[News] Operation Enduring Occupation

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Operation Enduring Occupation

By <http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/dahrjamail>Dahr Jamail

Source: 
<http://www.zcommunications.org/operation-enduring-occupation-by-dahr-jamail>T 
r u t h o u t
Sunday, March 21, 2010
http://www.zcommunications.org/operation-enduring-occupation-by-dahr-jamail

Plain Speak

The 2008 National Defense Strategy reads:

"US interests include protecting the nation and our allies from 
attack or coercion, promoting international security to reduce 
conflict and foster economic growth, and securing the global commons 
and with them access to world markets and resources. To pursue these 
interests, the US has developed military capabilities and alliances 
and coalitions, participated in and supported international security 
and economic institutions, used diplomacy and soft power to shape the 
behavior of individual states and the international system, and using 
force when necessary. These tools help inform the strategic framework 
with which the United States plans for the future, and help us 
achieve our ends."

It adds:

"... Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential 
adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing 
or equaling the power of the US. To accomplish this, the US will 
require bases and stations within and beyond western Europe and 
Northeast Asia."

In light of such clear objectives, it is highly unlikely that the US 
government will allow a truly sovereign Iraq, unfettered by US troops 
either within its borders or monitoring it from abroad, anytime soon.

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the Iraqi and US 
governments indicate an ongoing US presence past both the August 2010 
deadline to remove all combat troops, and the 2011 deadline to remove 
the remaining troops.

According to all variations of the SOFA the US uses to provide a 
legal mandate for it's nearly 1,000 bases across the planet, 
technically, no US base in any foreign country is "permanent." Thus, 
the US bases in Japan, South Korea and Germany that have existed for 
decades are not "permanent." Technically.

Most analysts agree that the US plans to maintain at least five 
"enduring" bases in Iraq.

Noted US writer, linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky, said, 
"Bases [abroad] are the empire. They are the point of projection of 
power and expansion of power."

Chalmers Johnson, author and professor emeritus of UC San Diego 
commented, "In a symbolic sense [bases] are a way of showing that 
America stands there watching."

Longtime defense analyst from George Washington University, Gordon 
Adams, told The Associated Press that in the broader context of 
reinforcing US presence in the oil-rich Middle East, bases in Iraq 
are preferable to aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. "Carriers 
don't have the punch. There's a huge advantage to land-based 
infrastructure. At the level of strategy it makes total sense to have 
Iraq bases."

According to Professor Zoltan Grossman of The Evergreen State 
College, who has been researching military bases and participating in 
the global network against foreign bases for several years, the US 
has no intention of releasing control of its bases in Iraq. The 
Pentagon, he believes, has many old tricks to mask a military 
presence and armed pressure.

In an interview with Truthout he observed:

"Since the Gulf War, the US has not just been building the bases to 
wage wars, but has been waging wars to leave behind the bases. The 
effect has been to create a new US military sphere of influence 
wedged in the strategic region between the E.U., Russia and China. 
The Pentagon has not been building these sprawling, permanent bases 
just to hand them over to client governments."

Grossman's prediction for Iraq:

"Look for a Visiting Forces Agreement - of the kind negotiated with 
the Philippines - that allows supposedly 'visiting' US forces 
unrestricted access to its former bases. Similarly, constant joint 
military exercises can keep US troops continually visible and 
intimidating to Iraqis. Even after 2011, nothing in the Iraq Status 
of Forces Agreement prevents US bombers (stationed in Kuwait and 
elsewhere) from attacking Iraqi targets whenever they want, just as 
they did between 1991 and 2003. Nothing prevents the type of missile 
or Special Forces attacks like we're seeing in Pakistan, Yemen and 
Somalia. Nothing prevents CIA or contractors from participating in 
Iraqi missions or intelligence operations."

Adding credence to this, we have Article 6 of the US/Iraqi SOFA 
discussing "agreed facilities," Article 27 mentions "mutually agreed 
... military measures" after 2011 and Article 28 talks of a scenario 
where Iraq is able to "request" US security in the International Zone 
(Green Zone.)

Gray Language

Chapter six of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report stated:

"In February 2009, President Obama outlined the planned drawdown of 
US forces in Iraq to 50,000 troops and the change in mission by 
August 31, 2010. By this time, US forces will have completed the 
transition from combat and counterinsurgency to a more limited 
mission set focused on training and assisting the Iraqi Security 
Forces ($2 billion has already been set aside for this for FY2011); 
providing force protection for US military and civilian personnel and 
facilities; and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations and 
supporting US civilian agencies and international organizations in 
their capacity-building efforts."

The report further clarifies that US troop drawdowns "will occur in 
accordance" with the SOFA, but that "the pace of the drawdown takes 
into consideration Iraq's improved, yet fragile, security gains" and 
"provides US commanders sufficient flexibility to assist the Iraqis 
with emerging challenges."

On May 15, 2006, Gen. John Abizaid, overseeing US military operations 
in Iraq at the time, said, "The United States may want to keep a 
long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against 
extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil."

On March 12, 2010, Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the commander of US troops 
in Northern Iraq, told reporters during a conference call that it 
might be necessary to keep combat troops involved in the security 
mechanism that maintains peace between Iraqi national and Kurdish 
regional forces beyond the August deadline.

The National Security Strategy for US Missions abroad proposes to 
"Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and 
free trade and pressing for open markets, financial stability, and 
deeper integration of the world economy." This fits perfectly with 
the policy outlined by the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which 
says there is a stated ability for the US military to fight "multiple 
overlapping wars" and to "ensure that all major and emerging powers 
are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the 
international system."

Such gray language and loopholes in policy documents have been common 
since the US invaded Iraq seven years ago. This has not changed with the SOFA.

"The likelihood of the US planning to keep troops in Iraq after 
December 31, 2011 has to be measured in the context of the history of 
US violations of other countries' sovereign territory, airspace, 
etc.," Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project 
with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, explained to 
Truthout. "At the moment, this is perhaps most obvious in Pakistan - 
where the US has been routinely attacking alleged Taliban or al Qaeda 
supporters with both air and [limited] ground troops in Pakistani 
territory despite the stated opposition of the Pakistani government 
which is nominally allied to the US."

"The early public discussions of 're-missioning' combat troops, 
changing their official assignment from combat to 'training' or 
'assistance,' thus allowing them to remain in Iraq after the August 
2010 deadline for all combat troops to be removed from the country, 
provides the model for how such sleight of language will occur," 
Bennis said, adding, "It may or may not be linked to a future 'need' 
for US troops to remain to protect the increasing numbers of US 
government civilians assigned to Iraq as the official number of 
troops decreases."

Bennis explained that the language of the SOFA is grounded in the 
claim that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that the government of Iraq 
is choosing freely to partner with the US government. But the 
reality, according to Bennis, is that the SOFA was negotiated and 
signed while Iraq was (and continues to be today) a country occupied 
and controlled by the United States. Its government is and was at the 
time of the SOFA's signing dependent on the US for support.

In Article 27 of the SOFA, the text stated, "in the event of any 
external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would 
violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial 
integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected 
institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties 
shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be 
mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, 
including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other 
measure, to deter such a threat."

While the agreement is ostensibly binding only for three years, 
Article 30 permits amendments to the SOFA, which could, of course, 
include extending its timeframe - and with the Iraqi government still 
qualitatively dependent on US support, this appears likely. The same 
is true for Article 28, which states, "The Government of Iraq may 
request from the United States Forces limited and temporary support 
for the Iraqi authorities in the mission of security for the Green Zone."

She concluded:

"There is no question that the US has wanted for many years to 
establish and maintain military bases in Iraq, whether or not they 
are officially designated as "permanent." I do not believe the 
Pentagon is prepared to hand them all over to Iraq, despite the 
language in the agreement mandating exactly that. Instead, I think 
the formal arrangement following expiration of the current SOFA may 
be through some sort of officially "bilateral" agreement between 
Washington and Baghdad, allowing for the US to "rent" or "lease" or 
"borrow" the bases from an allegedly "sovereign" government in Iraq 
on a long-term basis. The likelihood of this increases with the 
growing number of statements from US military and political officials 
hinting broadly at the possibility of a long-term presence of US 
troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011, "if the sovereign government 
of Iraq should request such an idea..."

Faculty Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at 
Stony Brook University in New York, Professor Michael Schwartz, has 
written extensively on insurgency and the US Empire.

He pointed out to Truthout that President Obama's "... actions have 
made it very clear that he is unwilling to sacrifice the 
50,000-strong strike force, even while he has also said he would 
abide by the SOFA and remove all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. 
In the meantime, Gates and various generals have released hedging 
statements or trial balloons saying that the 2011 deadline might be 
impractical and that various types of forces might stay longer, 
either to provide air power, to continue training the Iraq military, 
or to protect Iraq from invasion. Any or all of these could translate 
into the maintenance of the 50k strike force as well as the five 
'enduring bases.'"

That the Obama administration intends to maintain a significant 
military presence in Iraq after 2011 is obvious from its continued 
insistence that in Iraq "democracy" must be guaranteed.

Schwartz explained:

"In Washington speak this means that the government of Iraq must be 
an ally of the United States, a condition that has been iterated and 
reiterated by all factions (GOP and Democrat) in Washington, since 
the original invasion. Given the increasing unwillingness of the 
Maliki administration to follow US dictates (for example, on oil 
contracts, on relations with Iran, and on relations with Anbar and 
other Sunni provinces), the removal of troops would allow Maliki even 
more leeway to pursue policies unacceptable to Washington. Thus, even 
if Maliki succeeds himself in the Premiership, the US may need troops 
to keep the pressure on him. If he does not succeed himself, then the 
likely alternate choices are far more explicit in their antagonism to 
integration of Iraq into the US sphere of interest ... the Obama 
administration would then be left with the unacceptable prospect that 
withdrawal would result in Iraq adopting a posture not unlike Iran's 
with regard to US presence and influence in the Middle East."

His grim conclusion:

"All in all, there are myriad signs that withdrawal of US troops 
might result in Iraq breaking free from US influence and/or deprive 
the United States of the strong military presence in that part of the 
Middle East that both Bush and Obama advocated and have struggled to 
establish. Until I see some sign that the five bases are going to be 
dismantled, I will continue to believe that the US will find some 
reason - with or without the consent of the Iraqi government - to 
maintain a very large (on the order of 50k) military force there."

Expanding the Base

The US embassy in Iraq, already the largest diplomatic compound on 
the planet and the size of the Vatican City, is now likely to be 
doubled in size. Robert Ford, the deputy chief of mission in Baghdad, 
told reporters in January, "If Congress gives us the money we are 
asking for, this embassy is going to be twice the size it is now. 
It's not going down, it's getting bigger."

In 2005, The Washington Post reported:

"An even more expensive airfield renovation is underway in Iraq at 
the Balad air base, a hub for US military logistics, where for $124 
million the Air Force is building additional ramp space for cargo 
planes and helicopters. And farther south, in Qatar, a 
state-of-the-art, 104,000-square-foot air operations center for 
monitoring US aircraft in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa is 
taking shape in the form of a giant concrete bunker ... the US 
military has more than $1.2 billion in projects either underway or 
planned in the Central Command region - an expansion plan that US 
commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area."

Lt. Gen. Walter E. Buchanan III, who oversees Central Command's air 
operations pointed out, "As the ground force shrinks, we'll need the 
air to be able to put a presence in parts of the country where we 
don't have soldiers, to keep eyes out where we don't have soldiers on 
the ground."

In 2007 in a piece titled "US Builds Air base in Iraq for the Long 
Haul" NPR reported, "The US military base in Balad, about 60 miles 
north of Baghdad, is rapidly becoming one of the largest American 
military installations on foreign soil ... The base is one giant 
construction project, with new roads, sidewalks, and structures going 
up across this 16-square-mile fortress in the center of Iraq, all 
with an eye toward the next few decades."

It is so big that, "There is a regular bus service within its 
perimeter to ferry around the tens of thousands of troops and 
contractors who live here. And the services are commensurate with the 
size of the population. The Subway sandwich chain is one of several 
US chains with a foothold here. There are two base exchanges that are 
about as large as a Target or K-Mart. Consumer items from laptop 
computers to flat-screen TV's to Harley Davidson motorcycles are 
available for purchase."

The report added, "Several senior military officials have privately 
described Balad Air Base, and a few other large installations in 
Iraq, as future bases of operation for the US military." The term 
used is "lily pad," a description of the military jumping from base 
to base without ever touching the ground in between.

In September 2009 The New York Times reported about Balad:

"It takes the masseuse, Mila from Kyrgyzstan, an hour to commute to 
work by bus on this sprawling American base. Her massage parlor is 
one of three on the base's 6,300 acres and sits next to a Subway 
sandwich shop in a trailer, surrounded by blast walls, sand and rock. 
At the Subway, workers from India and Bangladesh make sandwiches for 
American soldiers looking for a taste of home. When the sandwich 
makers' shifts end, the journey home takes them past a power plant, 
an ice-making plant, a sewage treatment center, a hospital and dozens 
of other facilities one would expect to find in a small city. And in 
more than six years, that is what Americans have created here: cities 
in the sand.... Some bases have populations of more than 20,000, with 
thousands of contractors and third-country citizens to keep them running."

Camp Anaconda, as the Balad base is named, also has an Olympic-sized 
swimming pool. The bottling company there provides seven million 
bottles of water a month for those on base. This base also contains 
two fire stations and the single busiest landing strip in the entire 
Defense Department.

A 2006 Associated Press story, "Elaborate US Bases raise long-term 
questions," gave the following account:

"[At Balad] the concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday 
glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that's now the 
home of up to 120 US helicopters, a "heli-park" as good as any back 
in the States. At another giant base, al-Asad in Iraq's western 
desert, the 17,000 troops and workers come and go in a kind of 
bustling American town, with a Burger King, Pizza Hut and a car 
dealership, stop signs, traffic regulations and young bikers clogging 
the roads. The latest budget also allots $39 million for new airfield 
lighting, air traffic control systems and upgrades allowing al-Asad 
to plug into the Iraqi electricity grid - a typical sign of a 
long-term base. At Tallil, besides the new $14 million dining 
facility, Ali Air Base is to get, for $22 million, a double perimeter 
security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers and a moat 
- in military parlance, a "vehicle entrapment ditch with berm."

Truthout contacted renowned journalist and filmmaker John Pilger for his views:

"Like Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq is more a war of perception 
than military reality. I don't believe the US has the slightest 
intention of leaving Iraq. Yes, there will be the "drawdown" of 
regular troops with the kind of fanfare and ritual designed to 
convince the American public that a genuine withdrawal is happening. 
But the sum of off-the-record remarks by senior generals, who are 
ever conscious of the war of perception, is that at least 70,000 
troops will remain in various guises. Add to this up to 200,000 
mercenaries. This is an old ruse. The British used to "withdraw" from 
colonies and leave behind fortress-bases and their Special Forces, the SAS.

"Bush invaded Iraq as part of a long-term US design to restore one of 
the pillars of US policy and empire in the region: in effect, to make 
all of Iraq a base. The invasion went badly wrong and the "country as 
base" concept was modified to that of Iraq indirectly controlled or 
intimidated by a series of fortress-bases. These are permanent. This 
is also the US plan for Afghanistan. One has to keep in mind that US 
foreign policy is now controlled by the Pentagon, whose man is Robert 
Gates. It is as if Bush never left office. Under Bush there was an 
effective military coup in much of Washington; the State Department 
was stripped of its power; and Obama did as no president has ever 
done: he brought across from a previous, discredited administration 
the entire war making bureaucracy and gave it virtually unlimited 
power. The only way the US will leave is for the resistance to rise 
again, and for Shiites and Sunni to unite; I think that will happen."

Captain, My Captain

On March 4, 2010, as a guest on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show," Thomas 
Ricks, who was the military correspondent for the Washington Post, 
referring to President Obama's promises to withdraw from Iraq, said, 
"I would say you shouldn't believe [it] because I don't think it's 
going to happen. I think we're going to have several thousand, 
several tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq on the day President 
Obama leaves office."

Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the US Army, stated last May 
that his planning for the Army envisions combat troops in Iraq for a 
decade as part of a sustained US commitment to fighting extremism and 
terrorism in the Middle East. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong 
direction," he said, "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."

Senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who served under seven presidents - 
from John Kennedy to George H. W. Bush - explained to Truthout, 
"Since 2003 I've been suggesting that the Iraq war was motivated by 
the acronym OIL: oil, Israel, and Logistics (military bases to 
further the interests of the first two)."

In January 2008, McGovern wrote of statements signed by George W. 
Bush when he was in the White House:

"Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the 
Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily - if inadvertently - 
admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily 
at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing 
permanent (the administration favors "enduring") military bases. He 
made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the 
defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by 
the law's prohibition against expending funds:

"(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose 
of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed 
Forces in Iraq," or

"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

At the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on November 20, 2006, in a 
speech titled "A Way Forward in Iraq," Sen. Barack Obama, who had not 
yet become the commander in chief of the US military, declared:

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional 
troops to Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an 
over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in 
Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, 
reassure allies in the Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at 
al Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international 
terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

On March 16, 2010, Gen. David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, 
told lawmakers that the US military may set up an additional 
headquarters in northern Iraq even after the September 2010 deadline. 
Petraeus said that putting a headquarters in northern Iraq was 
"something we are looking at."

What reason is there to doubt our commander in chief 's assertion 
that there is need to maintain an (approximately 50,000 strong) US 
"strike force" in or near Iraq to guarantee US interests in the 
Middle East, to allow Washington to move quickly against jihadists in 
the region and to make clear to "our enemies" that the US will not be 
"driven from the region"?

Bhaswati Sengupta contributed to this report.




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100321/70483915/attachment.html>