In Focus: Oil and occupation Galal Nassar assesses the continuities, and departures, of US policy towards Iraq The US administration feigned outrage when former US president Jimmy Carter said on 2 February 2007 that some people in Washington wanted US troops to stay in Iraq for 10 years, if not more. The US invaded Iraq in order to secure a permanent military base in the Middle East, the former president argued. Time has proved him right. A White House spokesman recently admitted that the US was planning a long-term military presence in Iraq: the ongoing war, as well as the war on terror, would, he said, last a long time. Washington was less ambiguous about its goals when it first attacked Iraq. Then US officials went on record to say the fight against international terror could last for 10 years, involve nearly 40 countries and 60 political movements. Washington also claimed that it wanted to destroy weapons of mass destruction, free Iraqis from dictatorship, and create a lasting democracy in Iraq. The formula promoted by Paul Bremer, John Negroponte and Zalmay Khalilzad is remarkably similar to that of Percy Cox and Gertrude Bell and an earlier period of Iraq's history. Indeed, General Jay Garner appears to have been following the script first written by General Stanley Maude, who told the inhabitants of Iraq last century that the British came as liberators, not conquerors. Garner promised the Iraqis freedom and a democracy that would encompass the greater Middle East, the same region Bremer and Condoleezza Rice later would refer to as the new Middle East. The promises of the British occupation evaporated in the face of the 1920 revolt, which rocked the country from the south to the Kurdish north. The British eventually settled for a mandate in Iraq. Eventually the country gained independence. Iraq joined the League of Nations in 1932 despite the existence of British military bases and the unjust treaties it had been compelled to sign. This time round promises have degenerated into nightmares as democracy disintegrated into ethnic cleansing. Four million Iraqis have been displaced. The only difference between the British and US occupations is that the British occupation brought no collaborators from abroad. They were hired locally. The Americans, however, came with ready-made leaders, with people who approved of their aims. The result was Bremer's ethnic quota system. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was particularly candid when he called for a long-term presence in Iraq, along the lines of South Korea. He argued that the US had erred in leaving Vietnam in 1975, echoing President Bush's words during his visit to Vietnam in 2006. According to The Washington Post, America's post-occupation military presence in Iraq will allow it to launch independent operations, that is, wage target- specific operations from special bases. Washington kept a base of 30,000 troops in South Korea following the end of the Korean war. The US has maintained a military base with 48,000 troops in Japan since the end of WWII. The US selected the location of its bases and operates them outside the jurisdiction of the Korean and Japanese authorities. The US has absolved its soldiers from any legal repercussions of their acts in either country, making them above the law. To add insult to injury, the "host" countries must also pay the $50,000 per US soldier based on their territory. Now that the US has seen 3,342 troops killed and 22,000 wounded in Iraq, is the Korean-Japanese scenario one that will soon come to pass in Iraq? Or will the temptation of Iraqi oil entice the US to come up with fresh thoughts on the matter of military bases? Although Washington will never admit it, its troops are in Iraq because of oil. Oil is at the heart of the political and social struggles across the region. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves, which is why the Americans keep pushing Nuri Al-Maliki's government to pass a new oil law. Is Washington about to turn its temporary occupation of Iraq into a permanent one? If so, the new phase will take some time to implement. Washington is likely to relocate its main forces to bases outside the cities. There are signs that it has already started to do so. The occupation of Iraq would give the US control over the Caspian Sea, the site of much of Iran's oil. It would enable the US to extend its influence from Darfur to West Africa and from East Timor to the Gulf, and perhaps even control China's oil needs. The US has a grand plan, and central to that plan is the protection of Israel's security. The latter has been one of Washington's top priorities for 60 years. Well-informed sources suggest that the US has already started building four military bases -- the Balad Base (covering 14 square miles), the Asad Base (covering 19 square miles), a third base in Kurdistan, and a fourth centred on the Green Zone-site of the US Embassy. The latter is the largest embassy in the world, covering an area of 100 acres. It is where the Americans use cheap Asian labour with no health or social insurance. Despite immense losses, Democratic pressure and the Baker-Hamilton proposals, Washington has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq. President Bush meant it when he said that success hinged on America's ability to stay longer in Iraq. The US has no intention of leaving Iraq in the way it left Vietnam. And yet there is a wild card in the game. Resistance can still make the Americans think again.
