Twenty-First-Century Colonialism in Iraq- Colonizing Iraq: The Obama Doctrine?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Twenty-First-Century Colonialism in Iraq

Colonizing Iraq
The Obama Doctrine?
By Michael Schwartz

Here's how reporters Steven Lee Myers and Marc Santora of the New York Times described the highly touted American withdrawal from Iraq's cities last week:

"Much of the complicated work of dismantling and removing millions of dollars of equipment from the combat outposts in the city has been done during the dark of night. Gen. Ray Odierno, the overall American commander in Iraq, has ordered that an increasing number of basic operations -- transport and re-supply convoys, for example -- take place at night, when fewer Iraqis are likely to see that the American withdrawal is not total."

Acting in the dark of night, in fact, seems to catch the nature of American plans for Iraq in a particularly striking way. Last week, despite the death of Michael Jackson, Iraq made it back into the TV news as Iraqis celebrated a highly publicized American military withdrawal from their cities. Fireworks went off; some Iraqis gathered to dance and cheer; the first military parade since Saddam Hussein's day took place (in the fortified Green Zone, the country's ordinary streets still being too dangerous for such things); the U.S. handed back many small bases and outposts; and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki proclaimed a national holiday -- "sovereignty day," he called it.

All of this fit with a script promisingly laid out by President Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign. More recently, in his much praised speech to the students of Egypt's Cairo University, he promised that the U.S. would keep no bases in Iraq, and would indeed withdraw its military forces from the country by the end of 2011.

Unfortunately, not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's happening in "the dark" -- beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras -- that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and the U.S. military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else -- something more unsettling -- appears to be going on.



http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175093/michael_schwartz_twenty_first_century_colonialism_in_iraq

[Orwellian_Ghost]

1. Bump

[Time for change]

2. I don't understand why anyone would unrecommend this?

This is important information.

[HamdenRice]

3. Because it deceitfully spins withdrawal as its exact opposite

on the basis of unknown, unseen things happening "at night" "in the dark."

It's an incredibly stupid piece, imo.

[blindpig]

4. What is deceitful is the administration's policy.

Those who wish to take it's pronouncements at face value are oblivious or are being equally deceitful.

[maryf]

9. Hear, hear!

[Curtland1015]

12. Aren't those willing to believe anything bad said about them equally bad?

What about any of the linked article makes you automatically think "This MUST be true!"?

[Time for change]

5. There's a lot of specific information in there. For example:

the U.S. has continued to pressure the al-Maliki administration to enact an oil law that would mandate licensing devices called production-sharing agreements (PSAs).

If enacted, these PSAs would, without transferring permanent ownership, grant oil companies effective control over Iraq's oil fields, giving them full discretion to exploit the country's oil reserves from exploration to sales. U.S. pressure has ranged from ongoing "advice" delivered by American officials stationed in relevant Iraqi ministries to threats to confiscate some or all of the oil monies deposited in the Development Fund.

[maryf]

8. Incredibly important piece, IMO nt.

[MadHound]

7. Because it pulls back the curtain on the Great and Mighty Obama

Despite the spin that his campaign put out last year and this year, it's looking more and more like Obama wants to continue our imperial presence in the Middle East, specifically controlling that Iraqi oil.

Obama's supporters don't want this truth to get widespread play, thus the unrec's that are hitting this post.

[maryf]

6. kick

and my recommendation took you up to zero, ludicrous, important post...

[Luminous Animal]

10. Kick.

[Curtland1015]

11. This whole article smacks of "trying to hard".

Sounds like he's REALLY trying to create a story out of something that isn't happening. He has no proof and uses lots of "ifs" and "coulds".

What are the real specifics here? That they're keeping more people here as diplomats than they usually do? In a country that is still not close to being "stable"... what a shock!

Does he have any evidence for any of this other than the messages he got from his tin foil hat?

[MadHound]

13. No, they're actually keeping lots of troops in Iraq,

And disguising them as "advisers" and such. In fact, despite next year's supposed withdrawal, at least 35,000, and possibly up to 100,000 troops are going to remain in Iraq indefinitely to "train" and "advise" Iraqi troops while continuing to go on missions combating "terrorism"

In other words, we're going to continue to fight a war in Iraq, and retain our imperial presence there in order to control the oil. The administration is just hoping to do so on the QT, trying to fool the people both here and abroad into thinking that we've "withdrawn" from Iraq. Meanwhile, the coffins will continue to roll home, and the body count of the innocents will continue to climb.

[HOLOS]

14. Goddess Bless the soul shattered Iraqis- their poisoned/destroyed cities- fields