New York Times Calls for U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq
A leading U.S. newspaper that originally supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq now calls for U.S. withdrawal.
A lengthy New York Times editorial dated July 8, 2007 declares that "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."
Among the reasons given are assertions that the war is lost, that it is a "dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists" and that it is an "increasing burden on American taxpayers".
While the editorial argues that "continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong" (more than 3500 lives have been lost), it fails to mention the more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives, according to well-documented findings of a Johns Hopkins University study reported by the Washington Post.
And when the editorial advocates the withdrawal of "American soldiers", it neglects to state whether it is also advocating the withdrawal of the more than 100,000 mercenaries employed by private U.S. defense contractors who are operating in Iraq outside normal military rules of engagement. Does the editorialist intend for them to remain in the country after U.S. troops leave?
In a section entitled "The Question of Bases", the editorial curiously refers to bases in Kurdish-held portions of northeastern Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar to which it recommends the U.S. withdraw its staging operations in the region. But it fails to mention the dozen well-fortified military bases that the U.S. has built inside Iraq at great cost or recommend the closure of these bases, which are rarely mentioned in the U.S. press. Unlike the insecure airport outside Baghdad, these bases provide well-defended landing strips for U.S. aircraft.
Nor does the editorialist mention the U.S. embassy that is being constructed in the "Green Zone", the largest and presumably the most expensive U.S. embassy in the world. Clearly, both the bases and the embassy were core ingredients of the Bush administration's and U.S. neoconservatives' plans for establishing an overwhelming U.S. military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East to manage U.S. interests in the region. Are the size and scope of the bases and the embassy to be retained according to plan?
Most significantly, the editorial fails to mention the oil agreement that the Bush administration has forced through the shaky Iraqi government, an agreement strongly opposed by many Iraqis and its major trade unions. For all intents and purposes, the agreement turns over control of Iraqi oil to Western oil interests along with the lion's share of the profits. In contrast to the recent acknowledgment by the Australian Defense Minister that the Australian government has been supporting the U.S. occupation of Iraq because it recognizes Australia's dependence on imported oil, the editorial writer does not appear to partake of views widely held abroad that the Bush administration's primary reason for invading Iraq was to gain control of its oil reserves, which are reported to be one of the largest in the world.
The editorialist's silence on the question of the oil agreement is notable. Although the editorial is primarily aimed at advocating the speedy termination of U.S. military operations (now that U.S. forces have lost the battle and destroyed the country's economy and infrastructure of essential services), it raises questions as to whether the editorialist intends for the primary financial beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- Western oil interests closely aligned to U.S. President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- to retain the spoils of war in defiance of international law.
A lengthy New York Times editorial dated July 8, 2007 declares that "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."
Among the reasons given are assertions that the war is lost, that it is a "dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists" and that it is an "increasing burden on American taxpayers".
While the editorial argues that "continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong" (more than 3500 lives have been lost), it fails to mention the more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives, according to well-documented findings of a Johns Hopkins University study reported by the Washington Post.
And when the editorial advocates the withdrawal of "American soldiers", it neglects to state whether it is also advocating the withdrawal of the more than 100,000 mercenaries employed by private U.S. defense contractors who are operating in Iraq outside normal military rules of engagement. Does the editorialist intend for them to remain in the country after U.S. troops leave?
In a section entitled "The Question of Bases", the editorial curiously refers to bases in Kurdish-held portions of northeastern Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar to which it recommends the U.S. withdraw its staging operations in the region. But it fails to mention the dozen well-fortified military bases that the U.S. has built inside Iraq at great cost or recommend the closure of these bases, which are rarely mentioned in the U.S. press. Unlike the insecure airport outside Baghdad, these bases provide well-defended landing strips for U.S. aircraft.
Nor does the editorialist mention the U.S. embassy that is being constructed in the "Green Zone", the largest and presumably the most expensive U.S. embassy in the world. Clearly, both the bases and the embassy were core ingredients of the Bush administration's and U.S. neoconservatives' plans for establishing an overwhelming U.S. military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East to manage U.S. interests in the region. Are the size and scope of the bases and the embassy to be retained according to plan?
Most significantly, the editorial fails to mention the oil agreement that the Bush administration has forced through the shaky Iraqi government, an agreement strongly opposed by many Iraqis and its major trade unions. For all intents and purposes, the agreement turns over control of Iraqi oil to Western oil interests along with the lion's share of the profits. In contrast to the recent acknowledgment by the Australian Defense Minister that the Australian government has been supporting the U.S. occupation of Iraq because it recognizes Australia's dependence on imported oil, the editorial writer does not appear to partake of views widely held abroad that the Bush administration's primary reason for invading Iraq was to gain control of its oil reserves, which are reported to be one of the largest in the world.
The editorialist's silence on the question of the oil agreement is notable. Although the editorial is primarily aimed at advocating the speedy termination of U.S. military operations (now that U.S. forces have lost the battle and destroyed the country's economy and infrastructure of essential services), it raises questions as to whether the editorialist intends for the primary financial beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- Western oil interests closely aligned to U.S. President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- to retain the spoils of war in defiance of international law.
posted by the Third Force Network at 3:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home