|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
US signs deal for long-term occupation of Iraq
By Jerry White
28 November 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki
signed an agreement Monday paving the way for the long-term occupation
of the Middle Eastern country and its transformation into a semi-colonial
protectorate of the US.
The Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship
of Cooperation and Friendship outlines plans for the establishment
of permanent US military bases in Iraq to suppress internal opposition
to the US-installed regime and protect US economic and political
interests throughout the region. It also provides for preferential
treatment for US energy conglomerates and investors to exploit
Iraqs newly opened up oil resources.
The new agreementsigned during a secret videoconference
between Bush and Malikiwithout the slightest democratic
pretenses in each countryexposes the repeated lies, peddled
by the White House ever since the April 2003 invasion, that the
US had no intention to set up permanent military bases or carry
out an long-term occupation of Iraq.
The declaration calls for the current United Nations mandatewhich
has provided a legal fig leaf for the US occupationto be
extended one more year and thereafter to be replaced by a bilateral
economic and security pact between the two countries.
The full details of the pactincluding the size of the
US occupying forceare to be worked out by July 31, 2008
and are scheduled to take effect in early 2009, i.e., after Bush
leaves office. Although the agreement will commit US troops to
remain in the country for years, if not decades, the White House
insists that it will not rise to the level of a formal treaty,
requiring congressional approval.
Maliki signed the declaration without any serious parliamentary
debate. Sunni Arab and Shia politicians immediately denounced
it, saying the agreement would lead to US interference for
years to come. The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni
group, said the Iraqi signatories of the declaration would be
looked on as collaborators with the occupier.
Under the proposed formula, Iraqi officials told the Associated
Press, Iraqi forces will take charge of internal security, and
US troops will relocate to bases outside the cities. They foresee
at least 50,000 American troops remaining in the country indefinitely.
The White House says the bilateral agreement will not contain
timetables for the withdrawal of troops.
White House deputy national security advisor Lieutenant-General
Douglas Lute said the declaration signaled that the US will
protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and
that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly
contribute to regional stability.
US forces will protect the interests of American energy companies
once the countrys vast oil wealththe second largest
proven oil reserves in the worldare opened up to international
and in particular US investment. This is only possible by intensifying
US military repression of the Iraqi people and crushing popular
opposition to the US-installed regime and the American occupation.
At the same time permanent US bases are being set up to project
American military power throughout the Middle East and provide
US forces increased capabilities to launch attacks against Iran,
Syria and other countries.
Debka-Net-Weekly, a web site associated with Israeli military
intelligence, said the US has plans to remove 100,000 troops by
the end of 2009, leaving behind 50,000-70,000 in 20 huge land
and air bases. These bases, the site wrote, are
under construction; they will be secured by broad swathes of space,
fortified with weaponry and remote-controlled electronic devices.
US troops will be responsible for protecting Iraqs borders
from external threats, Debka reported, adding, US
air strength and special forces in these bases will have rapid
deployment capabilities for reaching points outside Iraq at need.
The US launched the Iraq war to establish unchallenged domination
of the Middle East and fend off the growing inroads into the energy-rich
region by its economic rivals, such as China and Russia. The economic
advantages of occupying Iraq are spelled out in one of the principles
outlined in the new US-Iraqi declaration, which calls for facilitating
and encouraging the flow of foreign investment to Iraq, especially
American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and
rebuilding of Iraq.
Another declares US support for aiding Iraqs transition
to a market economy, which includes opening up the nationalized
oil industry to the control of ExxonMobil, Chevron and other US
energy conglomerates.
Earlier this month the Iraqi government, guided by American
legal advisors, cancelled a contract originally signed by the
Saddam Hussein government in 1997 with the Russian company Lukoil,
for the development of the vast oil field in Iraqs southern
desert. The West Qurna fieldswith estimated reserves of
11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil
reserves of ExxonMobil, Americas largest oil companywill
now be opened to international, and in particular, US bidders.
Vladimir Tikhomirov, the chief economist at the Russian bank
UralSib, told the New York Times, From the Russian
government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied and its administration
directed by Washington, particularly when it comes to oil. The
Russians see the cancellation of the contract in Iraq as part
of the US drive to keep control over the major oil fields there.
The declaration of principles is loaded with Orwellian language
aimed at concealing its nakedly imperialist aims. The USwhich
launched an illegal war and occupation that have resulted in the
virtual destruction of an entire society and the deaths of more
than one million Iraqisdeclares its commitment to deter
foreign aggression. All those who oppose the occupation
are terrorists and outlaws who must be
defeated and uprooted from Iraq.
The real face of the American military presence was shown this
week when US troops fired on vehicles at roadblocks in Baghdad
and north of the Iraqi capital, killing at least five people,
including three women and a child, in two separate shootings.
The commitment to a long-term occupation hardly provoked a
murmur from the Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized
Bush for planning to leave office with a US army tied down
in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit
strategy.
While opposing Bush for failing to efficiently wage the war
the Democrats defend the same economic interests as the Republicans
and have made it clear they will not end the occupation if they
take control of the White House in 2009. In fact the military
scenario envisaged in the deal signed by Bush corresponds to the
bipartisan plans being worked out between the Bush administration
and the Democrats for a post-surge Iraq.
Leading Democrats, such as presidential candidates Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama, have argued for the reduction of US
forces and their redeployment from the cities to over-the-horizon
positions where they could strike opponents of the US-backed regime,
as well as Iran. Clinton in particular has argued that pulling
US troops out of the cities would reduce US casualties, thereby
making the long-term occupation of Iraq more politically palatable
in the US, while still keeping forces available to defend US economic
interests.
See Also:
US, British and Australian forces build
oil-protection base in Iraq
[13 November 2007]
From the horse's mouth: Greenspan
says Iraq war was for oil
[19 September 2007]
Bush-linked Texas company
signs oil deal with Iraqi Kurds
[15 September 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |