U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq is Fiction

Print Friendly

The next time you come upon one of those revolting, overpaid, self-impressed Big Media assholes, spit in his eye. They’re accomplices to murder.

Embedded corporate media rose to new heights of non-journalism as, on command, they conjured up an end to (America’s) Iraq War based on nothing more than a change of nomenclature. Combat soldiers woke up one morning as “advise and assist” troops whose “bases” were magically transformed into “fortified compounds.” Still, the U.S. empire has no intention of leaving Iraq – especially when there are so many available euphemisms for staying.
Wed, 08/25/2010  |  [print_link]
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“The United States is an empire that has never voluntarily withdrawn from any of its bases or ‘fortified compounds.'”
It was perversely hilarious to observe the corporate media, last week, as they collectively celebrated an event that never happened. “Last combat soldiers leave Baghdad” read the Washington Post headline, with variations on the same fantasy theme in Newsweek, UPI, Reuters…virtually everywhere. One had to turn to the Army Times newspaper for an accurate headline: “Combat Brigades in Iraq Under Different Name.”  Left: 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley pretending to interview Iran’s president. Pelley typifies the fraudulent “professional journalist” we find in the American corporate system.
It is a wonderment to watch the blind enthusiasm with which the corporate media embrace name changes as if they are actual facts. As the Washington Post announced the departure from Iraq of the 2nd Infantry Division’s 4th Stryker Brigade, describing the unit as the “final U.S. combat brigade to be pulled out of the country,” seven brigades just like the 4th brigade remain on Iraqi soil. There is no difference in armament, equipment, configuration and training between the 4th Stryker Brigade that exited for Kuwait, and the Stryker Brigades that remain behind – except, the name change. The in-country Stryker units are now called “Advise and Assist Brigades.” The two National Guard infantry brigades left behind in Iraq have also undergone a nomenclatural transformation: they are no longer “combat” units, but “security” forces.
There are also 4,500 Special Forces troops in Iraq, who are prepared to train other soldiers in the daytime and kill all night long. Right: Pelley “at work” again. If it isn’t Pelley it’s Couric, or someone else.  They’re all cut from the same cloth. A repugnant lot. But the most disgusting part is that they would sincerely disagree with that evaluation.
Army Times readers are primarily military people, their families, and retirees – folks that know a little something about the U.S. military and have a strong interest in learning the plain truth about the realities of U.S. deployments in the world. The Army Times appears to respect their intelligence. The New York Times and its sister publications, on the other hand, seem to think that their readers will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous on its face. For example, The Times has adopted the new practice of calling U.S. bases in Iraq “fortified compounds.” Combat soldiers, you see, live on bases. Personnel involved in advising and assisting Iraqis live in fortified compounds.
“Powerful figures in the Obama administration say they are confident they can talk the Iraqis into allowing 10,000 uniformed American troops to stay in the country after the deadline.”
In addition to the fantasy reporting, American military and civilian authorities are conducting fantasy arguments behind closed doors about whether the U.S. is going to withdraw all of its military forces, regardless of the nomenclature, by the end 0f 2011 – as required by solemn agreement with the Iraqis. One faction favors deploying a force of up to 10,000 mercenaries, complete with their own armored trucks, air force and missile-firing drones. But powerful figures in the Obama administration say they are confident they can talk the Iraqis into allowing 10,000 uniformed American troops to stay in the country after the deadline. Certainly, billions of dollars in bribes can sometimes work wonders – but U.S. plans for an eternity in Iraq have repeatedly been thwarted by the Iraqi people, themselves.
One thing is perfectly clear: the United States is an empire that has never voluntarily withdrawn from any of its bases or “fortified compounds.” The Americans are playing word games. They will leave Iraq only when they are forced to do so.
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to www.BlackAgendaReport.com.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
Comments (original thread)
Dosamuno – 08/25/2010 – 13:25
“The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike “Al Capone” Mullen, has asserted this week that Assange (head of Wikileaks) already has his hands stained with the blood of American soldiers and Afghan personnel.”  So it’s not satisfying enough for the dimwitted thug, Mullen, to murder people on every continent in the name of American Imperialism. The son of a bitch must murder our language in true Orwellian fashion by saying a courageous journalist has blood on his hands for revealing crimes by the U.S. military. The U.S. armed forces will be in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Colombia, Somalia– and at Kent State and Jackson State, as long as there are resources to steal, workers to exploit, protesting students to repress, and dissenters to disappear.
beverly – 08/25/2010 – 21:24
I wonder how much of the violence in Iraq is due to insurgents, “terrorists,” Iran, or whatever bogeyman of the week the U.S. declares and how much is due to U.S. covert ops instigating violence to manufacture a reason to remain there indefinitely.
Dosamuno – 08/26/2010
Interesting question. And there are interesting answers.
Peter Phillips writes in Dissident Voice:
A second study published in the Lancet in October 2006 documented over 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the start of the US invasion. The 2006 study confirms that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third of these deaths and that over half the deaths are directly attributable to US forces.
And in story #1 in Censored 2009, it is reported,
Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s. …
Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.
Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).
According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.
Enlightened Cynic – 08/27/2010 – 12:55
They have no intention of leaving Iraq. And I think you already know the answer to your question. Pentagon provoction was suspected in the Samarra mosque bombing which ignited Shia/Sunni tensions to levels of ethnic cleansing. Remember, Ayatollah Sistani had preach for and gotten restrain from the Shia coming under attack from A.Q. and Sunni insurgents, that is until the Sammara mosque bombing.
Into the Dark
The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization–the “Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)”–will carry out secret missions designed to “stimulate reactions” among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to “counterattack” by U.S. forces.
In other words–and let’s say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld’s plan–the United States government is planning to use “cover and deception” and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let’s say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people–your family, your friends, your lovers, you–in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.
For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice–a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime’s own preferred terminology and just call it “evil”?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action–by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves?–they can then take measures against the “states/sub-state actors accountable” for “harboring” the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: “Their sovereignty will be at risk.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


From Punto Press



wordpress stats