White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence

Source: TPMMuckraker


By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007

So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have released a joint declaration of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a morning teleconference.

Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.

-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.
-- In response, this 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. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup.....more at link.

Read more: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004772.php

---

Color me surprised! I don't know about permanent -- just til the oil's out of the ground!

the damn oil......and to continue to get attacked....

Your son died so that we can keep wasting our kids in Iraq, forever.

Americans (many with relatives in Iraq) were too busy camping out on Black Friday to notice that their children are dying for oil and for the interests of rich men.

Can't say I feel too sorry for them. It's not like they're showing much concern. Business as usual is still the norm.

Those local Germans live off the defense spending that keeps the local economies afloat.

Is it not?

What if the Democratic Candidate who will be President doesn't necessarily agree to be bound by this crap?

reached a non-binding agreement. There will be a force of
50,000or so troops in Iraq to provide security, deter Al Qaeda
and Iran. They will be there indefinitely. Iraq will be open
for American Business who wish to locate there.

the next POTUS, IF they have the guts.

Thing about this is, it smacks of imperialism, will create more hostility toward us in the Middle East, and the morale of the people in the services will plummet.

It is not rational for us to be there in the first place, and after all of the BS bush put out about Iraq "standing up on it's own", this just proves he is little more than a bigger shmuck than we already thought he was.

Absolutely clueless, brainless and demon spawn. The man is a walking disaster...his "legascy" is no more than incompetence and failure...both at incredible levels.

Worst President Ever...and gunning for worst human ever.

have the guts to cut off the funds?

will accrue to the defense contractors and oil companies. The GOP will get their kickback. Bidness as usual. But won't this piss off our new Sunni friends we've been arming? What about the Kurds and Hunt Oil? Exactly who are we getting into an "enduring relationship" with?

Not a surprise by any means but absolutely stunning. This is not the same country I was born in, not by a long shot.

If it's just a statement of intent by the whitehouse, then no big deal -- they're just stating openly what's been their policy all along. We've been talking about this for years now.

To the extent any of it is legally binding, or has parts with any legal import, it requires ratification by the senate. Otherwise it's just so many words on paper with a lot of fanfare.

And the constitution, that quaint 18th century document, also claims that Congress is the governmental body empowered to declare war. So what are the odds that this gentlemen's agreement gets enacted, or is treated as if it were enacted, by the major players who have their greedy little blood-stained hands extended to pocket all that filthy, dirty oil money?

The biggest principle involved here will be, as usual, "me first and the hell with the rest of you."

When congress abdicates its oversight role, the "unitary executive" has the final say -- as has been the SOP lately.

BUT the Democrats who voted for the IWR in 2002 were also told by Bush et. al that a vote for the IWR was not necessarily a vote for invading/occupying Iraq and we all know how THAT turned out even though a lot of us here (and an elightened few in Congress) saw what was coming a mile away.:eyes:

HOPEFULLY, our next President will further refine the nature of our so-called "enduring relationship" with Iraq (that I should point out most of us did NOT ask for) and make sure to put it to a vote before continuing to commit several thousand troops to further military/occupation activities over in Iraq since it has become crystal clear that we will NEVER see the end of our military occupation of Iraq and the redeployment of all or most of our troops while Bush et. al are in charge and our so-called "leaders" in Congress are apparently too afraid of REALLY standing up to Mr. +/-30%

got Bib Laden all pissed off in the first place? Now we are going to stay over there and prop up a pro Iranian Shiite regime, won't that kind of piss off the Sunnis and the Kurds too?