Didn't anybody read the PNAC's plans?

[sangh0]

There has been a lot of debate over why Bush* is insisting on turning sovereignity to the Iraqis by June 30. Most seem to think that this decision was made for political reasons. That is, people think that Bush* wants to get the Iraqi tar-baby off his back before the elections. IMO, this flies in the face of what we know as a result of the PNAC's published plans.

The PNAC wants the US to dominate the entire Middle East, and the removal of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq are critical steps in the plan. In order to dominate Iraq, the US MUST ESTABLISH PERMANENT BASES throughout the Middle East, including Iraq. In order to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, it MUST negotiate what's known as a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SoFA) with the Iraqi govt. One obstacle to this is the fact that Iraq has no govt to negotiate a SoFA with.

THIS IS WHY BUSH* WANTS A SOVEREIGN IRAQI GOVT!!

Bush* MUST negotiate a SoFA BEFORE the elections because there is no garauntee he will win the election. If he doesn't get the SoFA quickly, they may not get another chance.

Up until now, I haven't heard anyone on DU discussing the SOFA issue, nor anyone anywhere else. This issue seems to be moving beneath the public's radar. I would love to see this issue become a factor in this Presidential race. I think we could frame this issue in a manner favorable to our side by asking people "Do you think we should establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, or should we pull out once Iraq is back on it's feet?"

Though the odds are against on this, I do think we could possibly make this an issue, but it will require us to act in an organized, and more importantly, UNIFIED way. We would need, IMO, to argue this issue carefully in order to avoid alienating people who might be our natural allies, but refrain from helping us because of how we are pushing this issue.

Unfortunately, given what I've seen on DU, I expect that this issue will be used by some to bash the Democrats in general, and Kerry in particular, thereby alienating people who are aware of our imperialistic policies and oppose them but who also support the Democrats and Kerry; people like me.

So basically, we have an issue. Each and every one of us can decide for ourselves if we want to push this issue, or instead, punish some people (Democrats) or some person (Kerry). We each have a choice of what we think is more important to oppose - policy or people. If you care about the policy, then I would advise you take care not to alienate people who are your natural allies. If opposing certain people is more important than opposing the policy, then you need not worry about being divisive.

[mistertrickster]

1. This makes sense, Sangh0; I hadn't heard it before but it sounds

fully plausible with BushCo / PNAC plans.

The question is, will the country hold together long enough for a new gov't to be established and will the new gov't allow military bases there?

[BiggJawn]

7. I think you can bet on it.

It may be iffy that the new govewrnment will hold together, but if the BFEE gets the government they want installed (Chalabi) you can bet Halliburton will be building bases before the echos from Chalabi's innaugaration speech have died out.

[sangh0]

8. The country doesn't have to hold together

All they need is a govt that's recognized by the UN. Once Iraq has a recognized sovereign govt, they can get a SoFA and who cares about the Iraqi people and their nation?

As for the 2nd part of your question (ie "will the new gov't allow military bases there?") I have a strong suspicion that the Bush* admin is manipulating the process to ensure that the govt that is established is certain to OK a SoFA that satisfies Bush*'s desires. That's why they are being so quiet about exactly how this transition is going to play out on June 30.

[Cary]

2. A lot of things move below the public's radar.

Thanks, Sangho.

I too oppose PNAC's imperial agenda, and I support Kerry. How is the SOFA issue used to bash us?

[sangh0]

5. The SoFA issue isn't being used to bash us

The SoFA issue is going unrecognized by all, including us. The bashing is a prediction I am making about certain DUers who have a history of using any thing they can get their hands on to bash Dems. I suspect that those who seem to be the most opposed to imperialism will be the ones who use this issue to attack Kerry

"Kerry isn't saying a word about SoFA because he's working with the PNAC" is what I expect to hear.

[Goldmund]

3. This is a very good point.

But I fail to see how this is a divisive issue for the democrats. Hell, you and I can't agree on anything from smoking bans to bashing Air America hosts, but we wholeheartedly agree on this!

[sangh0]

10. Here's how to bash Dems on this

"Kerry isn't saying anything about SoFA because he's in league with the PNACers and their desire for perpetual war."

I prefer asking "Do you think the US should establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, or should we pull out as soon as Iraq is back on it's feet?"

[Goldmund]

11. I do see what you're saying.

But I also think that the number of people who would bash Kerry for not having brought this up is negligible. After all, Kerry hasn't brought up a lot of things, for one reason or another. You remember when McAuliffe got in trouble for pushing the AWOL issue too early? Well, there are 7 months left until the election, and I'm sure Kerry will bring up all issues which are politically wise to bring up (since campaigning is all about politics and showmanship, of course -- which I think is one of the major flaws of our electoral system), at the time when they would be the most effective. For example, for the last 3 weeks, I think it's been smart of him to kinda back off and let Bush* take hits from bipartisan comissions and generally move toward self-destruction. But I digress... My point is, I think that the SoFA issue should be named as such, unambiguously and not simply as the dychotomy between "establishing a permanent military presence" and "pulling out when the time is right". I think we should educate people what that establishment of a permanent military presence means in practice -- a signing of a SoFA. An opposition to vague concepts is blunter and less effective than an opposition to specific policies.

[sangh0]

12. I understand what you're saying

and sympathize tremendously with it, but I'm not sure we have enough time to educate the public on how SoFA's work and their significance. There's an election coming up, and this is an issue that can put people to sleep. Meanwhile, the length of our presence in Iraq is something that IMO people are concerned with.

IMO, if we can establish an awareness of the possibility that our troops could permanently based in Iraq, we can put the kibosh on the soon-to-be-negotiated SoFA because there's a very slim window that the Bush* is counting on. Once that has been taken care of, it can be used to educate on the more generalized issues surrounding SoFA's.

[never cry wolf]

20. That is a very tough task

Most murikans think that on June 30 the tropps start coming home, even a few here on DU. Maybe when they find out that the truth is that the only difference will be that bremer will issue orders to whatever puppet is put in place instead of issuing them directly this issue can be brought to light.

[sangh0]

24. Exactly!!

That's why I think we should focus on the question "Do you think the US should establish a permanent military presence in Iraq?"

It takes people's expectations of a withdrawal ASAP, and slams it against the reality of what's really going on. If people ask that question, the candidates will have to respond. Do you think either of the candidates will say "Yes, we should"?

[sangh0]

23. Here's an example of Kerry-bashing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1353355#1353496

"Both Bush and Kerry tend to keep the empire dreams of PNAC under the public radar.Why Kerry does not rip open the whole sordid mess and expose the corruption and the'philosophies' behind it that the neocons are pushing through is beyond me..unless he is 'in'on it.

And if the choices we have for elections are the same,getting screwed quickly by Bush and by rich assholes ,than why should we "put up with the same old by the same rich bastards done in slo-mo with Kerry??"

[BiggJawn]

4. That makes a hell of a lot of sense....

I think some of us have been guilty of short-thinking, in that we have this mindset that once we bounce Incurious George back to his "Archie" comix, then everything will start to heal itself.

But what your'e saying is that he's helping grease the skids for future PNAC advancement of their "Strangelovian" agenda?

Yeah, I can see that. Get a government into Iraq, sign a SOFA (what an apt acronym!) and then you just sit on it forever and ever...And take out everyone on the PNAC hit-list one-by-one...Oh, did I mention having an armed force so close to ALL that OIL is a Good Thing, too?

[librechik]

6. We're only pretending to go

whatever Iraqi governing body takes over, we will control it. Our troops will be there for decades to try to keep the peace, no doubt with little success. Bush will have the big impressive ceremony before the election, (that's the only thing the base will know about or remember) order a news blackout through November, and as far as he's concerned, the Iraq problem is solved.

[Mari333]

9. It will require a draft www.bushdraft.com

www.bushdraft.com

[oasis]

57. A Bush win = PNAC draft (eom)

[neverborn]

13. PNAC

Agreed that it will take a draft to keep a permanent military presence via SoFA in Iraq.

That's exactly what PNAC wants.

"We must shape circumstances..."

[pinto]

14. Questioned about possible "Ambassador" for post June Iraq, Busboy

said yesterday (smirk) he was looking for someone who could run a big embassy and coordinate with the military....

It was a brief comment, and got lost along the way, but underlines the fact that the embassy will be the largest in the world, fortified, with a permanent military base in the complex...

[sangh0]

15. I hadn't heard that

That's entirely consistent with what I'm thinking. They don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. They just need an embassy (to give the appearance of diplomacy and legality) and military bases.

Thanks for posting it

[meow mix]

16. thanks for the reality check..

*blink blink*
sorry i must have dozed off.. was having dreams of us leaving iraq.

[sangh0]

17. You can help us get out of Iraq

by making people aware of the fact that we are planning to establish a PERMANENT military presence in Iraq.

[seaglass]

18. It sounds like it could already be a done deal?

UN Mission report February 2004.

The 15 November Agreement signed by the Iraqi Governing Council and the CPA...

.."has a section on unspecified security arrangements that gives "wide latitude" for the Coalition to provide security. Most importantly, it commits a future provisional government to as yet unknown agreements made by the CPA and the Governing Council. During the mission, many Iraqis stressed that only a legitimate transitional or elected government should agree to any bilateral security arrangements with the Coalition. They consider that anything else would be illegitimate and would offer the impression that the process by which security agreements were reached was neither transparent nor accountable"


http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/246/00/PDF/N0424600.pdf?OpenElement

[sangh0]

19. Yes, but not undoable

WHatever agreements they do have, they are not binding because there is no sovereign Iraq govt to agree to it. However, if no one says anything, then it can and WILL happen. IMO, the only way to stop is through political pressure

[Walt Starr]

21. BINGO!

Give that man a cigar, that's PRECISELY why Dumbass* wants an Iraqi government. In fact, he could give a shit how long the puppet government really lasts after he gets the SoFA because it can always be referred to as the "legitimate" Iraqi government even if sadr forces cotrol 75% of the countryside.

[sangh0]

22. Walt, do you have any ideas on how we could bring attention to this issue?

.

[sangh0]

38. Walt, have you forgotten about this issue already?

.

[Redneck Socialist]

25. Is anyone really surprised by this?

I had forgotten about the SoFA specifically, but it had been my assumption all along that the whole point of the Iraq invasion was to establish a permanent US military presence in Iraq.

Unfortunately I don't think we will be able to use this issue to our benefit.

If we succeed in pacifying Iraq (no or limited US casualties)the US public will all too easily accept a permanent US presence in Iraq. Have you heard anyone in this country questioning our still having troops stationed in Korea or Germany?

We're the biggest kid on the block and we can do whatever we want and to hell with the rest of the world. All part of a big beautiful Pax Americana.

On Edit: Typo

[sangh0]

26. Surprised? Hardly anybody even KNOWS about it

Even on DU, it gets little to no attention, as demonstrated in this thread.

[nolabels]

27. Quite valid point, thanks for pointing this out sangh0

If there is one thing I notice about these (don't know put out the original idea of this) neocons craziness is coupled with the need to do it on sense that they are operating under the color of authority. Rove, that Nixon operative knows how his boss, tricky dick got caught in this way.

John Dean's book sounds like a winner. John Dean laid Rove out well in a small space on the air that was just a little bet longer than a sound bite

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/06/1354218

Tuesday, April 6th, 2004
Worse Than Watergate: Former Nixon Counsel John Dean Says Bush Should Be Impeached
(snip)
G. Gordon Liddy, the former FBI agent who masterminded the Watergate burglary on behalf of Nixon, once said that he would like to kill John Dean by shoving a pencil through his neck.

Why? Because Dean is the one who dared tell Nixon in 1973 that the web of lies surrounding the Watergate scandal had formed "a cancer on the presidency." When Dean went public about that conversation, the Nixon White House smeared him as a liar. Fortunately, the conversation had been taped, and Dean was vindicated.

Dean agreed to testify to Congress that Nixon was guilty of covering up Watergate, even though he was certain to condemn himself to prison. Dean was later charged with obstruction of justice and would eventually serve 127 days for taking part in the cover-up.

Dean is charging in a new book out this week Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush that the crimes of President Bush are worse than his previous boss and are grounds for impeachment.
(snip)

[sangh0]

28. "operating under the color of authority"

It's because they can't depend on reason, so instead, they depend on authority.

"How do we know Iraq has WMD's?" The conservative says "Because Bush* says so"

"How do we know that abortion is wrong?" The conservative says "Because the Bible says so"

[nolabels]

33. I always remember they like to use this as the trump card

Seems like many civilizations and countries with corrupt government use this term near the end of their reign.

And thanks again for being so incisive sangh0

http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/nazi_reign_of_terror.htm

The Nazi Reign of Terror, 1933-38
Holocaust
Spring 2003
Hitler Comes to Power
• Barely in Office Hitler met with the Reichswehr generals who knew very little about him.
• Hitler assured them that he planned on rearming.
• And then expanding Germany in order to obtain “living space” in the East.
• Most professional officers realized that war was necessary to regain those lands lost in World War I.
• But first he had to destroy the “cancer of Democracy” in Germany.
• In its place establish “the tightest authoritarian State leadership.
(snip)
(snip)
Decree for the Protection of Volk and State
• Suspended the basic rights of German citizens.
• Allowed the Reich’s government to take over all powers of the German Land governments.
• Ordered the death penalty for a wide assortment of crimes.
• Including treason, assault on government officials, arson in government buildings, incitement to riot, and resistance to provisions of the law.
• Citizens could be placed in “protective custody.”
Protective Custody
• Suspects could be arrested solely for being “threats” to the state.
• The first victims were Communists and Socialists.
• Many were incarcerated in a Wilde Konzentrationslager or a Wild Concentration Camp run by the SA
(snip)

[sangh0]

36. Quite incisive yourself

Using a glorified fictional version of some past utopia is a common ploy authoritarians use to back up their authority. Hitler used the First and Second Reich's (along with the Holy Roman Empire) to justify many of his policies and to build support for them.

[Redneck Socialist]

29. Controlling the Mideast has long been US policy

PNAC were bluntly honest about it, but I don't think you need to have read their plan to see that. What better way to control that area than have a permanent military presence there?

Controlling the Mideast (call it stabilizing or keeping the peace or liberating or what ever euphemism you prefer)has long been US policy. That is why it surprises me that anyone thinks that we WON'T have permanent bases in Iraq.

[sangh0]

30. "it surprises me that anyone thinks that we WON'T..."

And I'm surprised when ANYONE even thinks ANYTHING about it. As far as I can tell, the SoFA issues is being ignored, even on DU

Go read my original post again. See how I talk about making this an issue in the campaign. NOT ONE PERSON has responded to that point. Instead, people want to talk about how others are ignoring the issue, etc and NOT ONE WORD about what we might do about it.

Now go the various threads about "important" issues such as "how grating is Randi Rhodes voice?" and compare the number of people involved in those discussions with the numbers expressing an interest in this thread.

[Redneck Socialist]

31. I don't think you're going to like my answer

I don't think WE can make this an issue in the presidential race if by WE you mean either the Democratic Party as a whole or Kerry in particular.

Here is why: If Bush gets a SoFA before the election and loses, I think Kerry will honor that agreement and proceed with stationing troops there. If Bush doesn't get an agreement before the election whoever wins the election will continue to work on it until an agreement is reached.

This isn't a partisan issue. I'm not in the "there is no difference between Kerry and bush" camp but on this specific issue we are talking about matters of degree not any significant difference.

If on the other hand by WE you mean people concerned specifically with Iraq and our foreign policy in general, then, as you have proposed we need to frame the issue as "Do you think we should establish a permanent military presence in Iraq..." We can press all candidates to clearly articulate their plans for a post war Iraq.

You are absolutely correct there has been little to no discussion of this either in the mainstream media or here on DU and I suspect that the candidates like it that way. Neither Bush nor Kerry want to get pinned down on this because whatever they say most likely will comeback to haunt them.

[sangh0]

32. Yes, yes, yes!! Thank you.

If on the other hand by WE you mean people concerned specifically with Iraq and our foreign policy in general, then, as you have proposed we need to frame the issue as "Do you think we should establish a permanent military presence in Iraq..." We can press all candidates to clearly articulate their plans for a post war Iraq.

This is what I was talking about. People like US. How can WE get this issue into the public debate? I'd love to get people motivated to go to Kerry campaign events and simply ASK him about it. As you correctly point out, "Neither Bush nor Kerry want to get pinned down on this because whatever they say most likely will comeback to haunt them."

Pinning them down, and having their decisions be "haunted" is EXACTLY what I want to see.

[Redneck Socialist]

34. From your original post

"We would need, IMO, to argue this issue carefully in order to avoid alienating people who might be our natural allies, but refrain from helping us because of how we are pushing this issue."

What groups are you worried about alienating?

If we were successful in framing the issue as you suggest I think it could be a very good issue for the Democrats. It plays to the natural isolationist tendencies of many Americans.

Saddam was a bad guy, we took him out for you now run your own business and leave us alone.

That is a message that would play well even among those that supported the war.

[sangh0]

37. My concern

relates to some posters on DU who will, IMO, use any excuse to bash Kerry and the Dems. IMO, this would alienate Kerry supporters and Dems. Somewhere above I posted a link to a post where a poster does something similar.

That is a message that would play well even among those that supported the war.

Exactly. Though the question I asked was wordy, I think it cuts to the core of the issue as many people see it today. IMO, very few people want to stay there forever, and that includes Freepers even.

However, the question could use some shortening. Good propoganda is short and punchy. My question was not.

[Redneck Socialist]

39. You can't please everyone

I took a look at that link and my original comment still stands. If the message is crafted carefully I think it would have broad appeal. Will it satisfy everyone? Of course not, but it has potential as a campaign theme.

[Cleita]

35. He could always declare Iraq a US territory like Puerto Rico and

be done with it. Then he can move into other ME countries, overturn their governments and declare them US territories until the US owns the whole ME. What's stopping him? He's acting like Hitler in every other way. Why stop now?

[sangha]

40. kick

.

[Karenina]

41. And another

:kick:

[freeminder]

43. kick n/t

[freeminder]

42. I also think your analysis is spot on!

Only yesterday I was debating the issue of power handover in the face of mounting resistance with a work colleague who actually supports PNAC (we're both europeans, by the way). He has told me "it's also our oil they're fighting for, we should be happy and not stand idly by".

We were trying to solve the contradiction between Bush* wanting to hand over power (to get the tar baby out of his hands) quickly and the goal of PNAC (and others before them I guess) to establish a long term military presence in the ME.

We (yes, we can actually still agree on things) came up with "he'll hand over power and just keep the bases".

Thanks to you I now understand the Regime will probably try to keep bases and an embassy, and I see the contradiction we though about is a false one. You need one to get the other before the election.

Beautiful!

I agree this should be an issue shoved under the noses of presidential candidates. Whether that will help, I don't know because I don't think many US citizens would disagree with having a long-term military presence in the ME (as long as there aren't daily inconvenient news facts such as US casualties).

The only way to make this long-term presence look like a dangerous thing is by exposing it as a part of the PNAC agenda, and showing it's potential catastrophic results in terms of creating more ground for terrorists. Iraq today is proving the idea of liberation (I believe the next lie they came up with after WMD, no?) is a false one. Bases are only preliminary to more of this.

A little off-topic but related IMO : the US pulling troups out of "old" europe and moving them to eastern europe - put all those bases on the map and in 10 years we may have a big US-controlled core of Europe and the ME.

I want european defense NOW.

Sorry if I'm being paranoid.

[sangh0]

48. Thank you

The only way to make this long-term presence look like a dangerous thing is by exposing it as a part of the PNAC agenda, and showing it's potential catastrophic results in terms of creating more ground for terrorists.

I don't think we need to bring up the PNAC. IMO, most Americans do not want to our sons and daughters to stay in Iraq for even one day longer than they need to.

[freeminder]

52. you're welcome. I enjoy your critical thinking

Just like that of many others on DU.

you said "IMO, most Americans do not want to our sons and daughters to stay in Iraq for even one day longer than they need to."

I would agree. But it all depends on the question asked. If someone can frame the question as "do we need to stay one day longer in Iraq than necessary" everybody will say no. I even remember Rummy stating this exact thing when asked how long the war was gonna take : "as long as it takes and not a day longer".

But I also fear that the US public can be brought to acquiesce to "hey we have to keep bases to guarantee stability, see how we are protecting you security" (of oil supplies)

[sangh0]

53. "But it all depends on the question asked"

That's EXACTLY it, IMO. We need to ask the right question.

Any ideas?

[freeminder]

54. "Mr. President, exactly which part of the XX Billion in the appropriation

Bill is being used to establish bases in Iraq without informing the American public (that no longer supports you war), instead of being used to buy armor for the troops?"

Over here, we have tough parliamentary questions asked often by opposition members, and they get good media attention. Our leaders also go on debates all the time.

I wish this to all of you in the US.

Man of man my kingdom for an real interview of Bush*.

[July]

44. I thought we were already building the bases.

Something like 14 of them. Did I dream that?

[freeminder]

45. It has been in NYT, bases "discussed" and plans denied by Rummy.

Here http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21331 you can read about the plans for bases. Nothing admitted, but...


<SNIP>
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (IPS) - Now that the Bush administration has decided to sharply accelerate the transfer of full sovereignty to an Iraqi government, why does it not invite the United Nations to help with the transition?

<SNIP>
Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld denied that Washington had plans to build those bases when the Times article was published. But since then, he and his chief aides have been remarkably coy about how long U.S. forces intend to remain in Iraq.

And on his recent emergency trip to Washington, where it was decided to accelerate the transition timetable, CPA chief L. Paul Bremer suggested that whoever takes power in Iraq will undoubtedly want to sign a ''SOFA'' -- a Status of Forces Agreement that governs the relationship between the U.S. military and host countries.
/<SNIP>

This is old news though - gonna look further.

[sangh0]

47. No, you are right

They are being built with the assumption that a SOFA will be negotiated. Seeing as how no one in this country is even aware of this issue, their assumption is not an unreasonable one. I have a strong suspicion that intend of somehow finessing this without drawing attention to it. IMO, we could put a stop to it by shining a light on this issue. IMO, the overwhelming majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

[davekriss]

46. I think you are correct

There's no question that one of the main purposes of the war was to establish permanent bases in the region (part of the PNAC plan) since keeping bases in Saudi Arabia was becoming increasingly problematic (note how very rare it is for the USG to give up a base anywhere once established -- removing bases from Saudi is truly an exceptional event).

But you are right, sangh0, the powers behind the puppet may be worried about re-election and therefore holding to their timeline in order to get the SoFA in place. I believe Haliburton's subsidiary has already built four large bases in Iraq and the current USG regime is unlikely to give them up easily. June 30 is a contingency in case they cannot steal another election.

[sangh0]

56. I like the idea

but the question itself, like my own, is a little to wordy. Good propoganda is short and punchy.

[veracity]

49. Here are their photos....PNAC in this administration....

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard are always there to promote these thugs...... He's the founder. Never does the media utter a word to identify them. Keep this.....

[sangh0]

55. I love their website

they have some really good material

[leesa]

50. We need not be in lock-step. If Kerry is pursuing bad policy, like

continuing an illegal war and punishing Venezuela for daring to defy American corporations, then he deserves to be called on it. That it not "bashing". It is being responsible to democracy.

[sangh0]

51. Kerry, Kerry, Kerry

Obviously, you must not care about whether or not the US establishes a PERMANENT military presence in Iraq because your post does not contain one word about the issue. It's obvious that your concern is "Kerry, Kerry, Kerry"

[Lorien]

58. Kick

:kick: