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

[OverIt]

58 "bases" is a country that small??? Sounds more like "police stations" to me!!!!

[ChicagoBob]

!

58 bases? That will cost a lot of money.

And perpetuate conflict for decades to come.

Not worth the investment. No, not at all.

(Who is running the show here? The oil companies? Big business?
Idiots-R-Us? Certainly not anyone with an ounce of sense.)

!

[dotmafia]

"perpetuate conflict for decades to come," "Who is running the show here?"

You just answered your own question.

War profiteers. The military-industrial complex.

[ribe8g]

Agreed, not worth the investment but I really don't care how we squander the money nor how the hapless volunteers pay for their eyes closed military service. I don't support u.s. efforts at global hegemony. I care more about the folks who are not connected and are under the boot of bush - you know, the Iraqis themselves. The boo hoos and violin playing for poor poor u.s. is well documented.
To your list of people "running the show" you must add the incredible leverage that Jewish interests have in determining events.

[AbstractImp]

Now Iraq too is against any war with Iran, and especially do not want it to come from their territory. You will note that Iraq and Iran are talking and not fighting . . .

Now we understand the status of forces agreement was to stage the platform for war with Iran. Why else would they need 58 bases, and control over interpreting Iraq's own events! Why, that is just the same power Bush-Cheney-Rove claim here!

So five years later, billions wasted on "security" and training, and now we need 58 bases, and McCain promises unlimited troops?

"This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it."

Well, that might be the only way for Iraq to reclaim their soveriegnty.

KICK US OUT!

[ratuff]

Or....."This treaty is humiliating to the American people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it."
Basta!! Enough is enough!

[elbzee]

BINGO!

[BluesDogLefty]

For cripes sake, there are only 200 military bases in the USA, but we want more than 25% of that in someone else's country?!?!?!?

Not to mention that this will no doubt result in base closings here in the US----loss of jobs etc.

I sure wish Americans would wake up and stop this.

[realpolitic]

The US wants to build 58 bases in Iraq, that is the kind of sovereignty only a Republican could love. Then we want the power to wage war on other countries in Iraq's name. These actions would cripple any Iraqi attempt to build its own institutions and govern its country. No doubt our soldiers and contractors would be immune from Iraqi prosecution too.

Cleric al-Sistani, Iraq's most esteemed religious figure, could shoot this arrangement down quickly rhetorically speaking. He can issue a fatwa that demands that Iraqi's not cooperate with Americas or sell goods to them. Then our presence there would be unworkable. Their politicians too must be thinking of ways to get from under our yoke. Perhaps they will turn to the Russians to balance our presence.

[StillAmused]

al Saghir added, "We are especially outraged at the Americans' demand for all the good parking spaces, the requirement that 'evangelical' super-churches be built on all 58 bases... and we will NOT sit still for the 'George W. Bush Oil Ministry Building'."

[moana]

This is the new face of American Imperialism. Just say NO!! Enough is enough Mr. Bush!

[izAriver]

Anyone remember Rome? They lasted what, 500 years or so...

[NoMercy]

Historical empires that had colonization policies (e.g. Rome in Gaul and the Balkans, Britain everywhere) and/or massive deportation/relocation policies (e.g. Assyria) had long-lasting effects on the regions they conquered.

In areas where they practiced only occupation (like Rome in Palestine and further east), their influence remained unstable and quickly collapsed based on what was happening elsewhere.

Unless massive numbers of Americans are willing to move to Iraq (hundreds of thousands at least), an occupation policy like that being proposed will collapse as soon as the political support for it changes here.

[xrepublican]

The French in Algeria HAD French colonists and still managed to lose their war there.

THat conflict is a good parallel to our current mess. The French employed their Foreign Legion in an effort to keep FRENCH casualties to a minimum, employed torture and detention policies similar to our own - also with world-wide condemnation - yet the French STILL LOST.

The British could not maintain control in Iraq through proxy leaders without a permanent military presence and fought uprisings throughout their stay there between the World Wars. You CANNOT occupy a country and prevail if the local population DOES NOT WANT YOU THERE.

We made a mess in Vietnam failing to learn from the French example there and are following the French/British colonialist path to failure in Iraq - bankrupting our nation in the process.

[TimothyChase]

I am just surprised that the deadline for the signing of the non-treaty isn't July 4th.

Here are a few articles, one dating back to 2006.

The US-Iraq treaty that isn't
Gwynne dyer
Tuesday, June 10th 2008
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161336559

"Strategic Alliance" Between the U.S. and Iraq Makes a Mockery of Iraqi Sovereignty
By Ali Allawi, The Independent UK. Posted June 9, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/87485/

Leaving a Permanent Mark on Iraq
By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 17, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/32320/?page=1

... and an old pdf by the neocons explaining their goals:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[xrepublican]

Clearly bringing DEMOCRACY to Iraq measn IGNORING the will of the populace and IMPOSING what a few in the US want......

Funny how the PNAC plan for Iraq is STILL being followed even though EVERY STEP so far has been a disaster

[PierreLeClerke]

The plan has completed and signed off on at dick energy barn in the first months of this criminal administration. The "mission " has been accomplished. They, big Oil /weapons have control of the second largest crude reserve on the planet and they will sit on it and obstruct real production to drive the prices to the moon if possible. For their weapons merchant group they have an endless war to funnel unaccounted billions from our National treasury. Greed is blind. Mission accomplished!

[willfarnaby]

How about just one base... in the dock at The Hague?

[several]

Oh how our MSM fails us more every day.

And where are the democratic 'leaders' in the house and senate on this one? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[hoodrat]

Better keep your eyes on the ball - since Reagan the target has been Iran, and the neocons could care less about Iraq, except as a staging area, or if Iran was building nukes or slingshots. Even Israel is a pawn in the quest for our own crude oil depository to this admin.

[LeBelAge]

Which is ironic because Iran is running out of oil! The reason they want nuclear power is because all of their oil production goes overseas and they don't have enough for their own people. They have rolling black outs.

The Neo-Cons are doing the bidding of their bosses the Saudis. This is a religious thing, (Shite versia Shia) along with controlling oil production for the Saudis.

[Passenger57]

LeBelAge has it 100% right.. a while ago, my local paper had an article that said exactly that(naturally, this point was not the focus of the article). Not only does their oil go overseas, but they also don't have any refineries. It makes perfect sense for them to want nuclear power.
I remember when, if it was suggested that the invasion was about oil (to control it more than to take it) and that the US was never going to leave Iraq,you'd be laughed out of the room,called a kook,unpatriotic,or worse.
What are the three stages the Truth goes through...?

[eugenegerard]

Ya think they would be a little more thankful for us bringing them democracy. Sheesh.

[americaforme]

Republicans, my mother, and her family always said, if you want to make money start a war. The rich have gotten richer! Wow! what a cost to America, economicaly we are bleeding at every joint. We are so financialy locked into Iraq, know one wants to admit guilt for allowing this horrible war...We invested in every structural enterprise, Political, as well. We dumped so much cash, they couldn't keep track of it, we didn't either. Democracy we called it ,as we behaved like drunken sailors, 2 Trillen dollars,easy come easy go. Contractors laughing all the way to the bank. Know one twisted our arms to do it, massive peacekeepers, that we are. Now we want to stay in their country.... Would we let anyone stay in the USA? Nada

[sleek]

58 bases is INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY INSANITY!!!!!!!!