Obama Administration Desperate to Keep Troops in Iraq

Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction, it was about oil, re-making the map of the Middle East in the West’s image and securing military bases of operation in the region to fight other wars- like with Iran:

But in recent months, the U.S. has let it be known that it is willing to consider staying in significant numbers — if the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requests it.


“I hope they figure out a way to ask, and I think that the United States will be willing to say ‘yes’ when that time comes,” Gates said.


“It’s part of a quasi-Cold War mentality: they want forward bases in the struggle with Iran, so they are looking to Iraq next door. But it cuts both ways. If they aren’t there with enough levels of indigenous support they will just get hammered by Iran. They will just be tethered goats.”

A recent spike in attacks against U.S. troops made June the deadliest month for Americans in Iraq in three years.

We have a U.S. embassy in Iraq that is larger than the whole of Vatican City, the State Dept. will have it’s own private contractor army and the American people will be paying the bill, all the while here in the U.S. we can’t get our own roads (federal highways) paved. And why are we staying in Iraq? To keep the region safe? Hardly. We’ve given Iran a huge boost and increased their power exponentially by removing Saddam. Iraq is a total mess but the media doesn’t want to talk about it because they played a huge role in selling the war.

, , , , , , , , ,

About Stacy

Attorney, Publisher, Foreign Policy wonk

View all posts by Stacy


Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

9 Comments on “Obama Administration Desperate to Keep Troops in Iraq”

  1. SpfcMarcus Says:

    We’ll be in Iraq and Afghanistan forever. We’ll keep troops there and also there will be thousands and thousands of high-paid security contractors to keep our buddies in the military industrial complex happy.

    We’ve become a national security state, as addicted to war-time contracting as we are to oil.

    There’s a reason we’re so focused on Iran, Iraq etc. rather than countries like North Korea. Then there is China, who engages in almost non-stop cyber attacks against our security apparatus, with barely a word mentioned about it. Big Business doesn’t want our govt and our media to report on just how dangerous China really is. If there is any threat to US supremacy, both economic and military, it’s China. What are our leaders doing about it? Not much. Buying fancy new tanks and hundred billion dollar missile systems is a distraction.


    • Pilgrim Says:

      Is “national security state” like police state?

      Other matter: Threats here, threats there, threats everywhere we look. We have nothing to fear but fear itself and oh how we do fear.

      China? Immensely smaller military apparatus. They talk a lot more about “harmony” than they do about militarism.


      • SpfcMarcus Says:

        Yes, China’s military is certainly not as big as ours but I think people underestimate China’s goals. I’m not saying we should expect war with China or anything. Although we are engaged in cyber war with them all the time. I just think that we spend so much time focuses on countries like Iran, Iraq etc. that we ignore other obvious threats.

        China has made it clear that want total control over the South China sea and that is one place where we could see some smaller military skirmishes, as the US, Japan, S. Korea also want some control there.


        China talks harmony but they still have a very communist worldview. They see South Korea, Japan and the US has ongoing threats to their region and as we know, China does whatever it has to do. The U.S. and China are totally interdependent so I’m not expecting a military war between the US and China but don’t count out N. Korea and S. Korea and China will be at the forefront of that as they prop up N. Korea.

        Again, my point is mainly that there are other bigger threats than Iran. We just don’t talk about them because they don’t involve Israel, which is all our Congress seems to care about.


      • Stacy Says:

        Pilgrim- re: national security state- have you seen the PBS “Frontline” special, ‘Are We Safer’? It’s all about how after 9/11 the govt created a huge national security bureaucracy and massively expanded it’s own powers to obtain data and investigate threats to security etc. It talks about how the govt has joined forces with private security/defense contractors here at home (not just in war zones) and b/c there is so much bureaucracy, there is massive duplication of effort, minimal oversight. In other words, the War on Terror has become big business and it makes you wonder, do we hype up threats to help keep the military-industrial-complex making massive profits? I can’t help but wonder.

        You can watch the program online at pbs.org. Basically, it finds that despite all of the above, we really aren’t any safer but a lot of people are getting very rich.


  2. Stacy Says:

    This is exactly what I’ve been talking out w/ respect to the Iraq-Iran link. This is from the WaPo’s editor, neocon hawk Jackson Diehl, whose purpose seems to be to constantly claim Obama is nicer to our enemies than to our allies (ie. Israel).

    Despite the fact that Diehl was one of the loudest media hacks clamoring for an invasion of Iraq and despite the fact that he and his fellow hawks were wrong about EVERYTHING, he is now arguing we should stay in Iraq to prevent Iran from taking hold there:


    He should have thought of that before he put on his pom poms and joined the chorus of media elites supporting war with Iraq with only the flimsiest of evidence. Of course Iran would step in and fill the power vaccum left by their enemy Saddam. Duh.

    What really grates my nerves is how all the politicians, media elites, commentators etc. who championed the Iraq War, never have been held accountable for their disastrous policy-making and choices. Even Hillary was on the war bandwagon and she loves to talk tough about Iran. As NY Senator she was as hawkish as McCain and the Lobby. I think if she were POTUS she might very well have already engaged in military action against Iran. It pains me to say that, but I can’t help but think that.

    After all the lies and politicization of Iraq, these very same people have the nerve to make the exact same argument about Iran and they GET AWAY WITH IT! Because the media has been complicit in all of this, David Gregory, Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper, the NYT, the WaPo etc. never see fit to ask people like Lieberman, McCain, Berman, Graham, Lowey etc. “after the lies that led to the Iraq War, why should Americans believe the govt when they make the exact same argument for possible military action in Iran?”

    Is it me? Why can’t we have some accountability? We have to rely on politicized “secret” intelligence and just take the govt’s word for it that Iran is two years from a bomb? Please.


  3. Pilgrim Says:

    Well, I watched it. Hmm. The excellent Dana Priest.

    It’s concerning. I’m presently reading Albert Brooks’ novel Twenty-Thirty, a not-so-fictional dystopia nineteen years from now. The “national security state”/police state is pretty close to reality.


    • Pilgrim Says:

      i.e., watched that Frontline you recommended, Stacy


    • Stacy Says:

      Yeah, Dana Priest is the exception to the general rule that the MSM, and WaPo in particular, no longer do investigative journalism.

      Glad you watched it. Other people should too so they can see where all our money is going.


Leave a Response

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: