The Extortion Of Iraq – Moon of Alabama

April 9, 2011

The Extortion Of Iraq

The consigliere was send out to deliver first a threat

Gates: Iraq will face problems if U.S. troops withdraw

"They will not be able to do the kind of job in intelligence fusion. They won't be able to protect their own airspace. They will have problems with logistics and maintenance."

then an offer

Gates: Some US troops may stay if Iraq wants

and making clear that it can not be refused

Gates Presses Iraq to Decide on Extension of U.S. Presence

But the guy in charge of pizza joint says "No!"

Sadr calls for an end to 'US occupation'

Al Jazeera correspondent Jane Arraf, reporting from Baghdad, said that this time Sadr had not only warned US troops but also the contractors.

What will the mafia Don do next?

Posted by b on April 9, 2011 at 15:31 UTC | Permalink

Comments

They must have misunderstood the procedure. You are supposed to say “Nice country you’ve got there, shame if anything happened to it” before you smash the place up, not eight years after.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Apr 9 2011 16:35 utc | 1

The U. S. will now and forever more have a presence in Iraq. 300k to 500k troops on 700 bases around the globe. Ya think the empire is leaving Iraq? or Afghanistan? Simply global strategy, planned by giant, powerful, money interests. Here in the U.S., these same interests are mounting an unparalleled attack on workers and their unions. These interests make most of our policies through control of our elected (?)officials, and most of the media, with money, to run their campaigns. Conspiracy? I think not. More like the mega-wealthy just doing what they’ve done throughout history..wanting everything that more and more wealth can bring. Complete and total
hegemony. Avarice is a sickness that infects my nation now, and unless something profound happens soon, the rest of the world better take notice.

Posted by: ben | Apr 9 2011 17:28 utc | 2

In answer to your question b. If he and the Iraqi people expect have any share of the nation’s wealth, fight.

Posted by: ben | Apr 9 2011 17:44 utc | 3

“The U. S. will now and forever more have a presence in Iraq. 300k to 500k troops on 700 bases around the globe.”
I’m sure that the Beltway-Wall Street fratboys want to continue their global dominance, but it’s likely that Uncle Sam’s insolvency will undermine their schemes, particularly with so much US debt owed to resource-hungry China.
Prof. Juan Cole, whom I still view as a learned and well-meaning observer, not-withstanding his current cheerleading for NATO-in-Libya, recently wrote that the US may end up as “the Hessians of a future Asia … in danger of being reduced to the role of impoverished foot soldier fighting for others’ interests.” http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175319/tomgram%3A_juan_cole,_the_asian_century/

Posted by: Watson | Apr 9 2011 22:42 utc | 4

Hessians? Might end up as? Hell, they already ARE Israeli sepoys.

Posted by: rjj | Apr 9 2011 23:52 utc | 5

Anybody remember the incident in the 90s (??) when somebody’s microphone picked up one of the Saudis saying, “The trouble with Americans is, when you invite them in, they never leave.”

Posted by: rjj | Apr 9 2011 23:59 utc | 6

As long as Sadr is in, and he’s definitely in, the U.S. is out.
The airspace/defense protection racket issue – something the U.S. has worked very hard to keep Iraq from having – is a little weak when big brother next door is sure to fill the void.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 10 2011 1:39 utc | 7

The chances of Iraq agreeing to an extension of the occupation are minimal. That’s what Gates is forgetting. It is still impossible politically for the Iraq government to agree to an extension.
So where’s the consigliere bit? The US doesn’t have any threat to carry out.

Posted by: alexno | Apr 11 2011 13:03 utc | 8

I think Alex is correct in that assessment. I see no other course of action for the Iraqi parliament. Always interesting to see the U.S. hailing the middle east’s new democracy but carrying on business as usual, as if with a dictatorship.
In other news: I haven’t seen it reported elsewhere but it looks like the PM has a power struggle on his hands within the party.
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=24816

Posted by: Steve Connors | Apr 11 2011 13:17 utc | 9

Steve, Al-Sharq al-Awsat is owned by the Saudis. You won’t get an untainted view from them.

Posted by: alexno | Apr 11 2011 16:18 utc | 10

Yes Alex, I agree but this is a news piece with an actual named source (rare as hens teeth, I know) inside Dawa. Of course, if there’s anything out there that refutes his saying this, then that’s a different matter. But as it stands, this is pretty interesting and important news. From a perspective of the history of Dawa (irrespective of how much of that is mythology or fact) I think that if the party removes Maliki it will have a devastating impact on his chances of re-election and even on his present, perceived legitimacy.

Posted by: Steve Connors | Apr 12 2011 13:28 utc | 11

Back to Main