British newspaper The Independent published reports that the Bush administration is negotiating a secret pact with Iraq (and completely bypassing the legislative branch of our government) that would keep the US in the Middle Eastern nation indefinitely.
Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. . .
Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
The Bush administration continues to overstep its authority by negotiating a deal not covered by the checks and balances created by our THREE branches of government. While the justice department seems to have fallen in line with the the criminal elite in the executive branch, Democrats in the legislative branch, who seem to be finding their spines again, would likely make such a pact difficult to pass. So Bush and his team are going to bypass them altogether. The executive branch of the government should not get away with making decisions that have long term consequences without the full support of the legislative arm.
Additionally, yesterday, Reuters made clear that Iraqis are not looking for a permanent American presence in their nation.
A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday. . .
“The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq,” the letter to the leaders of Congress said.
That letter sounds pretty clear that the Iraqi government wants guarantees that no arrangements with Iraq mean a permanent US base in Iraq. If our “goal” is to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, shouldn’t we grant them the freedom to decide the direction to take the country, now that the big bad dictator with weapons of mass destruction has been removed from power, tried, and hung? Afterall, Americans insist the US government should listen to their citizens wants before making decisions
a recent World Public Opinion poll found that 81 percent of Americans believe that “when making ‘an important decision,’ government leaders ’should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public’s views
Iraqi Parliament representative Nadeem al-Jaberi told the US House of Representatives that
The majority of the people of Iraq are with the withdrawal.… Perhaps even about 70 percent.
Surely then, we should have that same expectation of our treatment of other countries; we should respect and honor their opinions on how to lead their country, right? But in order to respect the Iraqi people, we’d have had to have been there for legitmate purposes in the first place — bringing democracy to the Iraqi people is a convenient, if not ironic, cover. Since increasing evidence shows that Bush and his team lied about WMD that allowed for the greenlight to invade Iraq, invading Iraq for access to oil pretty much requires or permanent presence in that country.
Perhaps rather than war mongering for limited national resources, we could have instead invested the billions on alternative energy — which is the future — not the planet’s remaining oil reserves. What’s important is that we’ve brought freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, and we’re going to tell them what to do with it, parallelling our leadership’s respect for our own democracy (and Constitution).
No related posts.
Great post.
I think you put the finger on the problem of the USA with Iraq.
The public reason to go to war (settle democracy in Iraq) was not the real one (settle american basis to rule or at least weight on this key area of the world).
Despite, everything is coherent considering the administration’s point of view, the presence of the army in Iraq seems less an less sustunable from american’s and soldiers families.
S
Thanks, I’m forever disturbed that we seem to look at the citizens of other countries as pawns in our own little game of chess.
Lastly, let us not forget the ecological atrocities of war. You know when anyone bombs the shit out of anything it’s not just at the expense of people and politics, entire ecosystems are literally obliterated – and pollution aftereffects are visible for years.
But no, politics are more important. And getting to mystery terrorists too.
For those of you visiting this post, there’s a lot of discussion going on over at BrazenCareerist where it was crossposted.
http://www.brazencareerist.com/2008/06/06/the-audacity-of-bushs-executive-powers-expansion-strategy-goes-on-and-on/