US Seeking 58 Bases;
Khamenei Tells al-Maliki not to sign Security Pact
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Monday with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 
According to Farsnews writing in Persian, Khamenei told al-Maliki that the most important and fundamental problem for Iraq at present is the presence of Occupation forces. He affirmed, "We are certain that the people of Iraq, through their intrinsic unity and effort, will cross over these difficult conditions and arrive at a place befitting them. The dream of the Americans most certainly will never be realized." He emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran considers helping the government and people of Iraq a religious duty. He expressed the hope that al-Maliki's visit to Iran and the agreements he signed there would strengthen relations between the two countries.
Al-Maliki expressed his conviction that Iraqis were attaining a consensus and beginning to speak with a single voice. Khamenei expressed his concern that the Americans would interfere illegitimately and "impudently" in Iraqi affairs and disrupt this building consensus. He compared the current role of the US with the one the British used to play in promoting divide and rule policies even in independent Iraq after 1932. He also expressed his worry that the US would worm itself into every aspect of Iraq's affairs.
Al-Hayat writes Tuesday morning in Arabic that Khamenei advised al-Maliki not to sign any such security agreement.
Leila Fadel reports that Shiite lawmakers in Iraq told her that the US has requested 58 bases from the Iraqi government as part of the security agreement now being negotiated. The US also is said to want the authority to decide when Iraq has been attacked, and when and how to respond. The lawmakers are afraid that Washington will use that provision to drag them into the middle of a war between the US and Iran.
On being informed by McClatchy of some of these details, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama demanded that any such stipulation of 58 bases be submitted to the US Congress for approval, and that the Iraqis be told that the US does not seek permanent bases in that country. The McCain campaign had no comment.
Al-Hayat reports that Kurdish MP Mahmud Osman is saying that he has seen a second version of the agreement in which the Americans reduced their demands.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq for Monday:
' Baghdad
- A roadside bomb detonated in Harthiyah neighborhood(central Baghdad)on Karkh bank. Five people were injured with no casualties reported of the American side.
- A car bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol at Rashid Camp street (east Baghdad).Three people were killed (including 1 soldier) and 12 others wounded(included 4 soldiers and one officer).
- Mortars hit the green zone (IZ) where the Iraqi government headquarters and the foreign embassies are .No casualties reported.
- Around 4pm, gunmen attacked a jewelry shop in Mansour neighborhood. They stole the shop’s content, killed 3 people and injured 2 policemen who were in the area.
- Gunmen launched a propelled grenade on a police patrol in Shaab neighborhood. Two policemen were injured.
- Police found three dead bodies in Baghdad: 2 were found in Karkh bank; 1 in Saidiyah and 1 in Shurta .While 1 was found in Talbiyah in Risafa bank.
Mosul
- A roadside bomb detonated near the cultural group petrol station downtown Mosul city. Five people were injured
-A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Al-Sukar neighborhood in Mosul city.Two policemen were injured.
-Gunmen killed two prominent Sheikhs in Mosul city from Ubeid and Abassi tribes who were on their way from Mosul to Tal Afar..
- Gunmen launched a propelled grenade on joint forces from Iraqi police and American armies in Zanjili town .Two Iraqi policemen were injured.
- A roadside bomb detonated in Tawafa neighborhood in Mosul city.One policeman was injured.
Diyala
-Baquba morgue had buried 25 unidentified dead bodies which had been in the morgue for more than 40 days ,Ahmed Foad ,the head of the Baquba morgue.
-Around 7am, a roadside bomb detonated at Al-Muradiyah (9 miles west of Baquba).Four women were wounded where they were doing farming in one of the orchard
- Mortars hit Al-Sineija of Al-Wajihiyah town(north of Baquba).One person was killed and 2 were wounded.
- Gunmen killed a former retired officer at Hibhib (north of Baquba).
-Gunmen killed a woman in Balad Ruz (31 miles east of Baquba).
- A roadside bomb detonated in Dali Abbas (21 miles north Baquba).One person was wounded .
- Gunmen opened fire in Muqdadiyah town (30 miles northeast Baquba).Two people were seriously wounded in that attack.'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/10/2008 12:38:00 AM
|
Facebook
12 Comments:
The Kurds and the Americans don't get it. The Iraqis (proper) do not want ANY treaty with the US or ANY troop presence.
They, together with Maliki, think they are in a Cheesy Catch Phrase competition, and they can get what they want with some bazzar-type haggling and verbal gymnastics.
But for the Iraqis this is a matter of life or death of the Iraqi nation. There is no way the US would be welcome in Iraq, ever.
Juan,
This isn't really off topic, as it is a central question in any peace in the Middle East.
What is your opinion of Barack Obama's position on "undivided" Jerusalem?
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, says that Obama's statement before AIPAC is the worst thing to happen to Palestinians since the Six Day War.
Is is possible to be simultaneously a supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people and a supporter of Barack Obama?
I receive your email alerts and I haven't seen any mention of this subject.
Leila Fadel reports that Shiite lawmakers in Iraq told her that the US has requested 58 [military bases inside Iraq]....
....the campaign of Senator Barack Obama demanded that any such stipulation of 58 bases be submitted to the US Congress for approval, and that the Iraqis be told that the US does not seek permanent bases in that country.
Huh??? What's with this guy? Is he trying to make nice with the American jingo crowd? Here's a much better answer:
Obama: If I'm elected president there will be a grand total of ZERO American military bases inside Iraq on 01 January 2010.
The US also is said to want the authority to decide when Iraq has been attacked, and when and how to respond. The lawmakers are afraid that Washington will use that provision to drag them into the middle of a war between the US and Iran.
There's no reason to fear that might happen... it is a certainty.
On being informed by McClatchy of some of these details, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama demanded that any such stipulation of 58 bases be submitted to the US Congress for approval, and that the Iraqis be told that the US does not seek permanent bases in that country.
He refers it to the Congress knowing they'll roll over for the Neocons and give him cover.
No.. no permanent bases... just bases whose lifetimes extend indefinitely into the future... we have to be more prudent about getting out of than we were about getting into Iraq.
Now there's a marketing slogan!
We need to get ALL American forces, regular and mercenary, out of Iraq by Memorial Day 2009.
Obama won't do it even if he gets the chance to. He's hoping that the Neocons will do a deal that "ties his hands", that "forces" him to stay in Iraq. Against his will. While he prays at the AIPAC that their will be done.
Dr. Cole, do you think President Bush and Vice President Cheney are going to war with Iran?
With regard to Iran's rights under the NPT, the UNSC sanctions employed at the behest of the US Empire and its own enacted through its congress constitute an Economic War against Iran, a war that's been waged since the Shah's overthrow. What has yet to happen is a Formal Shooting War between the US Empire and Iran. I say Formal because US special forces are reputed to have already invaded Iranian territory and the US Empire facilitate the existence of terrorists that do engege in war-like acts within Iran.
So, "are we going to war with Iran" is the wrong question. The proper question is When will the war against Iran cease?
US Seeking 58 Bases
!!!
Hostile analysis makes it sound as if the AEI-GOP-DOD coalition still cherishes vast schemes of further invasionism, that their projected SOFA with the former Iraq is intended to be a jumping-off point for the next excellent advanture, perhaps one to be titled "J. Sidney McCain and the Evil Qommies."
Possibly so, but my own best guess is that the bozos are mostly lookin’ backwards at this point and tryin’ to fadge up some sort of splendiferous ‘legacy’ for the House of Kennebunkport-Crawford. They do not display much imagination about it, either, since on my theory they still crave exactly the same reward that the craved in the spring of 2003, only heartfelt love and appreciation and gratitude from their neo-Iraqi subjects. The catch is that it counts for nothing when a State or wannabe State merely professes such sentiments. To make the profession register as sincere, it needs to be accompanied with material concessions that might have been refused.
Accordingly, poor M. al-Málikí must have his arm twisted to talk about "control of airspace, immunity for soldiers and security contractors, authority for more than 50 long-term bases, and the right to continue to carry out unimpeded military operations" -- when what the GOP geniuses really want him to say is merely "We are so happy you folks invaded, we thank you forever!"
(But God knows best.)
Happy days.
"He also expressed his worry that the US would worm itself into every aspect of Iraq's affairs."
Bingo. It's called Deep Institutional Arrangements and is the finishing touch of the euroamerican heritage of conquest for centuries. Or, as a Lakotah Indian and Iraq vet says:
What they're doing in Iraq is creating the new BIA, Bureau of Iraqi Affairs!
Sistani understands the insidious aftermath of military chaos. Any student of euroamerican history should know this feature well.
Excuse me. I said Sistani. Khaminei.
Obama, Israel and AIPAC
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
Deadly Fallout From Obama's Groveling Before Israel Lobby
The tragedy of it all is that as a candidate for the presidency only Ralph Nader has recognized the dangers that lie ahead by a continuation of that policy.
Obama’s statement of unquestioning and unqualified support for Israel’s objectives will likely embolden Israel to once again try to invade Lebanon to destroy Hizbollah’s fighters, the only force strong enough to resist Israeli aggression in that country. And while the U.S. has no more troops left with which to invade Iran, as Sen. Joe Lieberman and the Israeli government wants us to do, both Israel and the Bush Administration have plans to bomb Iran’s phantom nuclear program.
I cannot imagine anyone voting for Barack Obama for president. He is clearly unfit to wield power. He takes direction much too readily and easily. We cannot afford to have another straw man in the White House.
Ralph Nader will end the war in Iraq and will not go to war for the perceived interest of a third nation.
Neither will Cynthia McKinney. Neither will Mike Gravel. Neither will any of the vast majority of Americans. Pick your favorite and right them in on your ballot in November.
Do not allow the wall of silence on Obamas treachery drown out the unbelievable, traitorous act that he and all the other politicians in Washington DC performed as they lined up to choose the AIPAC's interests over all of our own.
And just say no to more War Crimes.
1. US forces would be free to attack via Iraqi airspace, land or waterways any country which threatens global and regional peace and security, menaces Iraqi government and constitution, or instigates terrorist and paramilitary groups.
2. US forces would have the right to set up additional military bases and stations inside Iraq that will support the Iraqi army. The number of the bases would depend on several factors, including the security conditions the US government deems desirable, negotiations with the US Embassy in Baghdad and the US command as well as discussions with the Iraqi Defense Ministry and relevant authorities.
3. The Iraqi government and its judiciary would not have the right to prosecute American forces or individuals. The immunity measure would extend to the US military, security, non-military and logistics firms affiliated with the US Army.
4. The Iraqi government would not have the right to independently determine whether US forces inside Iraq are qualified, nor would it have the right to limit or determine the size of American military bases and their routes.
5. US security forces would have the right to build security centers, particularly their own special prisons, to maintain security.
6. US forces would have the right to use their privilege to arrest those who threaten peace and security without a warrant from the Iraqi government or its institutions.
7. The US government must be informed of and negotiated with on Iraq's regional and international relations as well as signing of agreements so as to safeguard the country's security and constitution.
8• US forces will control Iraq's defense, interior and intelligence ministries for 10 years to carry out efforts toward training and enabling their staff, a measure which would mean even the weapons used by Iraqi forces and their types must be employed with the consent of US forces.
9. The agreement to be signed would be a pact rather than a treaty.
10• US forces would remain in Iraq for an unspecified and presumably lengthy period depending on conditions in the country. Future reviews on the matter would depend on the US and Iraqi governments. Any review would only be made under certain preconditions, including that Iraq's security and military organizations improve their performance; the country's security situation improves; national reconciliation takes place; neighboring countries are warned; the Iraqi government regains complete control throughout the country; and put an end to the presence of paramilitary forces inside Iraq.
Ralph Nader will end the war in Iraq and will not go to war for the perceived interest of a third nation.
John Lee,
Anyone voting for Ralph Nader is loosing its vote for nothing. At most, he will get 5% and in the worst scenario could shift the balance toward McCain. With Mc Cain, we are sure to have a clone of Bush policies. Clearly Obama will be a lesser evil. I don't share the opinion that Obama will be much better than McCain on the Iraq and foreing policy question, but I think it will still be better . Then what is needed is a strong US citizen movement, pressuring him to withdraw... Obama may be subjected to that kind of peaceniks pression and he may have to cease terrain in front of such pressures. While McCain constituency will pressure him to do the contrary : they are right wing and hawks..
Post a Comment
<< Home