« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Maliki: Permanent U.S. Presence Means... an End to Occupation
Whatever rationale the Bush administration cooks up for our soon-to-be-permanent presence in Iraq, chances are it won't compare to Nouri al-Maliki's. Maliki went on Iraqi TV today to say that the joint agreement reached today with President Bush actually means that the U.S. presence in Iraq is... wait for it... coming to an end!
"The United States has promised that the multinational forces will stay under a United Nations mandate only until the end of 2008," Mr Maliki said in a televised address."The final extension for the multinational forces under the UN mandate will finish in 2008."
Mr Maliki said Iraq was not a threat to any of its neighbours as it was now a "democratic state".
"It is no longer a danger to the interests of the region. We are saying frankly that there is no justification for Iraq to stay under Chapter VII. All the justification created by the former regime is now over," he said.
Mr Maliki also said that Iraq had reached the stage where it did not need multinational forces and that the country should be allowed to become a "normal state".
Now, given the crippling legacy of U.N. sanctions during the 1990s, the expiration of a U.N. security mandate has an emotional resonance for Iraqis that Maliki is rather cynically exploiting. Left apparently unstated is that after the U.N. mandate expires, Maliki will personally broker a new "justification" for the U.S.'s Mesopotamian excursion. What kind of government blatantly misrepresents to its public the implications of its actions? Why, the kind of government to which we bequeath long-term security guarantees, of course!
Comments (6)
OleHippieChick wrote on November 26, 2007 3:43 PM:Another set of conflicting statements turned into another cheap "he said, he said" game.
"What kind of government blatantly misrepresents to its public the implications of its actions?"
Why, ours, of course, or one made in our image of lies, corruption and incompetence.
danger wrote on November 26, 2007 3:48 PM:"When we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace."
TheraP wrote on November 26, 2007 6:35 PM:It's becoming a "normal state" - and apparently the new normal is troops stationed there. I wonder when we are going to become "normal" - and be occupied by mercenaries.
Winston Smith wrote on November 26, 2007 8:55 PM:You gotta give Cheney credit. He's good at what he does.
Justina wrote on November 27, 2007 2:20 PM:Haven't you heard? The Bush administration has just announced that there will be no more U.S. soldiers in Iraq after December 31, 2007. That is when all U.S. troops now in Iraq and all future U.S.troops sent to Iraq will be required to become Iraqi citizens. Voila, no more U.S. troops in Iraq!
comyn wrote on November 27, 2007 5:30 PM:This is not, IMHO, nearly as bamboozling as you make out. The U.S. has lots of agreements for the presence of military bases in countries that the U.S. does not occupy. For instance, Germany and Italy. In neither of those countries do we have State Dept. personnel being guarded by Blackwater. In neither of those countries can the U.S. decide that U.S. citizens are immune from prosecution under the laws of those nations.
'Ending the occupation' means the Iraqis will run the country. The U.S. will rent some dirt for military bases. Much different from the current situation and likely more to the taste of at least some Iraqis.
It is still a terrible idea but Maliki's statements about it make more sense than you are giving them credit for.