Maliki Says GIs May Stay Beyond 2011

Maliki Says GIs May Stay Beyond 2011

www.military.com

DOHA, Qatar -- The Iraqi prime minister has admitted U.S. troops could stay in the country beyond 2011.

Under the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces agreement, which sets out a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, American troops must exit the country by December 31, 2011.

But Nouri al-Maliki said at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington on Thursday: "The security relations between the Americans and the Iraqis ... is a relationship based on co-operation and all the foundations and rules that were put forth in the agreements.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well it would appear that not only is there a looming potential for President Obama to not just fall short on keeping a major campaign promise to those who elected him, but that it might be broken altogether.

While on the surface it seems innocuous enough and seemingly sensible on both the part of Iraq and the United States to keep U.S. Soldiers in Iraq beyond 2011 for the purposes of training Iraqi Security Forces it seems more suspicious when you take into account recent news reports of U.S. State Department officials holding secret talks with Sunni Iraqis still fighting an insurgent action against the Iraqi Government absent any Iraqi Government involvement in the talks and the talks held on neutral territory outside of Iraq.

Are we in fact setting conditions that would purposefully favor the Iraqi Government asking for U.S. Troops to stay beyond 2011?

Who pays for the cost of these U.S. Troops if they do stay? The U.S. Taxpayer already burdened with the cost of an insanely large and unprofitable empire that has bankrupted our Treasury and led to huge deficits and foreign debt?

Is it really about Iraqi security or keeping Iran boxed in on all sides with U.S. Forces bordering them in Iraq and Afghanistan and who profits from that since Iran has not actually attacked any country in a premeditated way?



www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Change in stance

Al-Maliki declared a national holiday in Iraq on June 30th when U.S. forces left Iraq's urban centres and returned to their barracks, saying that the pullout was a key step in re-establishing Iraqi sovereignty.

Sam Parker of the U.S. Institute for Peace told Al Jazeera that the Iraqi leader is now trying to make amends with the U.S. government and military, members of which had criticised Maliki's reaction to the U.S. pullback.

"The disconnect between what he says in Iraq and what he says here is all about politics and playing to a domestic constituency versus playing to the foreign power that provides his government with the support that's essential for its functioning," he said.

Military.com

The Iraqi Prime Minister earlier this month said U.S. Troops are now ‘virtual’ prisoners on their bases and can only leave and do so much when and as the Iraqi Government permits them too. Several news accounts of U.S. Troops being denied permission to patrol and in some cases called back to U.S. Bases once seen on patrol by Iraqi Government officials lend some credence to that statement. Most areas of Iraq now only allow for patrol of U.S. Soldiers independently between the hours of 2:00 AM and 7:00 AM.

Yet here in this article we can see that both U.S. Officials and Iraqi Officials are quietly confirming that much of what the Iraqi Prime Minister says publicly is designed for political consumption.

Which of course begs the question whose political consumption? Is it just Iraqis he is making these statements for or is it also for American citizens he is making these statements for while all the while both Iraqi and U.S. Officials lay the ground work and agreements to keep U.S. Troops in Iraq well beyond the 2011 deadline?

Time for a shameless bump on another wise note worthy but over looked story!

This story is a prime example of how when citizen displeasure mounts non-measures to correct and appease the citizenry aren't real measures at all but simply a strategy to ease public concern and tensions and consign something to the back burner for a spell once the appearance of action has been publicly displayed to respond to citizen displeasure.

What good is and what is the purpose of living in a so called constitutional representative republic when what the public represents it truly wants is typically ignored along with the constitution itself to go ahead and do what the government itself wants instead?

That's my question!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


See that's why I don't really take anybody who says President Obama is breaking all of his campaign promises seriously. Any body who actually listens to what Obama has said knows that he stated he will listen to his military advisers and safely withdraw troops from Iraq over a period of time. Whatever people decide to tell themselves to to sleep at night, doesn't bother me any.

I dare say that they will keep the ones who will come home and take on the NWO and kick their butts, and this way they remain out of the way- less trouble and interference that way. Besides, didnt i hear that returning vets are now classified as terrorists?? I guess they have a survey to fill out and those absolutely not wanting to harm their own people, Americans, are being kept over there.
Of course there are those who have passed the test and will be sent here to help with the NWO cause.

So i hear.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dare say that they will keep the ones who will come home and take on the NWO and kick their butts, and this way they remain out of the way- less trouble and interference that way. Besides, didnt i hear that returning vets are now classified as terrorists??

The Head of Homeland Security claims it was a junior staffer who slipped that returning veterans are potential terrorists into a report she subsequently made public with out adequate review.

Of course they aren't potential terrorists she claimed later without personal appology of her own as she layed that comment at an underlings door and distanced herself from it.

Yet, one does have to ask if there are plans to keep the bulk of the active duty troops over seas to purposefully keep them from weighing in with their combat skills and understanding of urban warfare doctrine in case of domestic upheaval here in the United States.

Obama has recently called for nationalizing all private security company positions that gaurd U.S. Government installations and there is still talk on the table of making a National Police/Para Millitary Force of civilians directly under White House controll and outside of the chain of command of the Pentagon or Justice Department that normally oversea millitary and policing activities.

I guess we will just have to kick the Powers that Be's royal behinds ourselves, keep plenty of hairpins on hand.

Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by Styki
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

See that's why I don't really take anybody who says President Obama is breaking all of his campaign promises seriously. Any body who actually listens to what Obama has said knows that he stated he will listen to his military advisers and safely withdraw troops from Iraq over a period of time. Whatever people decide to tell themselves to to sleep at night, doesn't bother me any.

I gave you a star for the people lying to themselves comment so they can sleep well at night.

The reality is that we could safely pull out our combat troops from Iraq now. It sure wouldn't resemble the last chaotic days of Vietnam and people clamoring at the gates of the U.S. Embassy and having to toss military helicopters overboard of their ships to make room for indeginous evacuees.

About the only reason one could conceivable say is currently real for keeping troops in Iraq regarding the security of the Iraqi government itself is that it puts pressure on the Iraqi people to join their own Security Services so that Iraqis can be policed and protected by fellow Iraqis instead of foriegn troops.

The big combat operations in Afghanistan this summer conducted by the U.S. and the British hardly have a Afghani Security Force presence because there are just not many Afghani's who want to be in the Afghan Security Force.

While both the Iraqi and Afghani Governments are 'democratically' elected it's hard to tell just how representative they are of the will of the Iraqi and Aghani peoples and how representative they are of U.S. Government and Corporate Interests.

Of course that's not really a democracy for the people if and when the latter is true.

At least not a democracy that represents the real wishes of the people of those countries.

In part that is why U.S. troops are likely to stay well past 2011 in Iraq to help stabilize a regime that doesn't really have the complete backing of the people.