Freedom deferred

Iraq may slip from the headlines but that doesn't mean the occupation is over, writes Ramzy Baroud*

---

As US combat troops redeployed to the outskirts of Iraqi cities on 30 June, well-staged celebrations commenced. The pro-US Iraqi government declared "independence day" as police vehicles roamed the streets of war- weary Iraq in an unconvincing show of national rejoicing. US mainstream media joined the chorus, as if commemorating the end of an era.

Meanwhile, top US administration and army officials cautioned Iraqis against recklessness. "Biden warns Iraq about reverting to sectarian violence", read a New York Times headline. "What will it take to make a good exit from Iraq?" inquired a Kansas City Star analysis. Missing from news headlines and commentary was any indication of direct US responsibility for the tragedy that has befallen Iraq.

How can one claim that US ambitions in Iraq have altered if the ongoing legacy in Iraq is being perceived as a strategic mistake, rather than a moral one?

One constant remains, and that is the arrogance that has long permeated US relations with Iraq. "The president and I appreciate that Iraq has travelled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability," said Vice-President Biden during a visit to Baghdad on 3 July. Biden's remarks were saturated with the hubris that characterised the former administration's attitude towards Iraq.

"It's not over yet," Biden said. He is right. For it to be over means the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, an end to foreign meddling and the removal of the corrupt politicians who have undermined national identity in favour of sectarianism.

A majority of Americans now accepts that the Iraq war was predicated on a lie. They readily blame former president Bush for drawing the country into a costly war that should have never happened. President Obama's arrival has seemingly ushered in a new discourse of honesty and national introspection.

Yet the US remains unwilling to depart the war scarred country. There is little happening on the ground to quell antiwar sentiments or cause self-respecting commentators to halt their questioning of US intentions.

The terms "exit" and "exit strategy" now dominate media discourse regarding Iraq. Some attribute this change in language to the new administration. But the recent US army redeployment is not the brainchild of the Obama administration, but a provision of a November 2008 agreement signed between the Iraqi government of Nuri Al-Maliki and the Bush administration. Talk of exiting Iraq preceded the entrance of Obama. The new US administration has simply honoured commitments made by its predecessor. As per official statements the US is expected to withdraw 50,000 more troops by August 2010, and the majority of those remaining by the end of 2011.

So, 2012 will witness a fully independent Iraq? Wrong. "Many studying Iraq believe the US will end up negotiating with Baghdad to establish a couple of permanent military bases," writes Matt Schofield. "Those could be essential to leaving behind a stable government, a military loyal to the nation and capable of defending it, and a country that has the backing of the people."

What such deceptive language seeks to conceal is that a permanent US military presence in Iraq is tantamount to permanent occupation. The US doesn't have to be present on every street corner to officially occupy the country. The sectarian Iraqi army and police -- US armed and trained -- will carry out US wishes in Iraq (under the guise of fighting terrorists), while the US will "stand ready, if asked and if helpful, to help in that process," as Biden explained.

Iraq will fade from the headlines, making space for the new escalation in Afghanistan, also in the name of fighting terror, bringing democracy and all the rest. The faces of the victims will be hidden so as not to ruffle our sensibilities. Casualty figures will be manipulated and at times blamed on terrorists who hide among civilians. In other words, the US will take the spirit of its Iraq war to Afghanistan, remain in Iraq -- as inconspicuous as possible -- so as to hold onto its strategic military achievement and, if necessary, blame both nations for their growing misfortunes.

However, before we take our eyes off Iraq, Americans must remember their responsibility for what transpired there. Antiwar activists and people of conscience must not forget that 130,000 US soldiers remain in the country; that the US has complete control over Iraqi airspace and water; that there is not yet a reason to celebrate and move on. Even if one is trusting enough to believe the administration and army's own account of its future in Iraq, one should recall comments made by Admiral Mike Mullen last February: "Mr Obama plans to leave behind a 'residual force' of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and guard American institutions."

A sovereign, democratic and stable Iraq cannot emerge by repressing truth and common sense.

* The writer is editor of PalestineChronicle.com.