NO! It is not all over in Iraq!

Gordon Brown has announced the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by mid-2009. The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele hails the State of Forces Agreement as a “deal [that] gives Iraq's national resistance almost everything it fought for.” Really? Is the occupation all but over?

On the contrary. As Sami Ramadani explains in The Guardian:
“Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's ‘sovereign’ parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the USA.”
The one that captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). Much more important is the strategic framework agreement (SFA), which slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy was not available even to the US Congress.
“The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the USA militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less.”

And while Sofa states that all US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, reality lies in another sentence found in the SFA pact, which states that the US will not seek a ‘permanent’ military presence or bases in Iraq.

There to stay?

But how long is non-permanent? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused? Ramadani again:

“The Iraqi government made much of the clause that US soldiers would come under Iraqi jurisdiction. The caveats are such that this is rendered meaningless. For a US soldier or civilian to be arrested
by Iraqi authorities, before they are handed over to the US forces ‘after 24 hours,’ they have to be both ‘off duty’ and have committed ‘grave’ crimes outside US facilities and bases. How many off-duty US soldiers, one might ask, would venture into the streets of Baghdad, let alone those of Najaf or Fallujah?
“Considering that the Sofa is supposed to cover the three years up to the full withdrawal of the US forces, it is important to note that the open-ended SFA has one ‘principle’ that opens the door for renewing Sofa after the 3-year deadline for withdrawal: ‘The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation of the sovereign Government of Iraq.’
“A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly ’request’ and ‘invite’ the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.”

“It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of ’agreements’ during its ‘legitimised’ occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.”
US strategy in Iraq
Sami Ramadani concludes that US troops will remain in Iraq to:
· Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad
· Support such a government by all means possible, including the use of US combat forces stationed at numerous massive military bases
· Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, which will pursue US interests and replace US forces in fighting the anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation that will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships
· Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law through the Iraqi parliament
· Exercise control over the Middle East’s oil, which remains a key US objective
· Use Iraq [as a base from which] to back US strategy in the Middle East: ie. escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran Syria, the Palestian people and the Lebanese resistance
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/iraq-middleeast
British withdrawal
Seumas Milne, again in The Guardian, has made a realistic assessment of the situation:
“If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham – until recently Britain's most senior law lord – as a ‘serious violation of international law’, the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead, it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.”
Milne confirms the true nature of the SFA:
“Since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a ‘residual force’ for fighting ‘terrorism’, training and protection of US civilians – which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.”
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate



Justice for Iraq!

If Britain does become the latest in a long line of US allies to leave Iraq, will it simply be ‘withdraw and forget’? What hope will there be of justice for the people of Iraq, reparations for the damage done, compensation for the victims, prosecution of the war criminals who launched this unprovoked invasion? What restitution for the million dead Iraqis, the million left disabled, five million orphans, five million refugees, the economic destruction and permanent damage to the country’s cultural heritage?
Iraq Occupation Focus has launched a campaign for Justice for Iraq. Last July, a conference of over 100 activists, many of them Iraqis, adopted the following statement:
We call on those states responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to terminate their illegal and immoral war, and express our solidarity with the people of Iraq in their struggle for peace, justice and self-determination.
In particular we demand:
· An immediate end to the occupation
Urgent action to address the humanitarian crises facing Iraq's people, including help for the more than three million refugees and displaced persons
An end to all foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, including its oil industry so that Iraqis can exercise NO! It is not all over in Iraq

Gordon Brown has announced the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by mid-2009. The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele hails the State of Forces Agreement as a “deal [that] gives Iraq's national resistance almost everything it fought for.” Really? Is the occupation all but over?

On the contrary. As Sami Ramadani explains in The Guardian:
“Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's ‘sovereign’ parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the USA.”
The one that captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). Much more important is the strategic framework agreement (SFA), which slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy was not available even to the US Congress.
“The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the USA militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less.”

And while Sofa states that all US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, reality lies in another sentence found in the SFA pact, which states that the US will not seek a ‘permanent’ military presence or bases in Iraq.

There to stay?

But how long is non-permanent? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused? Ramadani again:

“The Iraqi government made much of the clause that US soldiers would come under Iraqi jurisdiction. The caveats are such that this is rendered meaningless. For a US soldier or civilian to be arrested
by Iraqi authorities, before they are handed over to the US forces ‘after 24 hours,’ they have to be both ‘off duty’ and have committed ‘grave’ crimes outside US facilities and bases. How many off-duty US soldiers, one might ask, would venture into the streets of Baghdad, let alone those of Najaf or Fallujah?
“Considering that the Sofa is supposed to cover the three years up to the full withdrawal of the US forces, it is important to note that the open-ended SFA has one ‘principle’ that opens the door for renewing Sofa after the 3-year deadline for withdrawal: ‘The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation of the sovereign Government of Iraq.’
“A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly ’request’ and ‘invite’ the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.”

“It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of ’agreements’ during its ‘legitimised’ occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.”
US strategy in Iraq
Sami Ramadani concludes that US troops will remain in Iraq to:
· Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad
· Support such a government by all means possible, including the use of US combat forces stationed at numerous massive military bases
· Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, which will pursue US interests and replace US forces in fighting the anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation that will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships
· Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law through the Iraqi parliament
· Exercise control over the Middle East’s oil, which remains a key US objective
· Use Iraq [as a base from which] to back US strategy in the Middle East: ie. escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran Syria, the Palestian people and the Lebanese resistance
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/iraq-middleeast
British withdrawal
Seumas Milne, again in The Guardian, has made a realistic assessment of the situation:
“If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham – until recently Britain's most senior law lord – as a ‘serious violation of international law’, the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead, it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.”
Milne confirms the true nature of the SFA:
“Since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a ‘residual force’ for fighting ‘terrorism’, training and protection of US civilians – which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.”
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate



Justice for Iraq!

If Britain does become the latest in a long line of US allies to leave Iraq, will it simply be ‘withdraw and forget’? What hope will there be of justice for the people of Iraq, reparations for the damage done, compensation for the victims, prosecution of the war criminals who launched this unprovoked invasion? What restitution for the million dead Iraqis, the million left disabled, five million orphans, five million refugees, the economic destruction and permanent damage to the country’s cultural heritage?
Iraq Occupation Focus has launched a campaign for Justice for Iraq. Last July, a conference of over 100 activists, many of them Iraqis, adopted the following statement:
We call on those states responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to terminate their illegal and immoral war, and express our solidarity with the people of Iraq in their struggle for peace, justice and self-determination.
In particular we demand:
· An immediate end to the occupation
Urgent action to address the humanitarian crises facing Iraq's people, including help for the more than three million refugees and displaced persons
An end to all foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, including its oil industry so that Iraqis can exercise their right to self determination
Compensation and reparations from those countries responsible for war and sanctions on Iraq Prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses and the theft of Iraq's resourcetheir right to self determination
Compensation and reparations from those countries responsible for war and sanctions on Iraq Prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses and the theft of Iraq's resource