U.S. Envoy Secretly Offered Troops in Iraq after 2011

[Octafish]

Source: Common Dreams / Inter Press Service
Published on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 by Inter Press Service
by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - A special envoy from President Barack Obama raised the possibility in a secret meeting with senior Iraqi military and civilian officials in Baghdad Sep. 23 that his administration would leave more than 15,000 combat troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline for U.S. withdrawal, according to a senior Iraqi intelligence official familiar with the details of the meeting.

But the White House official, Puneet Talwar, special assistant to the president and senior director for the Gulf States, Iran and Iraq on the National Security Council (NSC) staff, said the deployment would have to be handled in a way that was consistent the president's pledge to withdraw U.S. troops completely from Iraq under the 2008 agreement, the official said.

Talwar suggested that the combat troops could be placed under the cover of the State Department's security force, the Iraqi intelligence official told IPS.

The Obama envoy was referring to a force that the State Department had announced in August to provide security for U.S. civilian officials working in Baghdad and four regional consulates in Kirkuk, Erbil, Mosul and Basra. The administration's official position is that the security force is to be manned by private security personnel, as explained in a briefing given by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Corbin Aug. 17.

Talwar's remarks suggest the Obama administration was planning to adopt a ruse to keep combat troops in Iraq after the expiration of the U.S.-Iraq troop withdrawal agreement on Dec. 31, 2011, while assuring the U.S. public that all U.S. troops had been pulled out by the deadline.



Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/16

---

Gareth Porter is tops. A product is starting to emerge that looks quite different from the picture on the box.

[Octafish]

1. IMFO: America should not be in the war business.

I also oppose using the United States armed forces as a protection racket.

However, if we are going to be in the oil thieving bidniss, we may as well nationalize and share the loot.

[Javaman]

2. We. Are. Never. Leaving.

I mean, honestly, are we so deluded that we actually think that the will of the people of this nation takes precedent over military interests?

[Octafish]

3. Then, my Friend, this is no longer a Democracy.

From my perspective, it hasn't been one since November 22, 1963.



There's a word for a system wherein the citizens exist to serve the state: Tyranny.

[Javaman]

4. exactly right. nt

[meow mix]

5. Change (tm)

hey no one ever said that change involved policy. we meant dimes, quarters..

[Octafish]

8. We may be lucky to get that.

Have you seen this from Michael Hudson?

The Coming Sell-Out to the Super Rich and What It Means for the Rest of Us



Pencils! And a Witchsmeller.

[leftstreet]

13. Thanks for that link

The Hudson article

wow


K&R

[bigtree]

6. SO CLAIMS ONE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL

So, we're now going to take the word of a single Iraqi intelligence official Porter says is 'familiar with the details of the meeting' over the word of our own government and President? Porter doesn't even name the dude. The crap that folks use to criticize our president is amazing. This one is from an anonymous Iraqi who doesn't even appear to have been at the meeting that he's describing.

:crazy:

[Octafish]

9. Don't get mad at Porter: Have you seen what happens to whistleblowers these days?

Obama More Aggressive Than Bush In Targeting Whistleblowers



It's amazing what telling the truth gets you. Like voting.

[bigtree]

10. don't change the subject

Porter looks to be conflating legitimate concerns with diplomatic protection expressed by some low-level U.S. official with the unsupported speculation of an unnamed Iraqi 'official' who is supposed to have related what appears to be second-hand rumor. He's taken all that and made a conclusion which is not evident at all, judging by the troop movements out of Iraq, so far, which are actually ahead of the schedule the administration has set.

[Octafish]

12. Not changing the subject, just want you to see something you're not seeing: The Wars for Oil.

Not my country's job. And the Pentagon shouldn't be at the beck and call of Big Oil, nor the Treasury for Wall Street.

Transparency is just one part of Democracy. And, under the Constitution, it's my right to know. If more Americans knew about the criminality, and that we can trace names to crimes and treasons, war to profit the few wouldn't be the central issue today.

The government then might actually use the Treasury to benefit We the People: investing in a New Economy, Good Jobs, Affordable Housing, Fair Lending Practices, Health Care, Public Education. You know, stuff we could afford and deserve.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Has anyone notice over the last few weeks the stories of us trying to slip troops into Afghanistan..

...and now Iraq? Trying to work out deals where troops remain even when their government and our citizens do not want it? It's like we just can't break up...

"Hey we're pulling our troops out of your country but, you know, there were 10,000 soldiers who were really hoping they could spend Christmas clearing mines and, I mean, it would be a shame to let them down.

No? Ok, we'll throw in a nice flatware set. Check out the pattern on this fork. You're telling me that isn't worth having 20,000 U.S. soldiers guarding it? Come on, I have the same flatware at home and every time the inlaws are over, like 3 butter knives go missing.

No? Ok, how about the flatware set and these Toyota trucks. Now, if Mohammed cannot come to the flatware, you can bring the flatware to Mohammed! Am I right? You know...

No? Ok, how about a billion in aid. The flatware, 30,000 U.S. soldiers, these beautiful Toyota trucks- did I mention we'll do pinstriping on the trucks? We do Arabic pinstriping. Your favorite phrase from any book in the Quaran, on the hood, driver side door, whatever- your call.

No? This is about the pattern on the forks isn't it? We can negotiate this- we'll have Halliburton do a custom set with your government or tribal insignia right on the handle-

No? Ok, how about..."

And so on.

What the fuck.

PB

[Octafish]

14. Petraeus dropped 2011 for the year 2014 out loud.

Afghanistan: Is 2014 the new 2011 for Pentagon war planners?

What the fuck is right, Poll_Blind. What. The. Fuck.

[blindpig]

11. And there it is....

yeah, it's just one anonymous source but this is so predictable, if it ain't this it will be some 'emergency' and I wouldn't put black ops out of the question either...the continuity of policy is marked.

[Octafish]

15. Cheney's 'Stay-Behind Network

You got a good memory, blindpig. Hersh: Cheney 'Left a Stay Behind' in Obama's Government, Can 'Still Control Policy Up To A Point'.

Even if President Obama had a magic wand and got everybody out in the blink of an eye, Petraeus and his apparent real bosses would figure out how to keep shop in IraqAfPakPermaWar past 2017 to when Jebthro or whoevergooper takes over.

[blindpig]

16. I don't think it's quite like that.

While something of the sort is going on don't think that this an be described in partisan terms. Why is Gates there in the first place? Continuity, indeed. All the big players are apparatchiks of greater economic interests, else they never would have gotten a seat at the table. In capitalist society money is the ultimate arbitrator, and whose got all of that?

I don't think that it is naivete or ineffectually, if this administration was dedicated to a different course it could have cleaned house, what we are seeing is complicity.