Eric Zuesse – Trump Plans to Keep US Troops Permanently in Iraq

20 februari 2020Businessplan, Home, Locatie, Media, Zuesse0

A reliable and exceptionally knowledgeable source, who doesn’t wish to be publicly identified, has confidentially informed me that an agreement has been reached in which US troops will remain permanently in Iraq but under exclusively NATO command, no longer under the command of CentCom (US Central Command in the Middle East).

On February 12th, NATO’s defense ministers agreed to increase operations in Iraq. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has been working ever since Fall of 2019 to prepare this plan (Trump had been pushing for it even before that), and Stoltenberg has consulted in Jordan with King Abdullah, and also in Brussels with Sabri Bachtabji, Tunisia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, because Tunisia is a key part of Trump’s plan, to use other NATO nations as America’s proxies controlling the Middle East.

On February 1st, pro Muslim Brotherhood Turkey agreed to the plan, and will be transferring jihadists (al Qaeda affiliated groups, plus some ISIS) from Syria’s jihadist filled Idlib Province (http://archive.is/51WbS), into Libya, via Tunisia, so as to boost the forces of Fayez al Sarraj (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayez_al-Sarraj, former monarchist now backed by US, EU, and Turkey) to defeat the forces of Khalifa Haftar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalifa_Haftar, former Gaddafi supporter, now in the Libyan civil war claiming as his objective the defeat of all jihadists there). Whereas US, EU, and Turkey, back al Sarraj, Russia isn’t involved in the War, except trying to negotiate peace there, but al Sarraj rejects any involvement by Russia (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/18/russia-libyan-civil-War-europe/). Turkey’s interest in Libya is to win Libya’s backing so as to be in a stronger position to win turf in the emerging competition for rights to oil and gas under nearby parts of the Mediterranean Sea (https://apnews.com/09c63b01916f4f20933a78e8e667c06e). To have Libya beholden to Turkey would be to increase the likelihood of Turkey’s getting that offshore oil.

America’s position regarding the jihadists that Turkey has been protecting in Syria’s Idlib province is that they can be useful as proxy boots on the ground to defeat Haftar, whom America too opposes, favoring al Sarraj, whom Turkey likewise backs; so, Turkey and US are cooperating on this effort in Libya.

America’s interest is in overthrowing Syria’s secular Government and replacing it with one that would be acceptable to the fundamentalist Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia. In order to do this, America will therefore need to keep its forces in Iraq. Otherwise, Russia and Iran, both of which America and the Sauds hope ultimately to conquer, would have stronger influence in the Middle East, which neither America nor the Sauds want. America invaded Iraq not only directly for its international corporations to profit (http://archive.is/BBbLE), but also in order to have its hundreds of bases there from which to control the entire Middle East – bases that are supplied out of the world’s largest Embassy building (from which even other US embassies are supplied), which building was constructed in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion (http://archive.is/2E2Cg). Trump’s plan now is to bring in NATO allies, so that they will help out in the Middle East, more than in the past. Trump wants America’s vassal nations to absorb some of the financial burdens of imposing empire, so that America’s taxpayers won’t need to fund the full cost of it, for the benefit of the billionaire owners of international corporations that are based in the United States and in its allied (or vassal) (including other NATO) countries. This is why Stoltenberg has been working, for months, to effectuate Trump’s plan.

On February 1st, the veteran Middle Eastern reporter David Hearst headlined at his Middle East Eye site, “EXCLUSIVE: US military offers Iraq a partial pullback” (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-US-military-offers-iraq-partial-pullback), and he reported that,

A representative of the US military told the Iraqis present that the United States was prepared to leave positions in or near Shia majority areas, such as Balad Air Base, which is located 80 km north of Baghdad and houses US trainers and contractors.
Washington, the Iraqis were told, could even consider reducing its presence in Baghdad.
“We are prepared to leave some of the Shia majority areas, like the base in Balad. Maybe we could reduce our presence in Baghdad,” the military representative told his Iraqi counterparts, who understood from this that the US presence in the Iraqi capital would be reduced to guarding its embassy and the airport.
However, the US side categorically ruled out withdrawing from their biggest air base in Iraq, and indeed the whole Middle East, Ain al Assad. (…)
For the US side, Ain al Assad was its “red line”.
The representative said: “We cannot even start talking about withdrawing [from that base]. Withdrawal is out of the question.”
Such was the sensitivity of these discussions that they were held well away from Iraq. The meeting took place in the private residence of the Canadian ambassador to Jordan in Amman, Middle East Eye was told.
Present at the meeting was a representative of the US military, a NATO official and a senior Iraqi security adviser.

America needs the vast Ain al Assad base in order ultimately to overthrow Bashar al Assad (no relation), Syria’s secular President, who is allied with Russia and with Iran. NATO will increasingly be taking over this function of assisting the War for regime change in Syria.

On February 15th, Middle East Monitor bannered “Iraq: Washington to strengthen presence of NATO to disengage militarily from Baghdad” (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200215-iraq-washington-to-strengthen-presence-of-NATO-to-disengage-militarily-from-baghdad/) and reported that America’s allies will take over there but “This will only work if the NATO mission includes a strong US component.” So: America’s withdrawal will be only nominal. This will help NATO by assuring that Trump won’t abandon NATO if he wins a second term, and it will also help Trump to win a second term by Trump’s claiming to be withdrawing from the Middle East even without actually doing any such thing.

The aim of this is to fool the public everywhere. In international affairs, this is the way to win: first, fool your own public; then, get your allies to fool theirs. That builds a “coalition.” Donald Trump is doing precisely this.

Trump is continuing Barack Obama’s Wars, just like Barack Obama continued George W Bush’s Wars. The plan for America to control the Middle East remains on course, now, ever since 2001. As Obama often said, “America is the one indispensable nation” (http://archive.is/R1Gbd, all others are therefore “dispensable”). It is certainly the leading nation. And America’s aristocracy possess patience. They know that Rome wasn’t built in a day. In order to be the leading nation and the biggest international aggressor (so that “America is the one indispensable nation”), what is essential is to treat every other nation as being “dispensable” (make them fear you), so that either they will do as the leading nation wants, or else they will be dispensed with – they will become added to the list of target nations to be conquered. They are dispensable; they are disposable. A disposable nation is aware of its subordinate position. On February 15th, the International Institute for Strategic Studies reported (https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/02/global-defence-spending) that

The US dedicated a significantly higher proportion of its defence budget to procurement and R&D than its NATO allies. EUropean countries are increasing their defence investments as a share of their total spending – for those countries with available data, funds rose from 19.8% in 2018 to 23.1% in 2019 – but the equivalent category reached 29% in the US the United States’ defence investments were thus worth around four times as much as EUropean states’ combined.

A nation which spends 29% of its GDP on “defence” might be weak in other ways, but everyone in the world will fear it, and all other nations will know that they are “dispensable,” because the country which spends that high a percentage (and there is only one which does) also happens to have the world’s largest economy. Any other country, which isn’t one of its vassals, will be viewed by it (or by its aristocracy) as being an “enemy” – a nation that is targeted for “regime change,” instead of for being a market. And being a targeted nation is very different than being a target market. It is to be only a target – a target of sanctions, a target of coups, and, if those fail, then a target of invasion and military occupation, like Iraq is.

However, actually, the US spends only around 7% – $1.5 trillion (http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/America-spends-about-half-of-worlds-military-expenditures/) divided by $ 22 trillion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) – of its economy toward the Pentagon and the rest of America’s military. Still, it might be the highest percentage on Earth. Because around $ 1 trillion yearly in US military spending is off the books, that ‘defence’ figure could actually be closer to 10%. But it’s not 29%. Right now, around 20% of US GDP goes to buy healthcare (https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/healthcare-spending-near-20-percent-GDP-more-any-other-country), which is the very largest percentage for healthcare of any country on the planet. America’s quality of healthcare is at or near the lowest of all industrialized nations (http://archive.is/XY4ZL#selection-271.0-335.12); so, the wastage in its healthcare is even larger than in its military.

Iraq and Iran and Syria – and every other nation that is friendly toward Russia – all of them, are targets of the US regime. That’s why Trump plans to keep US forces in Iraq: Iraq was conquered in 2003, and he wants it to stay that way.

Originally posted at The Saker (https://thesaker.is/trump-plans-to-keep-US-troops-permanently-in-iraq/).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910 – 2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Dit delen:

Plaats een reactie Reactie annuleren