<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <iframe src="http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=5855029&amp;blogName=Lost+City&amp;publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_HOSTED&amp;navbarType=TAN&amp;layoutType=CLASSIC&amp;searchRoot=http://www.thelostcity.org/search&amp;blogLocale=en_US&amp;homepageUrl=http://www.thelostcity.org/&amp;vt=1095557622225395696" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="30px" width="100%" id="navbar-iframe" allowtransparency="true" title="Blogger Navigation and Search"></iframe> <div></div>



Friday, July 25, 2008
 
"Extensive Strategic Relationship": The Neocon Term For Date Rape
Charles Krauthammer can't believe Nouri al-Maliki's beastly betrayal of the United States. Maliki has adopted Obama's timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces and left McCain gasping for political oxygen.

Time to rationalize:

McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.

Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.

It is no mystery who would be the more pliant U.S. negotiator. The Democrats have long been protesting the Bush administration's hard bargaining for strategic assets in postwar Iraq. Maliki knows the Democrats are so sick of this war, so politically and psychologically committed to its liquidation, so intent on doing nothing to vindicate "Bush's war," that they simply want out with the least continued American involvement.

This is truly nutty stuff. Democrats aren't the only ones who don't want a prolonged U.S. involvement in Iraq -- the majority of Americans don't want it either. In the run-up to the war in 2002 and 2003, a permanent occupation of Iraq was never mentioned. Quite the opposite: it would be a cake-walk, the neocons bragged; we'd be greeted as liberators, then back home by Christmas.

That sort of talk was necessary, I suppose, in order to get the American people on board.

But now that we're there, Krauthammer argues, we should just accept that Iraq is the epicenter of the American hegemon in the Middle East.

Not so fast, pal. Americans know what the neocon's game is now; they shouldn't be fooled into believing that this is what they signed up for.



Powered by Blogger