Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Of course permanent occupation (or permanent bases in the desert) has been the aim of this operation from the start.  All other “reasons” were so much hot air.  AND also- The occupation HAS been a mighty nice profit center for the cronies.

The charming thing about Prof. Bainbridge’s naivete is that it appears to be authentic.  As a fellow disenchanted conservative, albeit one who smelled a rat well before the 2004 election, I’m inclined to cut a great deal of slack to others who were deceived.

But really, who outside of White House propagandists has thought this was anything other than an occupation for at least two or three years now?

The weapon of mass destruction - dependence on petrochemicals.

Memo to Bush-Cheney.  We would be smart to lower our longterm goals in Iraq to something that involves eventually draw down with perhaps a couple of bases on lease.  Bush said all along we would leave when asked. 

McCain should proceed with caution but if push comes to shove support doing what the democratic Iraqi government wants.

Of course we’re there for the long haul. And it is in the long term best interest of the U.S. to persist. Now that the U.S. has spent hundreds of billions of dollars (re)building infastructure and superbases, you think U.S. forces are going to leave due to limp, lifeless international laws? Sorry, friend, there is too much money to be made. (And if you are a true believer, too much “good” to be done with regard to middle east policy.) Climb down from your Ivory Tower—but do pick up a copy of the Prince.

Obviously this isn’t the kind of development I like to hear.  However, because these kinds of negotiations are usually private, I haven’t been able to find anything other than unsourced quotes.

Assuming the worst, though, I can’t imagine any way Bush could force occupation of Iraq beyond January 20 of next year.  And there is basically no way the Iraqis are asking for a withdrawal before January 20.

So even assuming the worst it’s very clear that whatever President Bush wants doesn’t matter beyond January 20.  It’s also clear that whoever occupies the White House next year will be able to renegotiate any agreement on January 21. Why, then, is this a sticking point in negotiations?  My guess—and yes, it’s only a guess—is that Bush wants to keep Iraq in play as a potential issue in an election year.

US casualties in Iraq have plummeted, from 80+ a month to just over 10 a month.  Things are in good enough shape that Obama has started backing away from his “withdrawal no matter what” platform, eerily similar to Nixon’s disastrous plan to end Vietnam ( http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-10-24-1.html ):

I remember, just before the draft lottery that chose my number back in the Vietnam era, a professor asked me whether I would serve in Vietnam. I said, “Not if I can help it.”

“Why not?” he said.

“Because we’ve already decided to lose. Why should I risk my life for that?” Nixon had been elected partly on the basis of a promise to get out of Vietnam. Having made that promise, he was no longer capable of negotiating a peace with the North Vietnamese that differed in any significant way from our complete surrender.

After all, why should they give in on any point, when their opponents in the negotiation had already promised to leave Vietnam regardless of whether the North Vietnamese gave concessions or not?)

And, of course, by backing away from such a half-baked plan, Obama is not only taking heat from his supporters (and making statements that he has never changed a position in any way, video on Youtube notwithstanding), but he’s also apparently losing a lot of financial contributions.

But once the current President signs an agreement to withdraw—even though the agreement would have caveats and be subject to renegotiation by the next President—Iraq as an election year issue suddenly becomes irrelevant.  Bush has weighed the options and he apparently believes Iraq as an issue helps McCain more than Iraq as a non-issue.

Do I like the idea of the President playing politics with the military and diplomatic relations?  Not at all.  But I’m able to tell the sky isn’t falling.

As Catholic Americans I suggest reading Pope John Paul II’s 1987 encyclical- “On Social Concern"- he nailed the whole superpower bloc geopolitical/neo-colonial approach to nation relations- the weaker being dominated/manipulated by the stronger. If you want detailed evidence of the long sordid history of Western and American abuses of global solidarity/subsidiarity and violations of national sovereignty all over the globe- read Fromkin’s - A Peace to End all Peace, and Stephen Kinzer’s books- latest is - Overthrow- and for a real detailed wake-up call-Tim Weiner’s -History of the CIA- My good God, the damage the CIA has done in overthrowing nationalist leaders in Iraq, Guatemala, Honduras, Chile and on and on- all in the name of American “interests"- it is so unholy, so unmanly and cruel. We must come to grips with what is going on in the Middle East right now is mostly a whole lot of Blow-Back- you can read Dreyfuss’ - Devil’s Game- to read about how the British/US/Israel all helped to build up the Jihadist movement in order to undermine anti-colonial nationalist leaders/movements throughout the Middle-East- If we don’t come clean about the past, we will continue to repeat our mistakes until we end up as another overextended, universally hated empire- falling due to our sins domestic and exported

Correction to the above- I meant to reference the CIA’s overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister in 1953- as detailed in Kinzer’s book- All the Shah’s Men- and -Overthrow-, and even more so in Weiner’s - History of the CIA. The relationship with Iraq is also detailed in the above books- with Saddam Hussein being a beneficiary of CIA subplots for awhile- and whom I can recall when I was in Army basic training in 1981- and receiving regular updates on the progress of “Our Friend Saddam Hussein” in his war with the crazy Ayatollas’. Of course, that was another proxy war and Hussein eventually outlived his usefulness like Noreiga. There is a huge problem when there is such a big disconnect between real history and the sanitized history that most citizens are exposed to in the mass media. Secretive Government working in tandem with large economic interests are really the definition of ‘powers and principalities’ they work so hand-in-glove - and so opposite of the Way of Christ- the Light- the Truth that is to be shouted from the rooftops- the Catholic teachings open and available to all- Government must be transparent and the love of money cannot be the hidden motive of a nation’s “interest”. America must win hearts and minds through legitimate good works, not bribery of an elite class in poor or failed states, and not coercion, black ops, disinformation, media manipulation, coup plots, assassinations, and old-style colonial wars and occupations. Christ ushered in a new era for mankind- for individuals and for nations. Read and implement the Catholic social doctrine as best you can- that is the way to overcome evil with good.

You can bet that Bush and Cheney want the occupation to continue as long as possible.  Look at the numbers—112 billion barrels of oil, even at $80/barrel = 9 *trillion* dollars.  Now, if you’ve been paying attention to the details of the oil law we’ve been trying to force the Iraqi parliament to pass, it allows privatization of oil production in Iraq (unlike every other Arab nation, or Iraq until our occupation).  The royalty rates that have been leaked are in the range of 20-50%.

What’s 20% of 9 trillion dollars?  180 billion dollars.  That’s how much money is at stake.

Bush and Cheney must be incredibly frustrated.  They have 140,000 troops sitting in Iraq, a puppet government almost, but not quite, willing to pass that oil law and start a massive give-away of Iraqi wealth to the Anglo-American oil companies controlled by their friends.  And only a few months left on the clock.

They’ll do anything they can to get someone elected who’ll put the interests of those oil companies ahead of those of our country, or the Iraqi people’s.

And McCain doesn’t even seem to understand the difference between liberation and occupation.

Wow. Talk about cherry picking an article! Professor, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are getting as bad as the typical leftist.

[I]f you’ve been paying attention to the details of the oil law we’ve been trying to force the Iraqi parliament to pass, it allows privatization of oil production in Iraq (unlike every other Arab nation, or Iraq until our occupation).

Every nation is allowed to privatize the oil industry, but many have chosen instead to seize control, and then screw the whole thing over ( http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/staterun_compan.html ).  Based on the history of oil exploration in the world, privatizing the oil industry in Iraq (with revenue sharing with the Sunnis—remember that’s an important benchmark) is the best way to guarantee that things actually get done in a reasonably intelligent manner.

Last time I checked international law, a soveriegn country could decide for itself whether or not a foreign military presence was allowed. . . . For the US to deny that right is effectively the equivalent of the US asserting that it has the quasi-sovereign status of an occupier of conquered territory.

But the U.S. hasn’t denied that right.  That would only happen if the government of Iraq said unambiguously that it wanted US forces out now, or in six months, or whatever, and the US refused to leave.  What the Iraqis have said instead is that they want any status of forces agreement to include a timetable for withdrawal.  That isn’t a demand that the US leave; that’s the statement of a negotiating position.  Perhaps they believe their negotiating position is stronger because withdrawal is something which, as a sovereign power, they have the right to demand unilaterally, but so far they haven’t exercised that right.

You commented on this same issue in November 2005, but I cannot find the link.

My latest post is: “If I were prime minister of Iraq.” I would do exactly what Maliki is doing:

“[I]t is in Iraq’s self-interest to negotiate before November 2008 a treaty defining conditions and force levels for continued U.S. military presence in Iraq as well as providing for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces. Such a treaty would strengthen Iraq’s government domestically, improve Iraq’s international stature, affirm investors’ confidence in Iraq’s economy, facilitate other compromises, and partially secure Iraq from a head-in-the-sand unilateral withdrawal by a future U.S. administration. The U.S. can be a fickle ally; ask the Vietnamese. Iraq’s best option in 2008 is to pursue a treaty with the U.S. that provides for U.S. withdrawal under certain conditions yet obligates the U.S. to assist Iraq in an emergency should Iraq so request.”

Ha, ha:  http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/11/abc-obamas-iraq-plan-almost-impossible/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/14/bbc-malikis-remarks-misreported/

D’oh!