LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Exclusive Truthdig Merchandise: Mr. Fish T-shirts and Signed Prints
February 10, 2010
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

The Terror-Industrial Complex

Wall Street Wants a Refund

America's Confused Approach to Afghanistan

Haiti, Forgive Us

Palin Calls Global Warming Research 'Snake Oil Science'

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Wall Street Wants a Refund
 * NEW! * Haiti, Forgive Us

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Target Iran

Target Iran

By Scott Ritter
$17.13

more items

 
Reports

Iraq Has Another One of Its Famous Turning Points

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Jun 29, 2009

By Marie Cocco

    As the media trumpets sound for the pullback of American troops from urban areas in Iraq, the essential lesson of our involvement must be recalled: Nothing about our entanglement in Iraq has ever been as it seemed.

    We did not invade because Saddam Hussein was behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as Bush administration officials repeatedly suggested, or even because Iraq threatened the United States with stores of chemical and biological weapons. The 2005 Iraqi election symbolized with images of purple ink stains on voters’ fingertips—an anti-fraud measure later promoted by House Republicans, who stained their own fingers purple in support of President George Bush’s State of the Union address delivered soon afterward—did not result in a flourishing democracy or an end to the U.S. military occupation. The bloody insurgency intensified and Bush belatedly deployed additional troops to quell it.

    So at most, what we witness this week with the repositioning of American troops is yet another of those “turning points” we heard about so often from our former president. We hope it will send us, and the Iraqis, along a straight and bright path out of violence. Yet the view from this crossroads even now continues to be obscured by an upsurge in killing and uncertainty about Iraq’s political future. The essential question being asked and routinely answered—are Iraq security forces ready to take over from the American military?—is too limited, and predictably off-base.

    What if the answer turns out to be no? What if there are continued bombings that claim hundreds of civilian lives, sectarian militias take control of some regions and popular uprisings sprout in others? What, exactly, would we do?

    Despite the presence of 131,000 U.S. troops who will remain in Iraq, there is no political support at home for anything that would look like an open-ended reassertion of American military control. Besides, the removal of troops from urban areas is mostly cosmetic, as American forces have merely been redeployed to less visible areas on the outskirts of central cities, according to Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East at the nonpartisan International Crisis Group. “In any case, they are available if called upon or invited by the Iraqi security forces. That’s the main thing,” he said in a phone interview from Amman, Jordan. “It is a formal handover and the Iraqis are allowed to claim victory. But a whole lot doesn’t change.”

Advertisement

    The change that is necessary is the same change that has been needed since the toppling of the old regime and the dismantling of the government by American officials in 2003. Iraq needs to rebuild every institution that we normally associate with a functioning country. Yet it cannot do so without resolving the elemental disputes that have stymied reconciliation for the past six years.

    Still unresolved is whether power ultimately will be decentralized or concentrated in a central government—both are conceivable under the constitution ratified in 2005. There is no resolution on how oil revenues are to be distributed among those regions of the country with no oil reserves. There is no answer to the volatile questions posed by the Kurdish region, most substantial among them the fate of ethnically divided Kirkuk, prized for its oil.

    The challenge of resolving these before the scheduled withdrawal of American combat forces, to be completed by September of next year, is tougher than the mini-test the Pentagon says both Americans and Iraqis are passing with the urban troop redeployments. “What is the U.S. going to do to stabilize the country before it leaves?’’ Hiltermann asks.

    The question has gone mostly unanswered even with the ascension of President Barack Obama. He won election on the promise of an American troop withdrawal and that, in the mind of a weary American public, is that. 

    But there is a reason the Bush administration was unable to get out of Iraq quickly, and it is found in the regional, ethnic and sectarian divides that persist. “The problem with Iraq is that there really is no state. Iraqis can reach agreement but they can’t make it stick,” Hiltermann says. “There are all these fractures. The Americans will have to provide that glue, still.”

    Beneath the hype of yet another military turning point, this is the peril that remains.
   
    Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By KDelphi, July 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

Night Guant—I thought he was using DynaCorp (prob both!)Nope, its “more” Triple Canopy, as you said (see below)

We’ve lost 6 soldiers in the “new” and ‘improved” Af-Pak ‘war”, but gawd knows how many civilians…no one will ever really know. Shame on the USA.

You got it Night Guqant! Here is an article I’d already apparently (mis) read, originally from Scahill (rebelreports.org for anyone interested)

(or The Nation, which is now totally sold out, so I cancelled my scubsciption, which was a gift, and anyone else should do the same. Ask for The Progressive or another mag! Its somewhat better)

“... Now, it appears that the Obama administration has decided on its hired guns of choice: Triple Canopy, a Chicago company now based in Virginia. It may not have Blackwater’s thuggish reputation, but Triple Canopy has its own bloody history in Iraq and a record of hiring mercenaries from countries with atrocious human rights records. What’s more, Obama is not just using the company in Iraq, but also as a U.S.-government funded private security force in Israel/Palestine, operating out of Jerusalem….

.... according to federal contract records obtained by AlterNet, the Obama administration has also paid Triple Canopy millions of dollars to provide “security services” in Israel. In February and March, the Obama administration awarded a “delivery order” to Triple Canopy worth $5.5-million under State Department contract SAQMPD05F5528, which is labeled “PROTECTIVE SERVICES - ISRAEL.” According to one government document, the contract is scheduled to run until September 2012.The contract is classified as “SECURITY GUARDS AND PATROL SERVICES” in Israel. The total value of the contract was listed at $41,556,969.72. According to a January 2009 State Department document obtained by AlterNet labeled “Sensitive But Unclassified,” the Triple Canopy contract is based out of Jerusalem….

...Triple Canopy, according to an internal State Department report, also worked under the program in Haiti, though that task order is now listed as “closed.” In State Department documents the WPPS program is described as a government initiative to protect U.S. officials as well as “certain foreign government high level officials whenever the need arises.” The State Department spent some $2-billion on the WPPS program from 2005-2008

Anyone who hasnt read this, REALLY SHOULD! I cant post it all here…http://pineriverspirit.blogspot.com/2009/04/obamas-blackwater-chicago-mercenary.html

Triple Canopy must have been started by Viet vet special forces or something—-you know, they refer to deep jungle as Triple Canopy….maybe ones with ‘high body count” medals…gawd…

Report this

By Night-Gaunt, July 5, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

Obama’s mercenary corporation of choice is Triple Canopy who have extensive connexions and relations with Israel. Though Xe/Blackwater are still in the area with more work in Afghan-Pak area of war. That includes Drug War too.

With so many passed how many more “turning points” will Iraq have, also when will Afghanistan have some?

Report this

By KDelphi, July 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

Its called Stealth Bush…gold-plated crap.

The US has actually increased the number of mercenaries and private profiteers, who could continue to conduct a “war”, with the abdication of the US media, for years. DynaCorp.

Obama really has no legal basis for escalating the “war” in Af-Pak either, nor extending it into Pakistan…but the media will keep reporting on Palin/Jackson/Warner

Report this

By Folktruther, July 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

You’re right, Night-Guant, dumb inarticulation from Bush, smat articulation from Obama.

Religious faith from Bush, POlitical Hope from Obama. Religion from Bush, zionism from Obama.  Security from Bush, Change from Obama.  Neoconservatism from Bush, neoliberalism from Obama.

Different rhetoric, essentially the same policies.

Report this

By Night-Gaunt, July 3, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

No Mandinka he said all “combat” troops which doesn’t include all of them. Even if it really does. I don’t see them gone in 2011 or 2012 either.

The technique is called parsing of words. Where you are very careful how you phrase what you are saying without fully committing to what most others think you are saying. Combat won’t cover advisers, logistics, security teams, police/USA liasion teams, defense battalions for the 4 mega bases and the leviathan city-state cum embassy “Fortress American” on 105 sq acres of Iraq land. And you thought Guantonamo was stealing land from the Cubans!

That city slicker Ivy Leaguer trying to put one over on us with fancified speech. Bush hit us with dumb, Obama with sophisticated verbal sleight of hand.

Report this

By mandinka, July 2, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

The author may think its a turning point but all I see is the clock ticking. Barak committed to have ALLLL the troops out in 16 months.
Its 10 months and counting till they all are out of there Tic Tock

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 2, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

Folktruther, July 2 at 5:00 pm #

you’e probably right, Iherit, now that I think back.  it was the late 1960’s that I saw the sign.  The leather shop probaly got it from Ochs.
********************************************

I just loved Phil Ochs!  He’s one of my two favorite folk-singers of all time.  The other, of course, is Pete Seeger.

There are many others I think the world of, such as Tom Paxton and Bruce Cockburn, but Phil had just such a wonderfully wicked turn of phrase, whether he was being a wise-guy or serious.

About JFK:
“I still can see him smiling there and waving at the crowd
as he drove through the music of the band.
And never even knowing no more time would be allowed,
That was the President and that was the man.”

And who else could make rhythmic and musical such a clumsy phrase as “The Marines have landed on the shores of Santo Domingo”? about the invasion of the Dominican Republic?

Or the classic: “Love me, love me, love me: I’m a liberal!”

Report this

By Folktruther, July 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

you’e probably right, Iherit, now that I think back.  it was the late 1960’s that I saw the sign.  The leather shop probaly got it from Ochs.

Report this

By Leefeller, July 1, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

In Iraq, Victory is just around the corner! Now it is called a turning point? What’s up next? Our government works to right the wrongs of the world, we should be proud to say with some fact, it does not right the wrongs against it’s own people with satisfaction, but everyone knows that!

Report this

By radson, July 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

As AJP Taylor has stated all wars are due to business interests.The Iraqi war is no different and the present Israeli colonization of the West Bank is directly related to the US invasion of Iraq.The big
oil multinationals will be shortly preparing to replace the defunct pipeline which existed between Mosul and Haifa with a new one ,but in order for the plan to see fruition the Palestinian Question will
have to be solved first ,more than likely through the continuation of violence in order to displace them thus protect the pipeline.The US troops may be pulling out of the cities ,but they will still be tasked with
protecting the natural resources and a conflict with Iran ,whereas Iran closes the Straits of Hurmuz would be an added incentive to promote the project even more.After all would not the sale of Iraqi oil be
considered paying Tribute by ancient standards.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

Correction—NIght Guant-I see that you said mercenaries. I think your number is closer to correct. Sorry.

But we still have alot of troops , too—just re-positioned, as you know. I read that Obama could rely ONLY on mercenaries and stil have about that many “troops” there…

Report this

By KDelphi, July 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

Night Guant—good points, but, I thought it was 130,000.

Nice fireworks, though. (the city here cant afford any this year—ok with me) Oh, those are bombs. NO fireworks! Bombs! Both!

Report this

By Night-Gaunt, July 1, 2009 at 11:48 am #

Another important item missing from the roster of evil are the mercenaries. Some 108,000 more or less still in occupied Iraq. I don’t have a clear count as to how many are armed or trained in the use of weapons.

Also this pull back is a logical step in the pacification of the “Indian lands” of Iraq. The four bases and the immense city-state cum embassy are the nexi of control that the troops could be called out in an “emergency” to use concentrated force on the locals who can’t stand armed illegal immigrants in their land! The use of the local police and military as first strike instruments are also common of colonial rule. [That same military/police are totally relying on the USA for air support, logistics, surveillance and backup.]  The best kind of colony is one where it appears that the original owners still rule though it is just a facade.

I wonder how many soldiers are needed for security of that 105 square acre “Fortress America” embassy? Yes that is what it is called. You can bet that the placement of those bases are good for sending out forces in all four directions. Don’t forget that this pull back is Bush‘s not Obama‘s idea.

Welcome to the next phase of external imperial America. Internally we are still an inverted totalitarian state. We all wear leashes still we just don’t know how far we can run in the yard.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 1, 2009 at 11:05 am #

From “Talking Viet Nam”

Well I walked through the jungle and around the bend
Who should I meet but President Diem.
Said you’re fighting to keep Vietnam free
For good old de-em-moc-ra-cy (Diem-ocracy).
That means rule by one family
And 15,000 American troops, give or take a few
Thousand.
American.
Troops.

He said: “I was a fine old Christian man
Ruling this backward Buddhist land.
Well it ain’t much but what the heck
It sure beats hell out of Chiang Kai-shek
I’m the power elite.  Me and the 7th fleet.”

He said: “meet my sister, Madam Nhu
The sweetheart of Dien Bien Phu”
He said: “Meet my brothers, meet my aunts
With the government that doesn’t take a chance.
Families that slay together, stay together.”

—Phil Ochs, 1964

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 1, 2009 at 11:03 am #

Now that is OLD because “All the News…” was released in 1964—45 years ago.

Report this

By Folktruther, July 1, 2009 at 2:34 am #

I didn’t get it from Ochs.  There was a leather shop in North Beach in San francisco that had a sign in the Window:

“the family that flays together, stays together.”

That was pre-Ochs, who may have got it the same way.

Report this

By Virginia from Virginia, June 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

Steve from Los Angeles wrote:
“What’s truly amazing is how easy it is for the US government through domestic politics and our all-pervasive media/brain-washing to lull its own citizens/pod-people back to sleep. It’s as if the US population were also an occupied nation.”

Does anyone want to know anything at all about Michael Jackson? Our illustrious “news” media have provided round the clock coverage of his death - and life.  “All the minutia nonesense that’s fit to report!”

Yes, our brains are fried.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 30, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

TD:

You’re right: I DO consider the idea that the Bush Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight could have pulled off the WTC as a false flag.  I think the most rational view is that 9/11 was merely THE OPPORTUNITY to roll out all the plans that they were making, and that they were looking for that opportunity.

The only causing they did of 9/11 was simply not doing their JOBS and considering Clinton’s emphasis on terror and terrorism to be all wag-the-dog bullshit they could (and did) ignore.

Bush&Co; were an opportunistic infection on the wound of 9/11—no more.

BTW, that expression of the family that slays together, stays together is from the Phil Ochs song “Talking Viet Nam Blues” from his “All The News That’s Fit to Sing”—a multiple pun on the NY Times motto and his family name, Ochs, so strongly connected with the Times.

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, June 30, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

The so-called pullback by American troops from certain Iraqi cities is like Al Capone moving his operation from Chicago to Cicero.

Report this

By BlueEagle, June 30, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

US sent Afghan soldiers into Iraq to attack US personnel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2licF3t49zc

Nothing new, but thought I’d share.

Some days I wish the US currency (FRN) would collapse, so the US Empire couldn’t pay the CIA and all the soldiers.

Maybe, just maybe, the banksters would not be able to fund the wars on both sides.

Report this

By Paul_GA, June 30, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

Paraphrasing “Apocalypse Now”—

“Oh man, the bullsh_t piles up so fast in Iraq you need wings to stay above it ... and the war is being run by a bunch of four star clowns who’ll end up giving the whole circus away.”

Life imitates art, n’est ce pas?

Report this

By KDelphi, June 30, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

Fireworks a bit ironic and over the top, doncha think?

Dont forget neo-liberal industrial franchises…they will be “important” to “re-building the economy”.

Somebody will say, “we need another Marshall Plan” or"Iraqis want freedom to choose” and “the modern world” and all that happy horseshit. Starbuck’s will overcome religious fundamentalism or something like that…

http://rebelreports.com/

Jeremy Scahill

“As the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of history. Five years ago—almost to the day— President Bush put on an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer “handed over sovereignty” to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real sovereignty was non-existent.

It is very doubtful that—decades from now—Iraqis will tell their grandchildren about where they were on June 30, 2009, “National Sovereignty Day.” At the end of the day, this is U.S.-style Hallmark hype and will remain so until every last occupation soldier leaves Iraqi soil.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j30.shtml

James Cogan

“It is fitting that today’s deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq’s cities coincides with a meeting in Baghdad to auction off some of the country’s largest oil fields to companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and British Petroleum. It is a reminder of the real motives for the 2003 invasion and in whose interests over one million Iraqis and 4,634 American and other Western troops have been killed. The Iraq war was, and continues to be, an imperialist war waged by the American ruling elite for control of oil and geo-strategic advantage…”

Among other things ITW! (lol) Bush Jr. had a sadistic personal streak, but he certainly wasnt alone in that. Almost all US presidents have tried to flash their “power” around, running around “freeing people”.


“...The contracts will facilitate the first large-scale exploitation of Iraq’s energy resources by US and other transnationals since the country’s oil industry was nationalised in 1972. On offer are 20-year rights over six fields that hold more than five billion barrels of easily and cheaply extractable oil. In the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq, where foreign companies are already operating…


...Iraq’s total oil reserves are estimated to be at least 115 billion barrels. Its reserves of natural gas are at least 3.36 billion cubic metres..”


So I guess its true, eh? “Mission accomplished”? Privitization of oil, and ‘Merkin bases forever… and dont forget—we’re not done yet~!

I have to go check and see if Obama’s website(s) say that he “got us out of Iraq”...

Report this

By Folktruther, June 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

What you say is true, Inherit, but I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t say it.  This is more or less Standard Doctrine on Iraq, although you put it concisely and well. Gain control of Irraqi oil, then Iran oil, and use it to control world policy.  And threaten the third Axis of Evil, North Korea to put pressure on China.

As you say, this was utterly unsane, the kind of megalomania that Eric Hobsbawm, the British historian, maintains is common to imperialism.  Worse, 9/11 was not only used to kick it off, it was ocrchestated by Bushite elements to do so, although you consider all the evidence and reasoning by the 9/11 truthers around the world paranoid.

It would only take a few people, led by Cheney, who were ‘witting’ of the false flag operation.  And they would be bound togehter afterward by mass murder. The same tactic that crime families use to make junior executives “make their bones.” 
Remember what they say, Inherit:

“families that slay together, stay together.”

Report this

By Steve in Los Angeles, June 30, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

Marie Cocco wrote: “The problem with Iraq is that there really is no state. Iraqis can reach agreement but they can’t make it stick,” Hiltermann says. “There are all these fractures. The Americans will have to provide that glue, still.”

There is no sovereign state in Iraq because Iraq is militarily occupied by a foreign power—the United States government. Sovereignty and foreign military occupation are mutually exclusive states of being—you’re either in one state or the other state, but you can’t be “a little bit sovereign” while being “a little bit occupied” by a foreign military power—like the old joke about being “a little bit pregnant.”

What’s truly amazing is how easy it is for the US government through domestic politics and our all-pervasive media/brain-washing to lull its own citizens/pod-people back to sleep. It’s as if the US population were also an occupied nation.

Report this

By Paul_GA, June 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

“It was a lie—and the more I saw them, the more I hated lies.” ~ Captain Willard (narrating), “Apocalypse Now”

Report this

By msgmi, June 30, 2009 at 10:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

As the political hodge-podge begins to unravel in Bagdad, what will be the strategy of the Sunni Awaening, coalition allies, which made the ‘surge’ work. Will they be able to count on their coalition partner, or will history repeat itself.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 30, 2009 at 8:14 am #

Wow! FT is actually getting closer and closer to having a real understanding.  He’s wrong because he doesn’t go far enough.

As is Cocco, pretty much everyone here knows we didn’t invade Iraq because of 9/11, Saddam having nukes, other WMDs, or his threat to our security and the security of the region.

We invaded Iraq for 3 reasons, only one of which is control of Iraqi oil.

1) G.W. Bush has a sick competition in his own mind with his daddy and he had to out-do him. The neo-cons around him, many of them placed there by Daddy for TOTALLY different reasons, saw that and played off it—particularly the Dark Lords of the Sith, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney.

2) Control of Iraqi oil was the short-term goal.
a) to ensure the supply to the US.
b) to provide a source of income to US oil companies that could be sold to the public as beneficial by “trickle down”.
c) to give the fossil fuel companies ammunition to stave off the environmental movement—wind, solar, and, of course T.Boone Pickens’ natural gas industry’s battle with Oil.

3) A long-term muscular presence in the Middle East on the theory that if the four biggest and baddest military bases in the world were US bases in Iraq, the USA would now be able to DICTATE policy and not have to say “pretty please” to people that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al think “we are better than…”  IOW, their deep subliminal racism that Arab Moslems are inferior to European-stock Christians (and Jews—but the right-wing Christians are “first among equals”).

This would put us in a much stronger position vis-a-vis OPEC boycotts and economic pressure (labeled “blackmail”) by the local nations.

And, of course, in Bush’s and his pals’ minds, this meant they could FORCE the issue of peace for Israel, rather than do it the RIGHT way.  IOW replace the threat of OPEC’s and the Arab League’s extortion with the much BIGGER extortion by us due simply to our military might.

What was it the Grand Muff Tarkin said in the first Star Wars? “Matters in this quadrant will no longer be guided by fate but will be decided by this battle station!” (the Death Star).  These 4 bases were to be the foundation of the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney Death Star to decide matters conclusively in this quadrant.

It was idiotic, financially insane, diplomatically moronic AND illegal, and, finally, criminal in the sense of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes.

THAT is what FT missed—it was far more than just Iraq’s oil—and far more evil.

Personally, I hope it’s not a phony withdrawal and is instead the REAL withdrawal by Obama to keep his promise.  We shall see.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 30, 2009 at 7:47 am #

As is customary with the pseudo-Progressive media, the most vital point is not discussed.  The whole invasion was an attempt to control Iraqi oil and US and Western oil companies are now entering bids for developing it.  To the intense opposition of the Iraqi people.  US troops and mercenaries must stay in Iraq to protect the oil companies against the Iraqi people.

Shuffling troops around serves the same purpose as a cat in a litterbox.  It shuffles things around to conceal what it has done.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.