(Daily Beast) U.S. to Stay in Iraq?

[Political Heretic]

U.S. to Stay in Iraq?

There's a Plan B for Iraq: Army General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said on Monday that U.S. combat troops could remain in Iraq past this summer's planned withdrawal deadline if violence surges after national elections next month. By September 1, all U.S. combat forces are scheduled to leave Iraq, with 50,000 troops staying behind in an advisory role. "I have contingency plans that I've briefed to the chain of command this week that we could execute if we run into problems," Odierno said of his plan to leave more troops in case of violence. "We're prepared to execute those." Of course, the administration is juggling a two-front war. The Daily Beast's Richard Wolffe talks to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Madeleine Albright about the latest strain on NATO's alliance for Afghanistan.

http://www.thedailybeast.com (Cheat Sheet #3)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some here will say "Of course there's a Plan B, because plans for withdraw must be "sensitive to conditions on the ground" and "The President has always said that he would listen to his commanders first."

First let me just interject how sad it has been to watch Democratic Underground move from a site with majority membership dedicated to peace and principled objection to an unjust invasion and occupation based on provable lies under a Republican President, to defense of unjust occupation based on provable lies under a Democratic President.

Then let me say that I don't believe we should be using the excuse of listening to commanders (who, as representatives of the MIC, which is connected to financial interests, want to stay permanently in some capacity) or judging conditions on the ground when it was immoral, unethical, reckless and irresponsible of not outright criminal for us to be there in the first place.

[Mari333]

1. why is this occupation still being legitimized???

because NOT ONE WAR CRIMINAL IS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR STARTING AN ILLEGAL PRE EMPTIVE WAR FOR NOTHING.

and the longer that no one is called out on this, the more the public will view it as a legitimate enterprise.

the precedent has been set for all administrations now..

they can go into any country and occupy it for NO REASON

and kill its citizens and steal its resources

even ONE soldier left there is illegal occupation

and corporations run and still run the whole damned thing.

[Arctic Dave]

2. +1

[leftstreet]

14. +1

[FlyByNight]

3. This occupation is Pentagon stimulus...

...in addition to the bullshit Afghan escalation for pipeline(s) and poppy plants. Meanwhile the country continues to drown in oceans of red ink.

MIC uber alles.

:eyes:

[arcadian]

4. 50,000 troops staying behind

sure sounds like an occupation.

[spanone]

5. ....grrrrr

[Winterblues]

6. I suppose some here will express surprise at this..

We have no intention of leaving Iraq, not "One Brigade a Month" "Beginning on Day One" or anything else. We will draw down some troops and send them into the Afghanistan quagmire but ending the "War"...Not going to happen..Military Contractors control Washington every bit as much under Democrats as they do under Republicans..

[Blue Owl]

7. Surprise surprise surprise

Who'd a thunk it? That poor military industrial complex, you think they'd catch a break now and then.

And won't someone please think of the no-bid contractors and their record-high profits?

[blindpig]

8. so obvious....

and if the Shia or Sunni don't give them an excuse some black ops surely will.

Done deal.

[Don Caballero]

9. What do you mean by "black ops"?

[blindpig]

11. The usual suspects......

US or British 'intelligence', or their hirelings, stirring up enough shit to provide the excuse.

[Don Caballero]

12. I really do not follow

Why would they stir things up in Iraq? We are looking for a stable Iraq as we withdraw from the theatre.

[blindpig]

13. OK...I'll play

Perhaps because there is no real intention to withdraw? Perhaps all talk of withdrawal is nothing but thin gruel for public consumption?

[Don Caballero]

16. You are wrong. Withdrawal will be complete by September of 2011

Is there any evidence of covert British and American intelligence staging attacks to justify prolonged occupation?

[leftstreet]

18. LOL

:rofl:

[blindpig]

19. Don't believe everything ya read in the funny papers.

Somehow I don't think I'd be privy to that information. However, there are more than a few historical precedents. I doubt that interested parties will have any confidence that our puppets there can fulfill imperial requirements sufficiently for the foreseeable future. They built those large permanent bases for nothin'.

[Don Caballero]

20. Those bases will be used for foreign diplomats

All of our combat forces will be out by the date set by our President.

[blindpig]

21. You can't be serious

Ya oughta do stand up, that was the best laugh I've had today.

Oh yeah, that 'combat' qualifier, extremely fungible. Call 'em what ya want, US forces on hand will be able to control the oil fields.

[Political Heretic]

23. military bases aren't "used for foreign diplomats." Those are called embassy's.

Military bases are just want their name implies: military bases.

Saying that "combat troops" will be brought home, is saying that our military won't be actively engaged in sanctioned military operations as part of an ongoing operation after a certain point in time. Yet military equipment and personnel will remain stationed there as yet another arm of our imperialism.

Not to mention that, as the OP stated, there's already plan B for if the military doesn't want to leave by the deadline.

[bvar22]

10. K&R...back UP to +3

:patriot:

[MadHound]

15. Nice post, nice comments, but I have to differ on one thing.

This isn't Plan B. Staying in Iraq has always been the plan, but since it is an unpopular war a nice little lie had to be told that we're pulling out. We were never going to pull out, despite what was promised, and we're not going to get out of there in the foreseeable future.

[Swamp Rat]

17. As soon as we finish stealing the rest of their oil we'll leave,

and not a second before.

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. USA never had any intention of leaving Iraq

.
.
.

U.S. Embassy in Iraq Largest, Most Expensive Ever

/snip/

The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.

The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.

In a ceremony Monday attended by U.S. and Iraqi officials, the U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker ushered in a "new era" for both Iraq and for the Iraqi-U.S. relationship, although critics have said that the embassy's fortress-like design and immense size show a fundamental disconnect between the U.S. and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006.

"is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country"

'nuff said

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.html