Invited Guest to Unwanted Occupier: US Refuses to Consider Troop Withdrawal From Iraq Despite Mounting Pressure

(source)

Why is the US refusing to even consider withdrawing its troops from Iraq?

In early January, the Iraqi Parliament voted 170-0 to expel all US troops from the country, passing a measure which called for the speedy withdrawal of all US coalition troops from the country and a return to full Iraqi sovereignty over its airspace and waterways.

“The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

This most recent push by Iraqi lawmakers to expel US troops from their country came two days after the US assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and deputy commander of the Iraqi Population Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in a drone strike on the vehicle they were traveling in as they departed the Baghdad airport, which killed at least six others.

Not only was this provocation a gross violation of international law and Iraqi sovereignty, but it also took place as Soleimani was visiting Iraq on a diplomatic mission, and followed a large-scale unprovoked US attack on Iraqi military positions at the Syrian border, in both Iraq and Syria, killing over 30 Iraqis. This earlier attack had targeted and killed Iraqi fighters who were on the front lines in the fight against the last remnants of ISIS hiding out in the vast desert in the border region of Syria and Iraq.

Both commanders killed in this coordinated assassination played a crucial role in the defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Soleimani was the most revered leader in all of Iran, and highly respected by Arabs all across the region.

(source)

It is no wonder that Iraqi anger at US actions in the country and the ensuing anti-US sentiment behind the recent push to force US troops to leave was shared by many Iraqis across the board, both Sunni and Shia, even by Clerics who had previously supported US troop presence in the country.

And while it is true that the unanimous vote was achieved because most Sunni and Kurdish party members of Parliament didn’t show up to the emergency meeting and cast their votes, it doesn’t mean they all opposed the resolution as many western media outlets have insinuated. Indeed, the day before the vote, Iraq’s leading Sunni Arab politician, Speaker of Parliament Mohammed al-Halbousi condemned the US assassinations as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and called for an end of US presence in the country. “Put an end to U.S. presence [in Iraq],” he said.

The resolution passed on January 5 and later approved by Iraqi Prime Minister Abu al-Mahdi stated that: “The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory.”

And indeed, whether or not a complete and total victory over ISIS has truly been achieved, President Donald Trump has continually pronounced that the Islamic State has been fully defeated. He reiterated this yet again in his recent statement addressing the Iranian retaliatory attack on the largest US base in Iraq.

And since the only legal standing for US troop presence in Iraq is to help combat ISIS, and that goal has been achieved (officially), and furthermore the democratically elected Iraqi government is now calling on US troops to withdraw from their country, one might expect that the US would instruct at least some of the troops to begin packing up their bags to leave, or at least begin drawing up some sort of a withdrawal plan. However one would be wrong to presume such a logical response by the US government.

Donald Trump threatened crippling sanctions against Iraq if the government followed through with the resolution’s demand to oust US troops, “very big sanctions” that will “make Iranian sanctions look tame.”

“If they do ask us to leave, if they don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday evening.

“If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq,” said Trump... - AP

The President speaks like a father scolding his young son, as if the US owns Iraq, which is exactly how the US views their installed ‘democracies’ abroad - as puppet governments, not true and independent sovereign nations. The irony is that the invasion of Iraq was initially waged in the name of spreading democracy to an evil dictatorship, and now that the US-installed democracy is voting for US troops to leave, it’s the US acting like a dictator, refusing to even entertain the idea of cooperating with the request of Iraq’s democratically elected government.

On January 9, Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi informed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the recent attacks were unacceptable violations of both Iraqi sovereignty and the security agreement between the nations which authorized US military presence there, and requested that the State Department send a delegation to “prepare a mechanism” for the timely withdrawal of US troops as mandated by the resolution, his office said in a statement.

“The prime minister said American forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities, and this was a violation of the bilateral agreements,” the statement added.

The US responded immediately, stating unequivocally that US troops would not be leaving Iraq. Mike Pompeo said they would be happy to discuss “what the right structure” for the US troops in Iraq is, but discussion of troop withdrawal by a delegation was entirely off the table.

“We are happy to continue the conversation with the Iraqis about what the right structure is,” Pompeo said...

“Our mission set there is very clear. We’ve been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, to continue the counter-Daesh campaign,” he said, using alternate acronyms for the militant group. - AP

This is a most interesting and absurd response, considering the President continues to brag about defeating ISIS. If ISIS is defeated, then obviously continuing to fight ISIS is not the real reason for the complete refusal to even consider discussing withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. If ISIS is not defeated, then the President has continually lied to the American People regarding this issue. Either way, the Administration is lying, which really isn’t surprising. What’s surprising is how many people still buy into the obvious lies and blatant hypocrisy.

The State Department’s official statement in response to this request is well worth reading in full to see just how blatant the US disregard for Iraqi sovereignty really is:

America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue the fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners. We have been unambiguous regarding how crucial our D-ISIS mission is in Iraq. At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership—not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO’s role in Iraq, in line with the President’s desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts. There does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.

The imperial hubris is really quite astounding. To state that the US wants to be a friend to a sovereign Iraq in the same statement in which it is refusing to recognize Iraq’s authority as a sovereign nation to decide whether or not to permit US troops on its soil, and refusing to even entertain or discuss US troop withdrawal in any way, when that is literally what the democratically elected government has just requested, is well beyond hypocritical.

Ironically, Pompeo has continually repeated this line about supporting a sovereign Iraq over the course of the past year in reference to deterring Iranian ‘violation’ of that sovereignty, while it is the US which is openly and blatantly announcing it does not recognize Iraq to exist as a sovereign nation free from unwanted US interference, control, and military occupation.

Such a response clearly indicates that the US has no intention whatsoever of ever cooperating with Iraqi requests and demands for US troops to leave; no matter how official, formal, or legal such demands are; indicating that US forces in Iraq are clearly acting as an unwelcome occupation force.

It isn’t just the US refusing to withdraw its forces, however, but also the UK, Canada and Australia - all lackeys of the US empire which is in turn subservient to apartheid Israel.

Such disregard for Iraqi sovereignty by the Trump Administration should not really be all that surprising, considering the recent military actions in the country and past statements by the President, who on at least one occasion went so far as to declare, “there is no Iraq,” in an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, adding that “there are no Iraqis.” On another occasion, Trump explained to a crowd of supporters how he had made front page news and was consequently lambasted by the press for wanting to “take the oil from a sovereign country” (Iraq): “Sovereign, give me a break,” he proclaimed. “Have you seen the way people are ripping off? Sovereign, unbelievable,” he said to a cheering crowd.

Considering the US has spent more time protecting ISIS than fighting the terrorist group in both Iraq and Syria, and it is admittedly defeated anyway, it should be obvious this excuse is just a ruse to cover for the real reason the US is so intent on keeping US troops in Iraq.

The real question, then, is why exactly the US is so hellbent on keeping its troops in Iraq.

One reason is certainly to maintain maximum US pressure on Iran, and to keep its US bases close to Iran operational in order to be used for future military operations against Iran and its allies in the region. Trump hinted at this on January 7 when he said withdrawing troops at this moment in time would be a mistake because Iran would get a foothold in the country. “Eventually we want to be able to allow Iraq to run its own affairs,” Trump said. “This isn’t the right point.” At least he’s honest about the US not allowing Iraq to ‘run its own affairs’!

It is no secret that the toppling of the current Iranian government and fomenting a war on Iran to do so has long been a major Zionist and Neocon goal which Trump has been slowly fulfilling step by step throughout his entire presidency, whether intentionally or as a very useful puppet.

Trump is on very good terms with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and is easily the most Zionist and openly pro-Israel president this country has ever seen. So Israel’s response to a leaked document which falsely indicated aUS troop withdrawal from Iraq was imminent, by calling it a “nightmare scenario,” is probably relevant.

”Under such circumstances,” a senior Israeli defense source told Al-Monitor under condition of anonymity, “We truly remain alone at this most critical period. There is no worse scenario than this, for Israel’s national security.”

In fact, an Israeli response which this letter garnered could well have influenced the eventual final response on the issue by Donald Trump, who may have at least been considering some sort of withdrawal. It wouldn’t be the first time the President appeared to want to withdraw troops from the Middle East, but was then convinced not to do so by Zionist Neocons close to him.

This scenario has played out time and time again with Syria. Most recently, Trump was convinced to keep troops in Syria to take the oil, and this is quite telling in regards to US troop presence in Iraq. If not the primary reason, at least for Donald Trump, Iraqi oil is likely one of the biggest reasons the US is so intent on leaving troops in Iraq. After all, Trump has been saying for years that the US should have taken the oil, and as Trump has often pointed out, they do have some of the biggest oil reserves in the world. And as history shows, in each and every country the US invades - in almost every case - the US ends up pillaging its natural resources for profit, whether it was the original intention of the war or just an added benefit. In Libya it was gold, in Afghanistan it was lithium and poppy fields grown for opium, and in Syria it is the oil; so why would Iraq be any different?

Trump’s stance on the issue has been consistent, often repeated, and is best summarized in the saying, “To the victor belongs the spoils,” which he often repeats when explaining his thoughts on the matter which are also easily summed up: “Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil!”

While addressing the CIA in 2017, the President not only said the US should have initially stolen Iraq’s oil, but said that “maybe we’ll get another chance.”

Maybe he has seen his chance, an opportunity to get US hands on Iraqi oil in the near future. At the very least, he expects Iraq to ‘pay the US back’ for the cost of our illegal invasion and occupation, which consequently destabilized the country and led directly to the rise of ISIS (which coincidentally and conveniently became the new pretext for US military presence in the country once again). He has said this on numerous occasions, and most recently said in a tweet that US troops will not be withdrawn until Iraq pays the US back for the US airbase built there!

“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time," Trump said. "We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it."

It is incredible the ridiculous reasoning behind such rhetoric: that other countries owe the US for the cost of invading and toppling their nations, destroying their economy, ruining their infrastructure, and everything else that comes along with unprovoked wars of aggression! If anything, we should be paying them back for damages caused and lives lost, but that will of course never happen.

In a CNN interview long before the election, when asked what he would do to fix the problems in the Middle East caused by US foreign policy if he were elected president, Trump gave two examples: get the Arab League to pay for the wars, and take Iraq’s oil.

As president, Trump is well on his way to accomplishing the first goal, with Saudi Arabia recently having now begun paying for US troops stationed in the Kingdom. In October, Trump said the US was sending more troops to Saudi Arabia because they offered to pay the cost, and because they are such a huge purchaser of US weapons, and said that others had agreed to pay for US presence in the region as well.

The way this relationship is described by Donald Trump, it sounds like US troops are mercenaries-for-hire being sold to the highest bidder, in this case Saudi Arabia.

If Trump is making good on this particular suggestion, it seems likely that it’s only a matter of time until he finds a way to begin stealing Iraqi oil as well. It’s long been on his agenda. And he’s already doing it with Syria, why not in Iraq too?

According to Trump, he wants to bring the troops home from Syria, but they just had to stay behind to pillage the oil.

“We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers because we're keeping the oil. I like oil. We're keeping the oil,” Trump said in October. According to Trump, US troops are in Syria “only for the oil,” so it’s a good bet that’s also a big reason why they’ve got to stay in Iraq too, despite the mounting pressure for their withdrawal, and despite the successful defeat of ISIS according to the President.

If nothing else, Trump’s often blunt transparency has done a good job of exposing exactly what US troops are doing in the Middle East, and it has nothing to do with protecting this country or spreading freedom and democracy. Protecting the interests of the war profiteers is what US troops are hired to do; whether being hired out as mercenaries to the murderous Saudi Kingdom, protecting stolen oil fields in Syria, or guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan for the highly profitable and illegal production of opium; because war is a racket in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives, just as General Smedley Butler explained all the way back in 1935.

Considering Saudi Arabia is now paying the US for its troop presence in the kingdom, and the Saudi Foreign Minister just told CNN today that the Saudi Kingdom wants US troops to remain in Iraq, the troops will probably stay, no matter how much pressure the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people put on the US to withdraw. When both Saudi Arabia and Israel agree on a foreign policy direction for the US, the US usually obliges their wishes.

This statement by the Saudis is clearly a response to recent massive Iraqi protests calling for the expulsion of US troops from Iraq.

Because despite what the corporate media outlets want us to believe, there are in fact countless multitudes of common Iraqis who oppose US troops in their country as an unwelcome occupation force and who see the US as an illegal occupier. The number of these Iraqis is quickly growing, following the spate of US attacks which killed dozens of Iraqis at the turn of the new year, followed by the US’s flat out refusal to even talk about troop withdrawal as a viable option. Not only is it the majority Shia population united on this, but approximately 80% of Iraqi Sunnis also want US troops out of their country, according to an independent Iraqi journalist speaking in an RT interview.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi protestors turned out to march on Iraqi streets near Baghdad on Friday in what was being called the ‘million man march’ to protest US presence in Iraq and to make their voices heard, chanting “get out, get out, occupier,” and “no, no, America.” Protests also took place in other major cities across the country.

Protesters held signs with messages such as ‘Death to America. Death to Israel,’ and ‘Global terrorism is made in the USA;’ a large banner read ‘Get out America,’ and nearly everyone in attendance was waving an Iraqi flag.

Some of the signs were more threatening. ‘You arrived vertically, but will leave horizontally' was a common placard being held by attendees, while another read: ‘To the Families of American soldiers - Insist on the Withdrawal of your Sons from Our Country, or Prepare their Coffins.’

(source

Nearly a month after the initial US aggression which sparked this rise in public opposition to what is now considered by many an open US occupation of Iraq, and the movement to expel US troops from the country only continues to grow in size and intensity.

Protests continued over the weekend, and some turned violent. Several kaytusha rockets landed inside the Green Zone near the US embassy, three of which scored direct hits on the embassy. Such rocket attacks have become quite a common occurrence, sometimes ignored by the media and sometimes highlighted in order to push the foreign policy agenda and used to beat the drums of war. Such rockets actually impacting the embassy itself is, I believe, a first, however. This time the US jumped to blame Iran for the attack, without even a shred of evidence, once again.

Recent history looks ready to repeat itself once again, and a new intensified push for war on Iran may well be on the way, like seen in the lead up to the assassination of the top generals of Iran and Iraq at the beginning of the month.

The world is sick of the US and Israeli imperial lies, hypocrisy, unchecked aggression, support of terrorism and constant destabilization of the region. If the US continues to refuse to withdraw its troops from the region, it looks to indeed be only a matter of time until those under the yoke of US occupation begin sending them home in coffins.

It already happened once, in the years of US occupation following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. All it would take to keep it from happening again is the President speedily withdrawing our troops from Iraq, where they are no longer welcome and once again being seen as the forces of an illegal occupation, and from Syria where they were never welcome in the first place.