Why would it be asking for absolute control of Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet? Why negotiate for immunity for American military personnel and private contractors? Must be some explanation, right? There is but don't hold your breath waiting for the Americans to admit it.
State Department spokesmen have hastened to tell reporters from America's largest embassy on the planet that the US has no plans for a permanent occupation of Iraq. Just hearing that in a diplomatic complex bigger than the entire Vatican must be surreal.
This capitulation of sovereignty, if the Maliki government accepts it, will undermine all the progress that's been made in Iraq. It will set Sunni against Shiite all over again. It will empower the nationalists like Muqtada al Sadr anhd weaken the already feeble Baghdad government. It will generate a pushback by Iran which might be enough to make Washington pull the trigger.
The latest pearl is that the Pentagon wants to maintain 58-permanent bases in Iraq. Now, what does that mean? Where's the perspective? Here's an idea. Up till now, US forces have operated out of 30-bases. 58, of course, would be just shy of double that.
The next question is why? Why would Washington want to double its military installations in another country especially when it's boasting how everything is settling down there. Why would it be asking for absolute control of Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet? Why negotiate for immunity for American military personnel and private contractors? Must be some explanation, right? There is but don't hold your breath waiting for the Americans to admit it.
State Department spokesmen have hastened to tell reporters from America's largest embassy on the planet that the US has no plans for a permanent occupation of Iraq. Just hearing that in a diplomatic complex bigger than the entire Vatican must be surreal.
This capitulation of sovereignty, if the Maliki government accepts it, will undermine all the progress that's been made in Iraq. It will set Sunni against Shiite all over again. It will empower the nationalists like Muqtada al Sadr anhd weaken the already feeble Baghdad government. It will generate a pushback by Iran which might be enough to make Washington pull the trigger.
6 comments:
Been watching what is going on in Iran? Do you believe Achmed Dinner Jacket when he tell us he is going to bomb Israel, invoke the 3rd Imam, convert the world?
Perhaps some in the military are much better informed than you.
It certainly makes more sense to be on Iran's borders than to be say, on Vancouver Island. Iraq is more about Iran today . . . the most dangerous regeme on the planet.
Remember Germany, Japan . . . how long did the troops remain there?
What about Korea . . . I believe the troops are still there . . . right!
Then there's Bosnia . . . never hear anything from you about that . . . is it because it was Clinton's war? Troops still there though!!!
Funny how we have never seen much in the media re: Iraq the last few months. Could it have anything to do with the success of the "Surge"?
Evidently more peope die today in the US . . . killed by Illegals than are dying in Iraq. But you'll never read that in the MSM!!!
Iran is a problem in the making . . . but you lefties won't figure that out till they have dropped a bomb or two . . . then you will wring you hands and ask why nothing was done?
Remember Trueman . . . left office very low in the poles, but is today thought of highly for his policies in Korea . . . ditto for GB.
I think you lost everyone at Achmed Dinner Jacket.
You see, his name is actually Ahmadinejad. It is very easy to find the correct spelling on Wikipedia by searching 'Iran'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
Don't worry about it. Next time, you'll get the spelling right and people will listen to what you have to say.
Preschool, don't believe for a minute that Ahmadinejad has the political power in Iran to bomb anyone. He doesn't. Those powers, the significant powers, are held by the Ayatollahs, not that guy. He can howl at the moon and all he'd accomplish is to howl at the moon. Learn a bit more about the Tehran government and you won't have to be so panicked.
Trying to compare Iraq with Japan or Germany or even Korea is also fallacious. The troops that remained in those countries were part of a defensive alliance, not a force of occupation, and they were subject to sovereign governments. Those countries were ethnically homogeneous and faced external threats, real and perceived.
Iraq is a hobbled together state created in the wake of WWI by the European victors without regard for ethnic and religious conflicts.
And, what about Bosnia? What's your point there? You don't seem to have one.
I don't know what you've seen on Iraq lately but there is a serious fatigue that's set in among the American people who just want the whole miserable mess wrapped up.
And by the way, Preschool, Iran isn't going to drop "a bomb or two" because the Mullahs know exactly what that would mean. Are you that dense?
I won't bother going into your nonsense about Truman.
Iran . . . Israel takes them seriously . . . thinking people in intelligence and military circles take them seriously. Its only the left that seems to want to see the good in everyone, just like ole uncle Neville.
It is believed that Iran could have a bomb in less than 3 years . . . and no the mullahs don't think like the Russians . . . they will be only too happy to meet Mooohamed, and advance the goals of the moon g-d. Ever read their book . . . you should, it is very enlightening.
They also have missiles from North Korea that could reach European cities, but they wouldn't do that, or would they?
People in US are tired . . . yea . . . they are real tired of not being like London, Bali, Madrid.
The US will be in Iraq for many years, not as occupiers as they were in Germany and Japan, but as a force to back up the local authorities, and keep in close touch with Iran. Hopefully the people of Iran will be able to overthrow the nutbars in the next year or two . . .
The Euro's are paying the price today for not being more vigilant in the past. Germany is deporting thousands of temporary workers, they are very uncomfortable with what is going on in Britain, France and the Netherlands. But of course, we never hear much about that because of our censored, leftist media.
Bosnia . . . point is . . . everywhere the US has gone to solve problems in the world . . . they are still there years later. Iraq will be the same.
Why don't the lefties want the troops out of Korea and Bosnia??
The US is the freest country in the world, most folks in the rest of the world would love to live there.
Who supports the useless UN, who gives the most aid to the needy, who is there to help in disasters?
Why its the US.
Oldschool you're positively delusional. Your grasp of history is pathetic. Too bad you didn't learn more and rant less.
"Who is there to help in disasters?" Ask the people of New Orleans about that one.
oldschool:
When you said "...the goals of the moon g-d...", you gave us all the information we need to dismiss everything else you've said.
This is the level of insight that oldschool brings to any discussion:
http://tinyurl.com/ceud
Do you really think we care about your contempt for one or another omniscient tooth-fairy cults? You see, had you resisted the urge to include that dumbass reference in your reply, people may actually be fooled into thinking you weren't just a fundagelical idiot.
Weirdo.
Post a Comment