To my ears I sound like a parrot on meth, but that is only because I bring you the critical story thread at Persona Non Grata before it begins to unravel in the corporate media. Sometime ago [6/19/07] I discussed the Regime's secret planning to create a long term military presence in Iraq even after the resistance had been subdued along the lines of our six decade old military presence in South Korea. As expected the Regime announced it has reached an agreement with the Baghdad government for a long term US military presence in the country. The bilateral security agreement would replace the UN mandate when it expires in 2008. Iraq wants an end to UN imposed restrictions on its sovereignty in place since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The parties agreed to extend the Chapter VII arrangement for one more year to allow them time to negotiate details of their new bilateral security pact. One of the "details" is the size and number of "enduring" US bases in the country, several of which are already being built. The security agreement will provide the weak central government with the reliable military force it needs to stay in power, since it allows US forces to intervene in any internal coup. It also will give preferential treatment to American companies wanting to exploit Iraq's energy resources. The fact the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US armed forces to leave (80%) is not operative.
The Regime will avoid congressional debate on the contentious issue of a long term security guarantee for Iraq by formulating it as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) rather than as a treaty which requires a two-thirds vote of Congress to ratify. SOFAs are treated as purely executive branch agreements. As we now know, the intervention in Iraq was in reality a military operation to secure Iraq's immense oil wealth by removing it from the control of an unfriendly dictator to the benefit of American oil companies. All the justifications du jour about WMDs, helping terrorists, establishing democracy, combating "Islamofascism", etc were simply a coordinated public relations campaign intended as cover for a neocolonial war. Iraq will be a client state, exploited for its natural resources and used as a political bulwark against radical Islamic states like Iran and Syria in the "Great Game" of Middle East geopolitics. And that game pivots on the Jewish-Palestinian impasse. Conservatives in Congress, from both parties, have aided and abetted this cynical manipulation of American public opinion and the profit motivated use of military force to achieve their foreign policy goals. Their support for war explains their unwillingness to impeach the Charlatan for his crimes.
Only a total US withdrawal could leverage a national compromise between the warring Iraqi factions that pass as a central government. A bilateral security agreement would ostensibly require a 2/3 approval of parliament under the new Iraq constitution. Already 144 legislators have signed a petition calling for the phased withdrawal of all American forces. One reason I support Bill Richardson, besides his obvious experience, is his commitment to end American involvement in Iraq. Governor Richardson is the only Democratic presidential candidate consistently calling for a complete and total withdrawal from Iraq within a reasonable time frame. He is moving up the polls in New Hampshire because the people there are beginning to understand his unique qualifications and see that his policy positions make great sense. Give Bill Richardson your vote and help him change the paradigm of diplomacy by other means.