Permanent Iraq occupation: I told you so

Headline: “Gates: U.S. may be in Iraq for decades.”

I take no joy in saying I told you so. But, I told you so. Several times.

(And two days after-the-fact, The Washington Post agrees in its lead editorial on June 3, 2007. I told you, I told you so.)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Hawaii May 31, that South Korea or Japan could be the model for the future in Iraq.

Gates told reporters that “a mutual agreement” with Iraq in which “some force of Americans . . . is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government,” is what the future holds.

Mutual agreement, protective of the sovereignty of the host government, my eye! Protective of American corporations is more like it.

That’s like the “benchmarks” in the Democratic surrender on Congress’s approval of the $95 billion supplemental appropriation for the war. The idea that somehow holding the puppet Iraqi “government” responsible for anything, much less making political progress with the resistance fighters to lay down their arms or else U.S. reconstruction and development funds to the Iraqi government will be cut off is just as ludicrous.

That’s just a smokescreen to tell us here at home, because Iraqi “benchmarks” don’t hold the invading Bush regime responsible for removing U.S. forces which launched a war of aggression four years ago against a country that was no threat to the U.S.

As long as American, so-called “coalition” troops are in theater, they will be a target and an accelerant on the fire of Iraqi resistance, and the war, the fighting, the dying, the bloodshed will continue. Holding Iraqis responsible will have no affect on the presence of U.S. forces. Sorry, Code Pink.

Those troops will be there in perpetuity to protect that new oil law which consigns Iraq’s oil wealth to American petroleum companies. But unlike Japan or Korea, there will be no ceasefire, as long as U.S. G.I.s are there, because there are no front lines. It’s an urban guerilla war!

That means, “The Troops” who all the politicians say they love and want to support, will be in constant combat mode and danger. They may not call it “combat operations as we know them,” but that’s what will be going on. The official wording–already articulated by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and not by President George W. (for “Worst in History”) Bush is that U.S. forces will be: “fighting terrorism,” “training Iraqi forces,” and “protecting U.S. diplomatic personnel.”

Cindy Sheehan, you got out of this madness just in time!

One thought on “Permanent Iraq occupation: I told you so

  1. Pingback: Re-defining ‘victory’ in Iraq: Permanent Occupation. at Black Journalism Review