We Have Ways of Making You Agree to Our Permanent Basing Deal

Patrick Coburn: "The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent."

This exemplifies the Bush/McCain madness. To the majority of people, whatever they think about the details of getting out of Iraq, being in Iraq isn't desirable. What we need to do is create conditions where leaving is viable. But to the people running our country, the goal is to stay in Iraq forever. It's insane.

UPDATE: Some have written in to say that the actual cause of the holdup here is the Iraqis' inability to reach a revenue-sharing agreement about what to do with their oil money. It's just an issue that's become more and more pressing as high oil prices mean that Iraq's oil money is skyrocketing.

Comments

Bad link Matt

Posted by Davebo | June 6, 2008 9:58 AM

to the people running our country, the goal is to stay in Iraq forever. It's insane.

Is it insane that we apparently plan to stay in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait forever? Or does it serve a strategic purpose for the US?

Posted by right | June 6, 2008 10:00 AM

"Is it insane that we apparently plan to stay in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait forever?"

This is just silly.

The US is currently engaged in a military occupation of Iraq, and proposes to continue that occupation. Nobody believes that the US is currently engaged in a military occupation of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Posted by Joel | June 6, 2008 10:04 AM

Yes, we only think that everyone has agreed that blatant big time, imperial colonialism is in not in our or any nation's genuine interests over the longer haul, including the USA. Good people may differ on the question! I mean, Pat Buchanan still argues that WWII was an unnecessary war, and that Churchill was wrong to give up on the Empire. It's all about positioning in an new, on-going hot-cold war — a game we are good at and should not give up on so easily. This nonsense about a post-American 21st Century is just that and will only happen if we let our guard down or lose our will to power.
George W Bush

Posted by George W. Bush | June 6, 2008 10:05 AM

If we're using the $20B for leverage to get a permanent basing deal, couldn't Pres. Obama just turn around in 2009 and say, we'll give you that $20B back to get out of this deal?

I mean, this deal is probably going to make the Iraqis very unhappy, and they might be very excited to have the opportunity to get us out of the country and re-negotiate whatever arrangement Bush bullies them into...

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 10:23 AM

Try this link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06052008.html

Posted by chipfat | June 6, 2008 10:24 AM

"Is it insane that we apparently plan to stay in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait forever?"

Well, yes. Oil is of course tremendously important to the world economy, but it isn't going to last forever. If we'd spent a couple of trillion over the last 5 years on transitioning to a post-oil economy, rather than on the Iraq War, the country and the world would be far better places. Committing the US to a death struggle over the last drops of oil in the world makes no sense at all, unless you're planning on dying in the next decade or so, and have no concern about what happens after.

Posted by rea | June 6, 2008 10:44 AM

Serious question: Why does the press seem to go along with the often stated idea that Bush and company can/are entering into deals that will "bind us for years, well after they are gone," formal deals short of treaties that we cannot easily overturn, etc. I find this scenario highly unlikely on many grounds, including constitutional. If the Presidency is so autonomous in foreign policy, not requiring Congress to get us into these deals, then the next President should be free to override, dissolve or ignore these "binding agreements." Why does the press not pursue this meme of trans-administration binding agreements via the Executive branch? I never read an article saying in reality such binding agreements are impossible on legal and constitutional grounds, not to mention practical geo-political ones. Unlike a Treaty ... which, ironically, this administration does not recognize as a very binding agreement either. If they can abrogate our Treaty responsibilities so easily, why this free pass on their long-term, binding, hand-tying agreements with Iraq?

Posted by SleuthinessInBlogophere | June 6, 2008 10:49 AM

Oil is of course tremendously important to the world economy, but it isn't going to last forever.

Of course not. Nothing lasts forever.

If we'd spent a couple of trillion over the last 5 years on transitioning to a post-oil economy, rather than on the Iraq War, the country and the world would be far better places.

I'm not talking about the Iraq War. I'm talking a bridge I'd liabout permanent bases in the Middle East.

Please estimate (a) what it would cost to "transition to a post-oil economy", (b) what exactly you think it would do to the US' dependence on oil (lower it to zero? cut it in half?), and (c) how it would impact the US' competitive position vs. China, India, and the rest of the world.

Committing the US to a death struggle over the last drops of oil in the world makes no sense at all, unless you're planning on dying in the next decade or so, and have no concern about what happens after.

I don't know why Kuwait and Saudi Arabia welcoming the presence of US bases is "a death struggle." I also have no idea why you think oil is magically going to go away as an issue in the next 10 years. There is a lot more than a few drops left.

Posted by right | June 6, 2008 10:57 AM

Is it insane that we apparently plan to stay in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait forever?

Um, what? That story's from 2003.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 6, 2008 10:58 AM

"Some have written in to say that the actual cause of the holdup here is the Iraqis' inability to reach a revenue-sharing agreement about what to do with their oil money."

Is that really any better? The oil sharing agreement has been delayed because the Iraqis aren't really keen on our Production Sharing Agreement proposals. So we're trying to blackmail them on that, too? Given how much money they'll lose if they agree to oil deal, I'm not surprised they're holding out for a better deal. That $20 billion wouldn't make up for their losses. My guess is we're trying to blackmail too much with too little leverage. It wouldn't be the first time for this administration. Just look at how well our threats against North Korea and Iran have worked out so far.

Posted by fostert | June 6, 2008 11:10 AM

Matt Weiner is right. We've pretty much left Saudi Arabia (I'm sure there's some 'advisers' left). Ironically, our leaving Saudi Arabia was one of Osama bin Laden's goals. As was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Osama must be smiling. We've accomplished for him two goals he could never achieve on his own.

Posted by fostert | June 6, 2008 11:17 AM

our leaving Saudi Arabia was one of Osama bin Laden's goals.

That doesn't mean it was a bad idea, though.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 6, 2008 11:21 AM

I don't know why Kuwait and Saudi Arabia welcoming the presence of US bases is "a death struggle."

What is the purpose of such bases, if we're not going to use them to fight over oil?

Please estimate (a) what it would cost to "transition to a post-oil economy", (b) what exactly you think it would do to the US' dependence on oil (lower it to zero? cut it in half?), and (c) how it would impact the US' competitive position vs. China, India, and the rest of the world.

(a) Don't know. Can't know until we try. Probably cost less to start now, than to wait until reality starts the transition for us. (b) Ultimately, we'll need to learn to do without it. (c) Well, given that we just spent the $2-3 trillion I proposed using on something useless and counterproductive, we'd be better off.

Posted by rea | June 6, 2008 11:23 AM

"That doesn't mean it was a bad idea, though."

Certainly not. But it's still ironic.

Posted by fostert | June 6, 2008 11:31 AM

I'm thinking that the pressure for a SOFA/SFA agreement has a lot to do with attacking Iran, either directly or via Israel. Once Iran is attacked it will profoundly change the perception of what US bases in Iraq mean. I suspect that an attack on Iran would make a permanent basing agreement simply impossible.

Posted by togolosh | June 6, 2008 11:35 AM

I agree with the above post on it not really being binding on the next admin., but that aside does anyone think that BO should pull a Ronnie Raygun and through back channels make it perfectly clear that the Iraqis better not enter into anything that could be perceived as binding him if he becomes President.

Posted by Napoleon | June 6, 2008 12:08 PM

1) Re "But to the people running our country, the goal is to stay in Iraq forever. It's insane. "
--------------
Not at all -- how else are you going to pump the oil? And you always need a few soldiers to keep the fucking wogs from blowing up your pipelines,etc.

2) re Joel's comment "Nobody believes that the US is currently engaged in a military occupation of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."
----------
I take it Joel has never heard of a US mercernary outfit called Vinnell? Which has been running the House of Saud's Praetorian Guard for decades.

See http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7850

Al Qaeda know who Vinnell is, however. That's why they've launched several bombing attacks against Vinnell in Riyadh.

And who the hell does Joel think equips the Saudi military? Do you think those tanks are for use on FOREIGNERS??

It's always amazes me how IGNORANT Americans are of what our government does abroad on behalf of US corporate interests.

There are 50 million fucking morons out there who believe George Bush when he said 19 Saudis came over here and committed suicide on Sept 11 because "they hate our freedom."

Unfortunately, morons vote.

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2008 12:11 PM

Looks like Vinnell's next big profit area is supporting Iraq's "democratic government". Vinnell is a subsidiary of one of our major defense contractors -- so when the WHite House says "shit!" Northrup Grumman does not check the Constitution or the national interest. Rather , it immediately squats and starts making grunting noises.

Here's some more info:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vinnell_Corporation

Yes, it's a filthy business. So how do you like your sausages?

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2008 12:22 PM

Um, what? That story's from 2003.

Sorry, fine: Bahrain and Kuwait.

What is the purpose of such bases, if we're not going to use them to fight over oil?

To prevent fights over oil.

Probably cost less to start now, than to wait until reality starts the transition for us.

You might want to google "time value of money".

Posted by right | June 6, 2008 12:45 PM

right is of course correct. We have recognized the Persian Gulf region as an area of vital national interests for decades. Between 1991 and 2003 we deployed hundreds of thousands of service personnel and spent hundreds of billions of dollars in order to, among other things, support sanctions that killed about a million Iraqis, tightened Saddam's grip on power, and enriched his collaborators--ergo the decision to invade in 2003.

All of this was obviously not a matter of chance (or "Bush lies"), and most of the factors that have required a bi-partisan policy of commitment to the region are stronger than ever.

I think it would be a great idea to become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil. If we get busy now, maybe we will be in another half century. Then we can "get out".

Posted by robert powell | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM

Robert! This new found honesty of yours is great! It's far preferable to your previous unctuous bullshit about how you wanted us to pay strict attention to what the Iraqi government (aka the most legitimate and representative government in the Arab world) wants.

By the way, a majority of the Iraqi parliament has sent a letter to Congress saying they don't want any kind of "security agreement" with the US that doesn't include a requirement that American troops leave. Obviously we'll ignore this, and I was looking forward to ridiculing you about it. But now that you've dropped your pretense that this is about anything besides power and oil, I won't have the opportunity.

Ah, well. I'm sure you'll come up with a boatload of cretinous nonsense on other subjects, and I'll just have to make do with that.

Posted by 23456 | June 6, 2008 2:41 PM

There's nothing in my post above that I haven't written before, in fact including before the invasion. I'm on record in 2002 complaining about the Bush tactic of dragging out every argument in the book for invading, producing in the process justification fatigue rather than consensus.

In the event, the tactic proved a disaster. Predictably opponents of the invasion focused on the arguments that proved weak, as given the number some inevitably would, to discredit the whole operation, significantly aided by the administration's idiotic occupation non-policy.

The public was fully prepared to support the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein as it had been since 1991 on the basis of Iraq's violation of the ceasefire agreement, given of course the geo-strategic factors which, although the administration didn't want to talk about them, seem pretty obvious.

Posted by robert powell | June 6, 2008 3:06 PM

Oh yeah, the agreement. We certainly should pay strict attention to what the Iraqi government, which is in fact the most representative and legitimate in the Arab world, wants. And I'm sure we will as the inevitable deal is worked out.

No government that I'm aware of, including that of Iraq, concludes major foreign policy issues by getting a bunch of legislators to sign a letter to Congress. Let's see what the actual deal looks like.

Posted by robert powell | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM

The public was fully prepared to support the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein as it had been since 1991 on the basis of Iraq's violation of the ceasefire agreement

Interesting! Given your certainly, there obviously were lots of polls from 1991 to 2003, asking Americans whether they were "fully prepared" to invade Iraq "on the basis of Iraq's violation of the ceasefire agreement," even if Iraq had no WMD, hadn't tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

Man, I'd love to read those polls! I look forward to checking them out just as soon as you provide some evidence that they exist.

Posted by 23456 | June 6, 2008 3:23 PM

Jim Holt wrote a piece called "It's the Oil, Stupid" for the London Review of Books. A portion of the piece states:

"The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain contol of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest--including all yet to be discovered oil--under foreign corporate control for 30 years."

So much for Iraq paying the US back for the war--most of the income from oil produced would go to Western (mainly US firms, I'm sure) oil companies. This is apparently why the Bush Administration chose to go to war. The cost? Over and above over a million US dollars every month, more than 4,000 US troups died, hundreds of thousands of other US soldiers maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi lives sacrificed and at least 4 million other Iraqis displaced from the US invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Ann | June 6, 2008 4:26 PM

Jim Holt wrote a piece called "It's the Oil, Stupid" for the London Review of Books. A portion of the piece states:

"The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain contol of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest--including all yet to be discovered oil--under foreign corporate control for 30 years."

So much for Iraq paying the US back for the war--most of the income from oil produced would go to Western (mainly US firms, I'm sure) oil companies. This is apparently why the Bush Administration chose to go to war. The cost? Over and above over a million US dollars every month, more than 4,000 US troups died, hundreds of thousands of other US soldiers maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi lives sacrificed and at least 4 million other Iraqis displaced from the US invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Ann | June 6, 2008 4:26 PM

Jim Holt wrote a piece called "It's the Oil, Stupid" for the London Review of Books. A portion of the piece states:

"The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain contol of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest--including all yet to be discovered oil--under foreign corporate control for 30 years."

So much for Iraq paying the US back for the war--most of the income from oil produced would go to Western (mainly US firms, I'm sure) oil companies. This is apparently why the Bush Administration chose to go to war. The cost? Over and above over a million US dollars every month, more than 4,000 US troups died, hundreds of thousands of other US soldiers maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi lives sacrificed and at least 4 million other Iraqis displaced from the US invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Ann | June 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Jim Holt wrote a piece called "It's the Oil, Stupid" for the London Review of Books. A portion of the piece states:

"The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain contol of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest--including all yet to be discovered oil--under foreign corporate control for 30 years."

So much for Iraq paying the US back for the war--most of the income from oil produced would go to Western (mainly US firms, I'm sure) oil companies. This is apparently why the Bush Administration chose to go to war. The cost? Over and above over a million US dollars every month, more than 4,000 US troups died, hundreds of thousands of other US soldiers maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi lives sacrificed and at least 4 million other Iraqis displaced from the US invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Ann | June 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Jim Holt wrote a piece called "It's the Oil, Stupid" for the London Review of Books. A portion of the piece states:

"The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain contol of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest--including all yet to be discovered oil--under foreign corporate control for 30 years."

So much for Iraq paying the US back for the war--most of the income from oil produced would go to Western (mainly US firms, I'm sure) oil companies. This is apparently why the Bush Administration chose to go to war. The cost? Over and above over a million US dollars every month, more than 4,000 US troups died, hundreds of thousands of other US soldiers maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi lives sacrificed and at least 4 million other Iraqis displaced from the US invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Ann | June 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Let's try it this way, 23...:

--Large-sample, good methodology polls done by Gallup more than two dozen times between 1991-2003.

--The rather unambiguous question: "Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

--Results: "yes" never failed to achieve a majority. It was 70% in 1993 (Bush lies?), and approached or exceeded 60% for most of the dates currently available.

You may want to check on support for the bombing campaign launched by Clinton in '98; support for the Iraq Liberation Act written by Bob Kerry the same year; or, perhaps, present some data which indicates that it's not factually accurate to assert that there was long-standing majority public support for regime change in Iraq, including by means of invasion.

Or you may of course prefer to continue contributing nothing but adolescent boorishness.

Posted by robert powell | June 6, 2008 5:26 PM

Try to get the name right, at least, Matt, you idiot - it's PATRICK COCKBURN. If you're finally going to use some of the emails I send you, at least get it right.

Powell: STFU. You're a liar and a propagandist and a moron. How's that for "boorishness", jerkoff?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 5:56 AM

Robert, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'd thought you might have permanently reduced your level of pompous hackdom, which would have been a small but real advance for humanity. On the other hand, if you'd done so, many people would have lost the enjoyment of watching your constant self-humiliation.

But since your foray into honesty was apparently a brief one, the world can get back to ridiculing your hilarious idiocy. Let's get started!

present some data which indicates that it's not factually accurate to assert that there was long-standing majority public support for regime change in Iraq, including by means of invasion.

Outstanding! After blathering away for years about how "The public was fully prepared to support the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein...on the basis of Iraq's violation of the ceasefire agreement" you've suddenly switched to how there was support "for regime change in Iraq, including by means of invasion."

Really? There was public support for regime change in Iraq? WOW, WHAT A FUCKING NEWSFLASH. I understand there's also great public support for eating ten gallons of ice cream every day for fifty years without dying of a heart attack.

You unbelievable cretin, even THE POPE would have supported "regime change" in the abstract. Yet in the concrete, the Iraq Liberation Act was such a powerful statement of support for regime change that congress appropriated less than 0.01% of the federal budget to make it happen, while explicitly stating "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces...in carrying out this Act."

Please, please, please don't be this transparently stupid. It takes all the enjoyment out of making fun of you.

Now, let's see if it's possible to "present some data which indicates that it's not factually accurate to assert that there was long-standing majority public support" for regime change via invasion.

Wow, that's a tough one. Let's see...how about this?

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN FOR TWELVE YEARS, YOU FUCKING MORON.

Generally speaking, policies with the kind of deep public and congressional enthusiasm that you're talking about actually occur. In reality, this public yearning to invade Iraq was so incredibly deep that during the 1992, 1996 and 2000 campaign, not a single one of the eight viable presidential candidates pledged they would do it. Even the goddamn 2000 Republican platform didn't advocate it. Yes, it's incredible! It's almost like politicians trying to win public support knew more about what the public supports than bloviating nimrods named Robert Powell!

Even more amazing is this desperate public desire to invade Iraq didn't manifest itself in reality until after 9/11 and a massive propaganda campaign, one that convinced 70% of Americans that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks. Moreover, Scott McClellan has explicitly said they tried to deceive Americans because they knew the public wouldn't support the war if they knew the real reasons. Again: it's almost like the people who actually have to garner public support for something know more about what the public supports than dolts jacking off on the internet.

Finally, for the love of God, stop yammering about "Large-sample, good methodology polls done by Gallup more than two dozen times between 1991-2003." At this point it's moved beyond standard hackdom to become so pathetic and sad it makes me concerned for your emotional well-being. It's like listening to you whisper to yourself over and over about how next time your daddy is going to come back from his new family and beat up the older boys being mean to you on the playground. I know it's hard, but face the truth: your daddy isn't coming back, and it was three polls in ten years (including in 1993, right after Clinton lied about Iraq attempting to assassinate George H.W. Bush), plus two dozen after 9/11.

Of course, as I say, if you were to actually be honest and accurate, it would no longer be possible for so many to laugh at you with such glee. Yet at the same time, you've gone so far in the other direction that it's hard not to be overwhelmed with the pathos. See if you can hit the sweet spot in the middle. If you can, I pledge we'll keep on making fun of you.

Posted by 23456 | June 7, 2008 11:51 AM

This is getting boring, 23456. Have it your way. Smart guys like you didn't notice that we deployed hundreds of thousands of personnel and spent hundreds of millions of dollars conducting combat operations over, under, around and through Iraq between 1991-2003. They also didn't notice that perhaps a million Iraqis were killed by the sanctions we were enforcing, and that Iraq had comprehensively violated the ceasefire agreement and subsequent related Chapter VII Resolutions.

Certainly, all of the rest of us, who WERE aware of these things, were magically stampeded after 9/11 by lies instead of being basically fed up with being jerked around by Arabs. Sure.

Contempt for the intelligence of the public is typical of bozos like you, which is why you never, ever get the results you'd like from elections. In all your blathering, you have not added one single thing of value here. You and The Incredible Hack deserve each other. You can read each others posts, as no one else seems to, from here on that includes me. Boring, and pointless.

Posted by robert powell | June 7, 2008 3:33 PM

Certainly, all of the rest of us, who WERE aware of these things, were magically stampeded after 9/11 by lies instead of being basically fed up with being jerked around by Arabs.

Ah, now that's the Robert Powell honesty I appreciate! None of the crap about democracy, or, at the end, even your standard blather about our "national interests." Just straight up racist hatred for the wogs who don't satisfactorily obey.

Thanks, that's great stuff. And admit it -- doesn't it feel good to finally come clean about what this has always been about for you?

Posted by 23456 | June 7, 2008 5:12 PM