With just over eight months left before the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) mandate for Iraq runs out, Pentagon officials are openly questioning the pledge to leave Iraq by December.
The official explanation now is that they believe a “power vacuum” would emerge in the absence of thousands of US soldiers continuing to occupy the nation. Officials say the exact size of the force depends on what they can talk the Iraqi government into.
The tone is a significant shift in rhetoric from August, when officials were hyping the exit of the “last combat troops” from Iraq and vowing to end the war within the timeframe of the SOFA. As with the other wars the administration is fighting, the deadline appears to be less appealing to the Pentagon the closer it gets.
But a three day weekend of major protests and threats of armed resistance by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr must surely be giving officials at least some pause in their eagerness to continue the war. With his political clout, it will be difficult for the Iraqi government to overrule him in approving the continued war.
America ain't going nowhere.
The US government doesn't willingly let go of anything it gets its slimy tentacles on.
If we stay past the "mandate" Moqtada al-Sadr will rally the entire Middle East into a Pan Arab war against America that will eclipse Vietnam in its savagery. These folks have been holding back waiting for the right moment. The first thing they'll try do is neutralize American air power– and I think the rest of the world is angry enough at the United States to help them with serious ground-to-air weapons. They aren't going to sit out the Arab Spring.
"With [Sadr's] political clout, it will be difficult for the Iraqi government to overrule him in approving the continued war."
… Don't count on it. We have seen this scenario play out many times before, and each time, the US troops and US involvement remains. Remember, the SOFA was supposed to be put to a plebiscite by the Iraqi voters. That requirement passed unfulfilled and the mainstream media promptly forgot about it.
US and NATO have no other place to send all these uniformed solders.., they are hoping to start a war in Africa (Libya) where they can ship them there, but for now it is not clear if they can or not.
Bill Clinton did the same thing.. he was closing the army bases in us but were shipping the solders and equipments to Europe to start the Balkan wars there.., if they bring them home they need to feed them, find a job for them and above all pentagon would lose the budget for Iraq operation.., that means lost of income for war manufacturer in Us and NATO.
US and NATO have no other place to send all these uniformed solders.., they are hoping to start a war in Africa (Libya) where they can ship them there, but for now it is not clear if they can or not.
Bill Clinton did the same thing.. he was closing the army bases in us but were shipping the solders and equipments to Europe to start the Balkan wars there.., if they bring them home they need to feed them, find a job for them and above all pentagon would lose the budget for Iraq operation.., that means lost of income for war manufacturer in Us and NATO.
I never expected us to leave. We went there to stay from the get go and are working very hard at expanding our military presence in the Middle East. A large part of the American economy is war in one sense or another. From the moment we first set foot on the shore of North America, our goal has been to destroy or dominate everything in our path. We're going to stay everywhwere we go until we collapse.
It is highly encouraging that many reader comments to the NYT Editorial, "A Rational Budget for the Pentagon", Published on April 19, 2011 noted that the US is functionally a 'global militarist Empire" (rather than a functional democracy) — and it is doubly encouraging the the NYT itself chose to "highlight" several of the reader comments that described our country as having morphed into such a global militarist Empire.
It is also difficult in this blog article, “Anti-American Message in Photo Exhibition”, to mis-interpret the signs and ideas that the Iraqis themselves express and equally encouraging that there is a strong similarity in both NYT reader comments and Iraqis that unmistakably recognize that the US is acting as an 'Empire'.
“No to the Occupation” and “Yes, to Freedom, Yes to Independence. No to the Occupation” clearly indicates that the Iraqis recognize (perhaps better than some French citizens in WWII) that they are occupied by a foreign Empire trying to look like a beneficial force [oxymoron] and trying to impose a "Vichy" government to extend such a facade of self-government.
Hopefully, more Americans than just highly informed NYT readers will start to recognize that their former country is acting like a violent global militarist Empire abroad, and perhaps some will even start to recognize that such an overtly violent empire "abroad" inevitably entails softer violence, propaganda, and ultimately tyranny "at home" as Hannah Arendt noted of all empires and particularly of the Nazi wannabe global empire that oppressed her "at home", when she said: “Empire abroad entails tyranny at home”.
All in all, we seeing encouraging progress throughout the world in recognizing this disguised 21st century global violent empire for what it is, and seeing though its very modern and sophisticated TWO-Party "Vichy" facade.
I was particularly impressed with the vertical orientation of the pictured Iraqi protest sign:
Unfair
Sinister
America
Which immediately reminded me of the same universal human aspirations in the more complete message of our own People's Party rally/protest/campaign signs — which we are distributing domestically and abroad, where ever people's actions are focused against empire and for liberty & democracy:
Democracy Liberty
OverOver
ViolentViolent
EmpireEmpire
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty & democracy over violent empire — People's Party 2012