THE UNWANTED VISITOR PLANS TO STAY

This was a comment placed in response to my previous blog on my thoughts on where to go from here in regards to the Iraq war / occupation......
"Yes, Kim. This is a great piece and I fully agree with it. However, there must be much more going on that we don't see or know. Otherwise, why the large embassy, and talk of at least 50,000 soldiers staying in that country indefinitely. I don't think the neocons will be giving up any time soon, or even after B #2 is gone... They are quietly working now to set things in motion that will not be easy to undo".. Dave
Yes, Dave. As the title of this posting states, we aren't leaving.....ever. No matter who wins the election next year, we aren't, and probably shouldn't ever leave. The future of our country directly relates to the region, and, yes, the oil. Can we still drop our troop level to 50,000, set up a puppet government and use this country as our oil reserve? Many American petroleum firms lobbied, and entered into long-term contracts for their oil reserves, which is a great thing. If we could pull this off, we would have troops there to stabilize, and by running the government (are we really there to set up a "democracy ?") we could be a de facto member of OPEC.

Here is our publicly stated Iraq mission statement...."To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq’s territory." Sound like a temporary mission? Of course not.

Here is John Edwards rebuttal to President Bush's statement, that we may never leave Iraq.....

Anyone who actually thinks we are EVER going to leave Iraq in total should examine the following facts, then ask themselves if ANY politician actually wants to leave, and leave all of this on the table for the ungrateful Iraqi's to suck up...

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion. Who will get Iraq’s oil?

One of the Bush administration’s ‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues (this has since been reached). The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters.

In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.

On April 20, 2003, The New York Times ran a story citing unnamed sources indicating the U.S. military was planning as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq. The next day, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the story as "inaccurate and unfortunate." But what did Rumsfeld mean by "inaccurate"? Perhaps it was "unfortunate" for the administration when the basing plan was leaked to the press. Perhaps the plan was deliberately leaked by the Pentagon or White House. The national media dropped the story after Rumsfeld's disclaimer.
Was the story "inaccurate" because instead of four military installations, the government has plans for six bases, as reported on November 19, 2003, by the Jordanian daily al-Arab al-Yawm:

The sources revealed the names of these bases and the planned positions for permanent deployment. They are:
Al-Habbaniyah Airbase [already an RAF airbase for much of the last century] near the city of al-Fallujah, 65km west of Baghdad;
Ash-Sha'biyah Airbase in Basra, 600km south of Baghdad;
'Ali ibn Abi Taleb Airbase on the outskirts of the city of an-Nasiriyah, 400km south of Baghdad;
al-Walid Airbase about 330km north west of Baghdad;
al-Ghazlani Camp in the city of Mosul, 400km north of Baghdad;

A permanent deployment of forces in the east of Iraq in what is known as the Hamrin mountain range that extends from Diyala Provice, 60km east of Baghdad, and borders on Iran and extends to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 260km north of Baghdad.
The sources explained the choice of these locations for permanent Anglo-American deployment by saying that they cover most of the territory of Iraq, and are linked to the Iraqi borders in all four directions, giving them strategic importance in defining the future course of the "new" Iraq. The choice of these locations is also linked to the aim of deterring neighbors of Iraq who might attempt to threaten Iraqi territory in the future.
Given the present administration's abysmal track record for truth-telling, we may never know substantive information about this crucial issue until the bases are operational.

Had enough? Convinced? Now Dave, here is the truth and bloody statistics involved in our new embassy....The message is clear. Indeed, it's gigantic for all Iraqis, for the entire world to see. A 100 acre compound – ten times the size of the typical U.S. embassy, the size of 80 football fields, six times larger than the UN, the size of Vatican City. The US Embassy Compound, in the middle of Baghdad – the center for US domination of the Middle East and its resources. The compound towers above the Tigris River like a modern fortress. It will have its own sources of power and water and sit in the heart of Baghdad.

The fact remains that the infrastructure is being put in place for a long-term military presence in Iraq. Unless Americans get tired of footing the growing and expensive bill for occupying Iraq – now at nearly $10 Billion per month – or the Iraqis are able to force the United States to leave it looks like Baghdad will be the center of operations for the US presence in the Middle East. The US will be sitting on top of the Earth's vast, but shrinking, oil resources.