US Wants 58 Bases In Iraq, Shiite Lawmakers Say

McClatchy reports the U.S. is demanding 58 military bases in Iraq as part of a "status of forces" agreement that would allow American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely:

Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

The proposed "status of forces" agreement could lead to an uprising in Iraq, according to a leading Iraqi cleric:

A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric said Monday the status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in Iraq.

"It is not to the benefit of the U.S. as a major power to lessen the sovereignty of Iraq. This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it," Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modarresi told the Iranian state-run English-language service, Press TV.

Modarresi said the strategic framework between Iraq and the United States needs a full understanding of the situation in Iraq before negotiations on the arrangement proceed. "It will surely fail if kept as it is," he said.

Comments

[Ariadne]

It seems to me that a few years ago we were closing bases in our own country to save money. How can we possibly "demand" 58 bases in a foreign country?

[Mike169]

Sure smells like a 100 year occupation to me!

[olivia]

This is OUR TAX MONEY and our children's.

[4mikeryan]

Olivia:

Our tax money goes to pay off our national debt and the interest from the billions we borrow from china. This is new debt that will financially enslave us to the chinese.

[naschkatze]

And their lives.

[Reveille]

Time to bring back the draft (I know-political suicide), but as soon as those White, suburban soccer moms, who whine about voting for McSame because HRC didn't get the nomination, start having their kids maimed or killed in Iraq, the faster the fratboy prez and his grandfather will lose their appeal.

[swooge]

OK, let's say I agree with the neocons and think we need to keep a presence in Iraq like we do in Korea and Germany. Why would they need 58 bases except that they are anticipating something very different from our peaceful bases in Korea and Germany---constant attacks from insurgents and the need for large numbers of combat troops in all areas of Iraq.

This isn't some token like Germany and Korea. It's a full-blown continuance of our very unpopular occupation. This will give the bad guys a very good target for long-term planning and execution of large -scale terrorist attacks like happened in Saudi Arabia with the marines.

[adavis08]

We now have no doubt as to the real resaons we invaded Iraq. Thanks to Scott McClellan's book. Can anyone blame the Iraqi people for opposing this? 58 bases means one in every city in Iraq, and a permanant occupation. The lies about Iraqi oil paying for this are just that more lies. We heard this 5 years ago before we invaded, now the Bushies are playing the same tune. Oil was $24 when we went in and now $4.00. This madness must end.

[peterg76]

There's no incentive for the Iraqis - any parliamentarian agreeing to sell out his country to the occupiers would be a traitor, a war criminal, and likely assassinated within a day. The patriots only have to hold out for another 7 months.

Only George W. Bush could invade a country weakened by a decade of sanctions, using the most powerful military in history, funded with unlimited money (at least until the US dollar crashes), with a reckless disregard for human rights and human life, and still not get the oil.

[waverly]

Let's put pressure on our Congressmen and Senators to emphatically deny any further war funding until Bush withdraws the accord permanently!!

[fact finder]

If any one doubts that the U.S politicians and the neo- con's are bent on a New Word Order and complete domination of every person in the Word they just need to look at what has happened since WW 2. Or maybe get a reality check.

[Meggie]

well, if we're going to stay there 100 years, it shouldn't be a surprise that we'd want to spread out.
hey Iraqi government, George Bush says all you have to do is tell us to leave and we'll go. we're not occupiers or anything, we're just helping you out. so tell us to GET OUT or SHUT UP.

[bumpersticker]

I am ashamed of what we have allowed to transpire by people who believe they are above honesty, accountability, and the law. The word "liberate" has been soiled by these dark, manipulating, elitists who saw an opportunity to conquer another country, and intentionally used propaganda to hide their true intent.

[solarenergy]

Article II, Section 2:

"He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

In typical fashion, Bush&Co, subvert the clear direction of the Constitution with wordplay: "Let's see, let's not call it a treaty, we'll call it something else...ummm...status of forces agreement. Yep. Americans including a docile Congress are so stupid we can just fool them with words. It's worked so far!"

I agree, though, that if Bush can do this unilaterally, then Obama can rip it up unilaterally on his first day in office.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Where is Congress and the Senate? Why aren't they doing ANYTHING to circumvent this?

Congress, by not providing any oversight of the Executive Branch, is choosing Politics over their duty to the American people. They just sit back and watch the Executive Branch break every law known to man, plan new wars in Iran, and try and lock us into Iraq for a century, and they do NOTHING!! All they care about is winning the next election - no matter how their derilection of duty impacts the American people and our future as a country.

This impedent Congress enables the neo-cons, and they have every single step of the way.

[Meggie]

I think their biggest problem is communication and getting MSM to cover what they do. whenever they do something to counteract things like this, there is rarely reporting of it. they need to force the issue and take over the prime time news hours with their actions countering bush overspending and building up in Iraq EVERY DAY. they can't take no for an answer. they need to jump in front of the cameras at every opportunity, and they just don't do it.

[Economike]

ITMFA

[The Impartial]

To answer your opening question.
It all depends on you, electors, in November 08.
The Executive Branch has been seeing itself as the SOLE branch of Government in the USA since Bush/Cheney stole the White House.

[Ammobob]

A good STARTING position for negotiations. I figure we'll get about 20+ out of it. Major bases about 3 with many satellite locations as with Germany and Japan earlier.

[wsb25]

If this goes forward the neocons have won their great victory. The dream has always been imperialist control of the middle east and it's energy reserves. They lied to get us in and then they really mismanaged the project. The price of cheap oil for our plant destroying SUVs has turned out to be high indeed, but of course the rich Republicans don't want to pay for their little project. Under McCain, they'll get another $6 trillion in tax cuts when it will cost at least $3 trillion for the current imperial project. But this is all part of the plan, they seek to dismantle the US government - Starve the Beast as they say... One can only hope that this would really lead to the bankruptcy of the the US war machine, removing a threat to world peace. Actually I'd rather see the Iraqis hold out for regime change in Washington...

[Mojane]

$3 trillion isn't enough?!!! And the greed goes on. The gazillion contractors haven't already made enough?!!!


When is Congress going to have the cojones to quit okaying our money to feed the war jones? When are American citizens going to wake up and demand that Congress at least demand a full accounting of the $3 trillion already spent before doling out more? And when they contemplate the next few billion will they ask for an up-front accounting of exactly where every dollar is supposed to go?!!

I'm sick to death and I'm not gonna take it anymore? Where's that?