Iraq: 'Get the Hell Out', Obama: 'No!'
by fairleft, Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:22:19 AM EST
The real opposition to the U.S. empire is not at the ballot box but on the ground out in places occupied by imperial troops. And, in regard to Iraq, Mr. Obama has very recently clarified that he's on the empire team, while the Iraqis are now loudly and very clearly facing off against him and imperialism (emphasis added throughout):
Under Iraq Troop Pact, US Can't Leave Any Forces Behind
by Leila Fadel
BAGHDAD - The status of forces of agreement between the United States and Iraq is now called the withdrawal agreement, and that's exactly what it is: an ultimate end to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.
If Iraq's parliament endorses the agreement, in six weeks American forces would have to change the way they operate in Iraq, and all U.S. combat troops, police trainers and military advisers would have to leave the country by Dec. 31, 2011. President-elect Barack Obama's campaign plan to leave a residual force of some 30,000 American troops in Iraq ((DisinfoHUH?!? A key Obama advisor says 60-80,000 troopsand Obama himself says our 140,000 or so mercenariesare not being considered for withdrawal)) would be impossible under the pact. . . .
The agreement forbids attacks on other countries from inside Iraq, and if it were approved, beginning Jan. 1 all U.S. operations would have to be conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government.
"It is not permitted to use Iraqi land, water and airspace as a route or launching pad for attacks against other countries," the pact says, according to an Arabic copy that McClatchy obtained.
The military also would have to get arrest warrants from the Iraqi government, judicial orders for raids on homes and to consult in advance on every operation, including the attacks on high-value targets that American forces now routinely conduct on their own. . . .
In provinces that have been turned over to Iraqi control, U.S. troops couldn't remain in cities, villages or towns after the agreement took effect, and as of June 30, all American combat troops would have to be in agreed-on locations outside populated areas. They'd have no right, beginning next year, to venture off their bases and outposts without Iraqi authorities' approval and cooperation.
Yes, the wait till the end of 2011 is too long, but that's an impressive and very real and very immediate set of restrictions on U.S. occupying troops! Good on yah, Iraq!
Anyway, here's what key Obama advisors think of the uppity Iraqi government (imagine them asserting a right not to have 200,000 foreign military and mercenaries in their country!):
When a group of advisers to the Obama campaign visited Iraq last month before the election, they gave a stern warning to local politicians regarding a long-term legal framework for the presence of U.S. troops.
Talks have been deadlocked for months as the Iraqis seek a firm date for U.S. troop withdrawal and the right to prosecute U.S. troops in some instances, raising the prospect that negotiations might not be concluded before Bush leaves office.
Obama's advisers "told us that if we didn't take what the Bush administration was offering on the security deal, then we would likely find ourselves getting much less under the Democratic administration," says Haydar al-Abadi, a Shiite lawmaker who was at the meeting.
Looks like we've got a real pro wrestling match in store: 'Obama & The Permanent Occupiers' vs. "Get the Hell Out of Our Country'
Whose side are you on? How ya gonna express that?