[Peace-discuss] Obama's false "withdrawal" from Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

'...Clinton, who speculated that the wave of bombings “could very well be 
Al-Qaeda in Iraq trying to reassert itself,” said that if the Iraqi regime of 
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were to ask for American forces to remain in the 
country, “it would be irresponsible for us not to listen.”

'For his part, Panetta declared, “We are going to maintain a long-term 
relationship with Iraq to make sure they remain stable, whether it’s diplomatic 
or military.” He added that the continued deployment of US troops in the country 
for troop training and “counter-terrorism” operations could be negotiated 
between the two governments.

'Under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated between the Bush 
administration and the Iraqi regime, all 48,000 US troops remaining in Iraq are 
to be withdrawn by the end of this year.

'Earlier this month, under pressure from the Obama administration and the 
Pentagon, the Iraqi parliament authorized negotiations with Washington on 
extending the US military presence, supposedly in the guise of “trainers” and 
“advisers.” US officials have reported that Washington envisions keeping some 
10,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely, including special 
operations units which would continue “kill or capture” missions against 
suspected insurgents.

'Maliki’s Shiite-based Da’wa Party and the largely Sunni-based Iraqiya party 
headed by Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite and former CIA “asset,” have backed 
negotiations on extending the US military occupation. However, the continued 
presence of American troops is widely opposed by the Iraqi people, some 1.2 
million of whom lost their lives, with millions more turned into refugees, as a 
result of the 2003 US invasion and eight years of occupation.

'This popular hostility has found distorted reflection within Maliki’s unstable 
coalition government. Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, for example, issued a 
statement last weekend warning that a continuation of the US occupation would 
represent “a problem not a solution.”

'“The withdrawal of American combat forces will lead to an improvement in the 
security situation in Iraq by calming the concerns of neighboring countries that 
felt threatened,” he said.

'Hashemi also said that the Iraqi government had no need to renegotiate the US 
withdrawal agreement in order to secure training, arms and equipment for its 
security forces.

'“I hope in the near future, Iraq will be open to Russia, southeast Asia and the 
European Union,” he said. “There are many countries that have technology which 
is comparable to what is available in the US, and this technology competes with 
American technology at lower prices.”

'Hashemi’s mention of “concerns of neighboring countries” about the US presence 
was obviously referring to Iran, which has countered the US attempt to dominate 
Iraqi affairs by wielding increasing political and economic influence of its own.

'The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who has close ties to the Iranian 
clerical establishment, has roundly condemned the negotiations on extending the 
US military presence and warned that American troops remaining in the country 
after December 31 would be seen as a target for attack. “They will be treated as 
anyone who stays in Iraq, as a tyrannical occupier that must be resisted by 
military means,” al-Sadr said in a statement posted on his web site.

'Al-Sadr also issued a letter in English directed to US troops, urging them all 
to leave. “If you claim you have come to free us, spare us your claims and 
release us of your wrongdoing,” he wrote. “Know that we will resist and struggle 
firmly and strongly as before, until you leave our land, even as you would 
resist and struggle if your country were exposed to invasion”...

'Last Sunday, Camp Delta, the huge US military base outside of the southern city 
of Kut, came under Katyusha rocket attack, though no casualties were reported. 
Camp Delta, which occupies some 37 square miles, is the sole remaining US base 
yet to be formally turned over to Iraqi control. Located near a main Iranian 
border crossing, the camp boasts a long runway as well as housing for more than 
6,000 troops and has seen tens of millions of dollars of new construction since 
the SOFA providing for a US withdrawal was reached.

'The day after Monday’s attacks attributed to Sunni militants, a spokesman for 
the US military occupation affirmed that the Pentagon sees Shiite militias, 
allegedly backed by Iran, as the greater threat in Iraq.

'Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, the chief US military spokesman in Iraq, told 
Pentagon reporters Tuesday that Iran’s Quds force is providing support to the 
Shiite militias “in terms of manning, equipping, provision of intelligence.” He 
charged that Iran’s aim was to “keep Iraq weak and isolated from everybody else, 
all of its neighbors and the United States.”

'The general’s analysis says at least as much about US aims as it does about 
Iran. Washington is determined to continue pursuing the aims that motivated the 
invasion of 2003: domination of Iraq and its oil wealth and the use of Iraqi 
territory to project US military power throughout the region. Increasingly, US 
control over Iraq has been severely undermined by Iran’s substantial influence 
as well as by growing economic interests of other powers, including Turkey and 
China.
This is why the Pentagon and the Obama administration—Obama’s campaign pledges 
about ending the US war in Iraq notwithstanding—are determined to maintain a 
military grip over the country.

'Whether or not the Maliki government is able to secure a negotiated deal for 
extending the stay of US troops, Washington has worked to assure itself a 
continued military role. In eight years of occupation, the US has deliberately 
limited the capacities of the Iraqi military, leaving it without an air force or 
a navy and consequently the ability to protect the country’s borders. US air 
power will continue to control the Iraqi skies no matter what decision is taken 
by Iraq’s parliament.

'Meanwhile, as part of the preparation for US military withdrawal, the US State 
Department is conducting an ever-increasing militarization of its own operations 
in Iraq, which are expected to see the continued deployment of some 17,000 US 
“civilians” organized around the largest embassy in the world. Included in this 
number will be at least 5,000 heavily armed US military contractors, backed by a 
fleet of attack helicopters operated by DynCorp International.

'The Washington Post’s Walter Pincus reported Tuesday that the Pentagon has 
shifted an Army contract for intelligence services to the State Department so 
that US military intelligence operations can continue unabated in the event the 
scheduled troop withdrawal goes forward. While the precise nature of the 
services provided under the contract have been kept secret by the Pentagon, the 
document outlining its transfer to the State Department says that the 
contractor, L-3 Communications, will “assist in all aspect of intelligence 
support activities in order to provide timely and actionable intelligence 
information.”

'Pincus quotes the original contract, signed in 2009, which states that L-3 was 
hired to supply US-led military forces in Iraq with “intelligence operations 
support, locally employed persons screening, special security officers, human 
intelligence support teams, information operations support, and intelligence 
support.”

'The implication is that the State Department and its military contractors will 
be continuing operations previously carried out by the US military, including, 
in all likelihood, counterinsurgency operations coordinated with Iraqi Army units.'

[Full article at <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/iraq-a17.shtml>.]