Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« This One's for You, Sue! | About a (Slightly) Younger Joh... »

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Meanwhile in Iraq

posted by on June 5 at 11:52 AM

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated.

RSS icon Comments


An open letter to Slog’s Iraq War spammer

What’s the point of keeping this up?

As you may have noticed—but seem to have difficulty accepting—we live in a right-wing country that regulary attacks others and commits war crimes.

We’ve been doing this for decades; please see North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, the Philippines, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq for more information.

No one can get elected to higher office in this nation without repeatedly promising more money for soldiers, wars and apocalyptic violence.

Please channel your anger towards those who still support our country’s wars and occuptions since there seems to been an endless supply of these unreconstructed, tongue-talking, psychopathic, submoronic douchebags. (Hint: Try the comments on the P.I.’s blogs, please).

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Posted by Original Andrew | June 5, 2008 12:10 PM

So... What do you want to happen that will make you shut the fuck up, IKDHCHMANLSTWBGTSKH?

Posted by Ben | June 5, 2008 12:25 PM


Hmm, thought-provoking. It's like you read the hobbies section on my résumé.

Just FYI, I also marched against the war before it started and for years after.

Look, I get it. I really do. But this is the reality in US America. And unless you simply enjoy wasting your time, there's no reason to continue your posts in this venue.

Now, over at the P.I.'s blog comments are a tidal wave of truly vile, face-biting fucks just begging for a digital smackdown. So why not try them?

Pretty please?

Posted by Original Andrew | June 5, 2008 12:31 PM

Whoops, those spam comments are going faster than I can reply.

Take heart, Iraq spammer, and head over to more conservative pastures.

How about Sound Politics, please? (Double shudder)

Posted by Original Andrew | June 5, 2008 12:36 PM


Posted by Mike of Renton | June 5, 2008 12:43 PM

I think the spammer makes a practical point. I can't say that I believe Dan deserves this much vilification, but unfortunately he's a convenient scapegoat for the a certain type of war proponent. It is disturbing that the right wing can form an alliance with liberals who think that US military force is an appropriate way to promote human rights.

Posted by daniel | June 5, 2008 12:50 PM

Well as someone that will probably be going to Iraq in a few years I think this is a great idea.

I don't really care whether or not the invasion was justified, the fact of the matter is we are there and we can't turn back. We hop out now the place descends in a worse hell then we could make it. So stop being little babies and how about you help us fighting people get the equipment we need to do the job right. No sense in having camo if our kevlar isn't camo'd

Posted by Nick | June 5, 2008 12:55 PM

nick, you should care. we are the bad guys. we shouldn't be the bad guys.

you can't hurt someone into loving you. you love them into loving you.

bush had a choice - a war of agression, resulting in death & destruction (of iraq & our economy), or the path of his purported religion's founder, jesus h. christ.

we could have demonstrated to the arab world that we were humble & heard their anger, felt their humiliation. we could have dropped a "love bomb": provided clean water or sewage treatment to any 3rd world country that would have us, then PR'd the fuck out of it.

how do you hate a country that saved your kid from dying of dysintery?

Posted by max solomon | June 5, 2008 1:01 PM

Nick, the choicese are these:

1. Stay in Iraq for 10 years or 50 years - the time-frame doesn't really matter - spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars and countless thousand American military and Iraqi civilian lives, and watch the country continue it's death spiral toward internecine civil war;


2. Get the fuck out NOW, save hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars and countless American military lives, and watch the country continue it's death spiral toward internecine civil war.

Which choice sounds better to you?

Posted by COMTE | June 5, 2008 1:12 PM

Yes, sad but true, a large number of Americans believe that we can "help" people by bombing, torturing and murdering them. It's kinda why our society is insane.

With some estimates stating that as much as 60% of our federal budget goes towards war and war related industries, this state of affairs is totally unsustainable. Due to the government's accounting tricks, most Americans don't even know how truly FUBAR our nation's finances are.

I find it oddly comforting that America will be getting out of the war business one way or another; it's just too bad we're all gonna be giving blowjobs at the bus station after a Soviet-style economic collapse.

Posted by Original Andrew | June 5, 2008 1:16 PM

The more money and blood we shove in the hole, the harder it will be to get out of it.

And right now McCain/Bush 08 is scheduling the Fake War on Iran ...

Bob Dole was a better GOP candidate ... and a better hero ... than McCain ever will be.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 5, 2008 1:21 PM

@7 Wow Nick, you are really, really snowed on this whole war business.

"We can't turn back"? Hell yes we can. Should we keep doing the wrong thing just because we already started doing the wrong thing? Of course not. See how silly you sound, you awful jackass?

I don't know about you, but as an American I highly value the idea of national sovereignty and self-governance, for better or for worse. Turning their country into our own personal satellite military base is antithetical to the very ideas that our country was founded upon.

Posted by Hernandez | June 5, 2008 1:34 PM

How is this new? The Democrats and Republicans all pretty much define withdrawing from Iraq as leaving permanent military bases there which would allow us to police the country (ie oppose Islamism and protect our oil) outside Iraqi law in perpetuity. The Independent is great. But the idea that this will spark controversy is wishful thinking. Welcome to your colonial present and future, Iraq. I guess if Obama's elected Iraq can be our black man's burden.

Posted by wf | June 5, 2008 1:43 PM

We occupied Germany for 40 years after WWII. I am a child of that occupation. We also occuppied Japan and are still occupying bases in Korea and the Philipines. Saudi Arabia is being pressured by other Arab states to evict U.S. forces. The U.S. no longer has an ally in the Middle East who will grant us a permanent base so this is the Pentagon's strategy to get one. I think the cost will be greater than the benefit. I did not and do not support this war because I never believed it was right but also because I knew we wouldn't be able to get out of it. It seems now that getting out was never part of the plan.

Posted by inkweary | June 5, 2008 2:14 PM

inkweary, exactly. the bush admin. is just putting the finishing touches on the box they'll leave obama in.

but iraq and saudi arabia are not japan, germany, korea. they don't want us there.

if we need bases in the middle east, we've already got them in turkey, the UAE, kuwait, and if we need a new one, israel owes us a bit, don't you think?

Posted by max solomon | June 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Notice how this agreement is being styled as an "accord," because if it were a "treaty" (which, of course, it is), it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But when did the Bush Administration ever worry about our Constitution?

Posted by kk | June 5, 2008 2:55 PM

This morning I was asking Dana Priest about this. She thinks there are no signs yet of an early strike on Iran, and that Pakistan will flair up. But the bases will probably happen - either secretly or not - but will go thru no matter what 80 percent of America wants.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 5, 2008 3:20 PM

@16: The flip side of that is that it's not legally binding. It's just an agreement between two leaders, and future leaders will only be bound by it if they choose to be.

Posted by christopher | June 5, 2008 10:43 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.