Progressive Ponderings: Open-ended Occupation
By Joe Mayer
American capitalist oilmen have long puzzled over why God planted "our oil" under Iraq. They need puzzle no longer. With the questionable election of two oilmen, Bush and Cheney, to the top positions in U.S. government the problem was bound to be solved. On Monday, Nov. 26, General Douglas Lute, the administration's adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, told reporters that President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq endorsed a pact that committed the United States to a long-term military presence in Iraq. Principles of the pact include: deter foreign aggression (Can you believe it? Bush concerned about aggression in Iraq!); help Iraq fight terrorism (Does that include daily bombing?); encourage foreign investment in Iraq, especially American investment; and back Iraq in joining the World Trade Organization.
The agreement is open-ended and sets no targets for troop withdrawal or base closings. Lute noted that the agreement is not a treaty and thus would not be subject to oversight by Congress.
Back in 2003, L. Paul Bremer III of the Coalition Provisional Authority decreed a similar sale of Iraq to foreign investors. Few multinational corporations acted on this opportunity because of its questionable legality and the continued violence within Iraq. Bush and Maliki now want to make Bremer's theft legal. The multinationals, especially the oil corporations, are salivating. God's mistake is being corrected – American Christian oilmen will control the oil and the profits.
The Bush and Cheney modus operandi has been to follow the orders of the multinational hierarchy. Building the largest embassy in the world to house the greatest number of federal employees in a country of 25 million with a decreasing population has to have a different objective than normal foreign relations. This new agreement that reinforces our multiple military bases in Iraq gives the military a very familiar role – the protection of U.S. corporate assets and profits that will disrupt Iraqi economic affairs, domestic governance, and sovereignty.
Naomi Klein, in her latest book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, describes the above as it has happened around the globe the past thirty years. A disaster occurs, natural or preemptive. In the aftermath of shock, foreign capital moves in to "rescue" the economy by buying up the infrastructure and natural resources at bargain prices. In exchange for this capitalist "benevolence" the shocked nation must agree to foreign ownership of banks, industry, resources and infrastructure, it must remove all regulations standing in the way of accumulating profits (minimum wage, for example) and cut back or eliminate social programs. This "disaster capitalism" has been one of our chief ideological exports during our right-wing regression.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, to their credit, have denounced this agreement. Whether they will do anything about it is another question. If you are reading about this for the first time, it indicates once again the government/mass media conspiracy against our right-to-know democracy.
Keep in touch with your Congressional reps and senators and tell them what you think about the Bush-Maliki Pact. They need to know we want to return to the America that promotes fairness and justice, not only in our country but around the world.
American capitalist oilmen have long puzzled over why God planted "our oil" under Iraq. They need puzzle no longer. With the questionable election of two oilmen, Bush and Cheney, to the top positions in U.S. government the problem was bound to be solved. On Monday, Nov. 26, General Douglas Lute, the administration's adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, told reporters that President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq endorsed a pact that committed the United States to a long-term military presence in Iraq. Principles of the pact include: deter foreign aggression (Can you believe it? Bush concerned about aggression in Iraq!); help Iraq fight terrorism (Does that include daily bombing?); encourage foreign investment in Iraq, especially American investment; and back Iraq in joining the World Trade Organization.
The agreement is open-ended and sets no targets for troop withdrawal or base closings. Lute noted that the agreement is not a treaty and thus would not be subject to oversight by Congress.
Back in 2003, L. Paul Bremer III of the Coalition Provisional Authority decreed a similar sale of Iraq to foreign investors. Few multinational corporations acted on this opportunity because of its questionable legality and the continued violence within Iraq. Bush and Maliki now want to make Bremer's theft legal. The multinationals, especially the oil corporations, are salivating. God's mistake is being corrected – American Christian oilmen will control the oil and the profits.
The Bush and Cheney modus operandi has been to follow the orders of the multinational hierarchy. Building the largest embassy in the world to house the greatest number of federal employees in a country of 25 million with a decreasing population has to have a different objective than normal foreign relations. This new agreement that reinforces our multiple military bases in Iraq gives the military a very familiar role – the protection of U.S. corporate assets and profits that will disrupt Iraqi economic affairs, domestic governance, and sovereignty.
Naomi Klein, in her latest book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, describes the above as it has happened around the globe the past thirty years. A disaster occurs, natural or preemptive. In the aftermath of shock, foreign capital moves in to "rescue" the economy by buying up the infrastructure and natural resources at bargain prices. In exchange for this capitalist "benevolence" the shocked nation must agree to foreign ownership of banks, industry, resources and infrastructure, it must remove all regulations standing in the way of accumulating profits (minimum wage, for example) and cut back or eliminate social programs. This "disaster capitalism" has been one of our chief ideological exports during our right-wing regression.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, to their credit, have denounced this agreement. Whether they will do anything about it is another question. If you are reading about this for the first time, it indicates once again the government/mass media conspiracy against our right-to-know democracy.
Keep in touch with your Congressional reps and senators and tell them what you think about the Bush-Maliki Pact. They need to know we want to return to the America that promotes fairness and justice, not only in our country but around the world.
Labels: Iraq
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Joe,
I profess that the rationale for the Iraq War was largely based on America’s need to exercise its SuperPower status. Bin Laden was pushing and Saudi Arabia recognized that America need to abandon its bases there ( link ) before the invasion. Oil and overall business opportunities may be a factor, but I think it is more about maintaining influence and control. American Presidents want to be adhered to and when other countries don’t do what we want, the President (and his Administration) gets angry. If a country does not respect America’s SuperPower status, it could cause other countries to question America’s influence. Why are Iran and Venezuela such a problem … because they question America’s prestige as a SuperPower. Iraq, Libya, North Korea did the same thing.
And it's not just now. Remember Operation Just Cause was the US military invasion of Panama that deposed Manuel Noriega.
Why does America keep bases in Japan and Germany ? Why does America maintain warships afloat off the coasts of South America, the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, and off Taiwin ?
The job in Afghanistan was not completed because America was respected by America’s-backed government.
al-Maliki risks a lot with this agreement. The Sunni Iraqi Accord Front as well as al-Sadr have spoken out against it and the continued occupation. al-Maliki may be using America to protect himself from the other factions. The Iraqi Parliament and al-Maliki are simply dysfunctional … it will be interesting to see who survives when they have the next series of elections in 2009.
The oil investment question is akin to America’s States Rights debate … the Kurds have negotiated agreements and the Shiites believe that the Iraqi constitution rendered null and void all oil contracts signed until a new oil and gas law is passed by Parliament. Sinces the Sunni territory is not considered to be oil-rich, they would probably join the Shiites against the Kurds.
The Reuters story stated : “The State Department would take the lead in the talks, which would begin early next year and aim to conclude in July.”; therefore, Congress should be actively engaged with oversight hearings … but then again the Bush Administration has NEVER wanted bases there.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Democrat Presidential Primary … Dodd has expressed that there be no permanent bases while my interpretation of Obama and Clinton is that they adhere to my “America needs a presence to maintain SuperPower status” argument. As far as the Republicans go, since Romney wants double the size of Gitmo, I guess it’s safe to assume that they would embrace my “SuperPower status” argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home