Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 15, 2011
Terror In Iraq Is A False Argument For Occupation Troops

There were many very bloody terror attacks today in Iraq with over 70 dead. The U.S. media are trying to insinuate that this is good reason to keep U.S. troops there after the end of the year.

Here is the Washington Post version:

Lt. Col. Hachem Neama Abbas, an Iraqi army commander in Baghdad, said the military had been bracing for a new round of violence. The attacks, he said, are proof that insurgents still pose a threat to the country’s stability. They also raise questions about the Iraqi government’s ability to maintain security as American troops prepare to leave the country by December.

What bollocks!

These attacks don't raise that question. They give the answer. The 50,000 U.S.troops currently in Iraq obviously do not prevent such mass attacks. They are no help at all for the Iraqi governments's ability to maintain security. They are useless.

The 10,000 U.S. troops the Pentagon wants to keep there after the end of the year will not be able to do that either. They are an occupation force. Totally useless for Iraq and Iraqis and only to be put there in the perceived interest of the U.S. empire. A division size force that can be used to threaten Iran and when the chance arises to steal its hydrocarbons.

The attacks also show that U.S. military action in foreign countries is always destructive to their societies. The liberal interventionists who argue for interventions on the basis of human rights should take this as another point against their flawed theories.

Comments

I have no idea who laid those bombs. It was either the Pentagon, who want to convince Maliki to let the US stay, or al-Qa’ida, who are fearful of the Shi’i regime succeeding.
Note that I said the ‘Pentagon’, and not the ‘US’. It is the military who want the US to stay in Iraq, not Obama.
According to what is said, Maliki is ready to ask the US to stay longer. I have my doubts that the parliament is so convinced.
In any case, the main source on Iraqi politics is Reidar Visser.

Posted by: alexno | Aug 15 2011 19:56 utc | 1

The US military in Iraq is worse than useless, no matter who did the bombings.

Posted by: Susan | Aug 15 2011 22:20 utc | 2

Having their cake and eating it, too–no violence? no problem staying; violence? guess we have to stay.
This is straight out of the Israeli play book…except that lots of Iraqis had a problem with the US staying, so it was time to induce a little violence to justify the continued occupation.

Posted by: JohnH | Aug 15 2011 23:35 utc | 3

alexno #1,
Visser is indeed a main source on Iraqi politics. But, his analysis often suffers from not seeing the forest for the trees, for instance, he seemed blindsided when the Sadr trend joined up with Maliki after the last election. Somehow it never entered his mind that they would again join forces – but they did (even silly old me saw that one coming). Also Visser has become an advocate of the U.S. staying in Iraq past the 2012 deadline. As usual, read with caution.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 16 2011 3:33 utc | 4

Q: How can one tell if a Yankee big wig is telling lies?
A: Watch his mouth; if it’s moving, he’s lying.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 16 2011 4:51 utc | 5

re anna missed 4

But, his analysis often suffers from not seeing the forest for the trees,

That’s true, the discussion is extremely dense, typical of a full-time researcher, as he is.
He’s also never been to Iraq, so it’s difficult to have a good feel for the country. At least that’s better than taking freebies from the US military, as most American pundits have done.

Also Visser has become an advocate of the U.S. staying in Iraq past the 2012 deadline.

‘Advocate’ I don’t think is the right term. I doubt if he advocates it. More that he recognises that al-Maliki may make a deal with the US. As I also, regrettably, recognise.

Posted by: alexno | Aug 16 2011 8:56 utc | 6

Doesn’t matter what the Iraqis want, with a billion dollars spent constructing an embassy, the US will ALWAYS have boots on the ground. Only a full scale uprising from the populace could change the US and the West’s status in Iraq. The US and it’s sycophants in the West will have unfettered access to Iraqi oil.

Posted by: ben | Aug 16 2011 13:35 utc | 7

@ 7.
And all this ‘permanent presence’ window-dressing will be put at risk if Iran is attacked. If retaliatory Iranian missiles start falling on US regional bases the locals won’t need a formal invitation to step in and mop up the remnants.
US bases in hostile environments are over-reliant on the labor-intensive tactic of maintaining a perimeter wide enough to keep short range weapons at bay. Attacking Iran will introduce long range weapons into this equation.
A variation on the theme of suicide bombing.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 17 2011 3:49 utc | 8