The Iraq Thread 2

[Acecombat 0]

A Test Case En Route to US Hegemony

Linda S. Heard, Special to Arab News

Quote[/b] ]CAIRO, 6 January 2004 — In a recent interview former Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said: “I don’t know why we went to Iraq. It’s never been explained.†And all this time silly me thought it had been. Wasn’t it something to do with Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction with which he was poised to destroy his neighbors? Or was it to liberate the Iraqi people from a devilish dictator? Ah! Now I remember. Good old Uncle Sam wants to remake the region in its own “free and democratic†image.

Certainly, the good general meant the reasons for the invasion hadn’t been explained to his own satisfaction. Who can blame him? Iraq’s WMD have been relegated to such childish myths as Santa and the Tooth Fairy. However, those who indulged in speculation that American designs on Iraq were tied up with power and oil have been vindicated. The label of conspiracy theorist no longer applies.

A recently declassified British government memorandum indicates that following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war when OPEC retaliated against the US for its support of Israel, there was an American government plan to invade the Gulf region and seize its oilfields.

The newly released document shows that Nixon’s Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger alerted British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer of the plan, which was to be implemented as “a last resortâ€.

Schlesinger told Lord Cromer that the US would not tolerate threats from “underdeveloped, underpopulated†countries. Pre-emptive strikes were not ruled out in the event that Arab governments “elated by the success of the oil weapon†issued greater demands. Then there is the Iranian precedent. It is common knowledge that the US engineered the ousting of democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh after the Iranian leader kicked out foreign oil companies in the 1950s.

Writer, academic and icon of the left Noam Chomsky, when asked why he thought the US invaded Iraq, said: “The primary goal is to control the immense energy reserves of the Gulf region, Iraq included.â€

Chomsky warns that Iraq’s oil industry could be taken over by foreigners in the future “when attention turns elsewhere†and points out that under a Washington-imposed “status of forces agreement†the US will have the right to maintain its military foothold in Iraq “right at the heart of the world’s major energy reservesâ€.

Not only is the US concerned with shoring up its own oil supplies; it is keen on preventing its foes and competitors from gaining a foothold.

A former US ambassador and State Department strategist, George Kennan, suggested as long ago as 1949 that American control over Japanese oil supplies would give the US “veto power†over Japanese industries and military ambitions. His advice was followed. Today read “China and Europe†for “Japan†and you get the picture.

US up-close-and-personal supervision of the region further ensures that oil producing countries refrain from changing over from petrodollars to euros or some other currency, which in turn means that any oil-purchasing state is obliged to keep large reserves of dollars, thus propping up the one major currency not related to the gold standard. Oil producers can also be “persuaded†to invest their wealth in the US and Britain.

Those who control the world’s oil, gas and water call the shots. A Washington-based think tank setup in 1997 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle, known as The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) knew this only too well when it drew up a white paper in September 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Centuryâ€.

According to the paper, the US must permanently base forces in Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East; modernize US forces; deploy a global missile defense system; dominate space; control cyberspace and increase defense spending. Today its authors are ensconced in the White House and the Pentagon.

According to a top-level US policy document, the Defense Department has long been ready to fight an oil war. “Strategic Assessment 1999†is the name of a report prepared for the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff pointing out “energy and resource issues will continue to shape international securityâ€. The report envisages conflicts over oil production facilities and transportation routes particularly in the Gulf and Caspian regions. When Tony Blair emulated Bush’s turkey dinner PR exercise by popping into Iraq he spoke of the invasion as a “test case†demonstrating that the world (read the US and Britain) is serious about stopping aggression.

Iraq was a test case indeed; one which proved to the world just how much Bush and Blair can get away with in the furtherance of their hegemonic ambitions.

On July 10, 2002, Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec gave a 24-slide presentation to the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon on defense matters. The last slide headed “Grand Strategy for the Middle East†read ominously: “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot; Egypt the prize. The pundits have yet to figure this out.â€

Anyone still shaking their head in the belief that invading Iraq was an essential component of the war on terror with the country’s mega oil reserves of little consequence might like to remember this. The Bush family fortune derives from oil; Vice President Dick Cheney formerly headed Halliburton, while American oil giants contributed more than $26 million to ensure George W. Bush’s election. There is even an oil tanker named after Presidential Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

In the absence of Iraq’s WMD and until Iraq is freed from foreign forces, the official US and British line just won’t wash. The US didn’t exactly help its “we don’t care about oil†case when it prioritized the securing of Iraq’s oilfields and Ministry of Oil, while allowing looters free access to hospitals, schools, private homes and museums.

As Bill O’Reilly of Fox News is fond of saying: I don’t buy it. Do you?

— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Mideast affairs and can be contacted at heardonthegrapevine@yahoo.co.uk

[toadlife 3]

Yes , did the world attack you when blacks in your country were subjected to racism (similiar to saddams anti-shiiteness) , did the world attack you when your bombs dropped throughout your so called precise bombings killing people throughout the world without your country even apologizing to them .. damn this hypocrisy...

I could go on and on about the Native red indians who were hunted down and killed or the british racism in India where they slaughtered the whole Mughal family just to please their crowns f**** ego where were human rights then? You dont define the time frame as to what happens when and how and when it should move on.

I am against Saddams murder of his people but it was their inteernal matter not your countrys bloody business. PERIOD.

You are attacking me, and people for whom I have never met nor associated with instead of my arguments.

You live in Saudi Arabia, Ossama Bin Ladin is from Saudi ARabia - from that fact, can for that fact, I assume that you and everyone else in Saudi Arabia holds the same values as Bin Laden?

[Acecombat 0]

Yes , did the world attack you when blacks in your country were subjected to racism (similiar to saddams anti-shiiteness) , did the world attack you when your bombs dropped throughout your so called precise bombings killing people throughout the world without your country even apologizing to them .. damn this hypocrisy...

I could go on and on about the Native red indians who were hunted down and killed or the british racism in India where they slaughtered the whole Mughal family just to please their crowns f**** ego where were human rights then? You dont define the time frame as to what happens when and how and when it should move on.

I am against Saddams murder of his people but it was their inteernal matter not your countrys bloody business. PERIOD.

You are attacking me, and people for whom I have never met nor associated with instead of my arguments.

You live in Saudi Arabia, Ossama Bin Ladin is from Saudi ARabia - from that fact, can for that fact, I assume that you and everyone else in Saudi Arabia holds the same values as Bin Laden?

Well then you should thank God it was a mere use of words and not a shower of Missiles fired from a sub or ship....

Your country drops bomb puts countrys under economic sanctions who gets hurt the civilians just like you whoprobably dont support the person. As i said you can be thankful its only words you can face and not 'other' things which your country dishes out to others on artificial morals of justice.

Secondly never in my argument did i blame(attack) you for the things i mentioned only showed you what your country has done as a whole entity whom you see as a virgin clean as a whistle.

[Acecombat 0]

U.S. discharges soldiers for abuse of Iraqi prisoners

From Barbara Starr

CNN Washington Bureau

Monday, January 5, 2004 Posted: 4:19 PM EST (2119 GMT)

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three American soldiers have been discharged from military service for abusing Iraqi prisoners, the U.S. Army said Monday.

The soldiers had been facing a court-martial proceeding, but agreed instead to a nonjudicial one. In addition to the discharges, two soldiers had their ranks lowered, and all three were ordered to forfeit pay for two months.

The soldiers were military police in a unit from Pennsylvania deployed a southern Iraq camp when the abuse occurred May 12, according to the Army. An investigation began after other soldiers saw and reported the incident.

Master Sgt. Lisa Girman was found guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard an Iraqi detainee in her control, the Army said.

Girman also was found guilty of maltreatment of an Iraqi detainee by knocking him to the ground and repeatedly kicking him in the groin, abdomen and head while encouraging subordinates to do the same.

Staff Sgt. Scott McKenzie was found guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard Iraqi detainees from assault and abuse, the Army said.

McKenzie was also convicted of maltreatment of an Iraqi detainee by dragging him by his armpits across the ground, maltreatment of an Iraqi detainee by throwing him to the ground on his face and stepping on his previously injured arm, and making false statements to investigators. McKenzie was demoted to sergeant.

Spc. Timothy Canjar was found guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard Iraqis under his control, according to the Army.

He also was convicted of maltreatment of an Iraqi detainee by holding his legs apart while kicking him in the groin and maltreatment of an Iraqi detainee by violently twisting his previously injured arm and causing him to scream in pain. Canjar was demoted to private.

Allegations of mistreatment of prisoners of war were also leveled at a high-profile British army officer during the war, but the Ministry of Defense later cleared him.

The ministry ordered an investigation into Col. Tim Collins, the former commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, following a U.S. major's allegations of abuse of captured Iraqis

....and now lets talk about human rights....

[bn880 5]

Yes , did the world attack you when blacks in your country were subjected to racism (similiar to saddams anti-shiiteness) , did the world attack you when your bombs dropped throughout your so called precise bombings killing people throughout the world without your country even apologizing to them .. damn this hypocrisy...

I could go on and on about the Native red indians who were hunted down and killed or the british racism in India where they slaughtered the whole Mughal family just to please their crowns f**** ego where were human rights then? You dont define the time frame as to what happens when and how and when it should move on.

I am against Saddams murder of his people but it was their inteernal matter not your countrys bloody business. PERIOD.

You are attacking me, and people for whom I have never met nor associated with instead of my arguments.

You live in Saudi Arabia, Ossama Bin Ladin is from Saudi ARabia - from that fact, can for that fact, I assume that you and everyone else in Saudi Arabia holds the same values as Bin Laden?

Hey, just because the English language has no distinction between you (singular) and you (plural) does not mean you can pull the "personal attack" card all the time.

[Balschoiw 0]

I heard about 2 other cases , this time it were British soldiers. It was in the news today but I was not able to find a link.

Can anyone verify ?

Something else:

Quote[/b] ] Osama bin Laden released another audio tape in which he denounced Saddam Hussein for getting captured alive and urged Moslems to go to Iraq to fight America. Al Qaeda is being perceived more and more as a hollow organization that talks big and acts ineffectively. Al Qaeda attacks in Iraq have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. In fact, al Qaeda has not been able to make another attack in the US since 2001, and has suffered many humiliating reverses since then.

Today, the long process of turning control in Iraq over to an Iraqi government begins. The process will be complete by July 1. Between now and then, a new constitution has to be created and accepted. A deal has to be worked out with the coalition about how many foreign troops will remain for how long. There appears to be general agreement that the new constitution will allow for a federal form of government. This means that the Kurds will have a lot of autonomy within their provinces, as will all 18 of Iraq's provinces. This will create the potential for political struggles over who gets what from the oil wealth.

About two percent of the American combat casualties in Iraq have been female troops (who comprise about eleven percent of the troops in the combat zone.)

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?

Unless you're using a different version of English, that statement says that the corruption of Saddam was the same as the corruption of TBA.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?....

"when seem to accept such corruption in [my] own administration?"

Like I said before, it sounds like you are comparing the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein's regime, which is perplexing to me.

Have you even done anything that was unethical, immoral, or dishonest? WHat do you think is the standard for miltary action against nutso dictators that kill thousand of innocent people? Do you think we (western countries) should stand by while attrocities happen, simply because we ourselves are not perfect beings of light?

Edit:You keep stating I "accept the corruption in the Bush Administration". I have not seen any proof of corruption in the Bush administration, nor has anyone given me anything beyond speculation.

Might there be some corruption in the Bush administration? Sure there might.  Does that possibility have any bearing on my feeling towards weather or not we should go into Iraq. No it doesn't. My cynicism towards the varying amounts of corruption that pervade every single government on this planet does not have anything to do with my opinion that Saddam Hussein’s regime deserved to be overthrown.

Hi toadlife.

Why do I compare Sadam's Regime to a US administration?

Because you do.

You make the comparison of Sadam is bad compared to TBA good for the goose is good for the gander. Live with it

Unethical means to destroy a dictator. Perfectly acceptable if practiced by those in the questionable departments of the civil service but would you care to tell me how Haliburton overcharging for Oil helped get rid of Sadam?

Or how getting rid of Sadam came further up the list than getting rid of SLORC? Oh yeh  I remember SLORC sells its oil to Haliburton. Also when the US intends to chuck out the SLORC regime?

On a minor aside such people in the questionable departments of the civil service who are taught and expected to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, murder, blackmail, defraud, torture etc. should never be alowed to atain any elected position. If the democracies practiced this then they would be greatly improved.

The war was suposedly about WMD and its threat to the coalition and its' alies and secondly for the US about getting rid of a dictator.

If TBA wants to decry a dictator and rid the world of him they must show a moral and ethical acendancy. If that is its given reason for war then it is going to be examined and it must apear purer than Ceaser's wife. Even questionable is not good enough. It must be as pure as the driven snow; by your own admission in your view it is not even close to that.

It goes to fundamental question of defence of your nation.

Consider if your electorate and congress believes or worse has proof your administration lies in order to go to war. It is once more asked to be involved in a war. The administration is believed to have cried wolf in the past and lied.

Now you have to ask yourself if they cry wolf again will they be believed?

Are you willing to risk your nations defence on somone who crys wolf?

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]If TBA wants to decry a dictator and rid the world of him they must show a moral and ethical acendancy. If that is its given reason for war then it is going to be examined and it must apear purer than Ceaser's wife. Even questionable is not good enough. It must be as pure as the driven snow; by your own admission in your view it is not even close to that.

You're never going to find a politician who's "pure as the driven snow".

[walker 0]

You're never going to find a politician who's "pure as the driven snow".

Hi m21man

Yet they must apear so. It is why you have the concept of plausable deniability.

The political power of a politician is in peoples belief in them.

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Do you think we (western countries) should stand by while attrocities happen, simply because we ourselves are not perfect beings of light?

Yes , did the world attack you when blacks in your country were subjected to racism (similiar to saddams anti-shiiteness) , did the world attack you when your bombs dropped throughout your so called precise bombings killing people throughout the world without your country even apologizing to them .. damn this hypocrisy...

I could go on and on about the Native red indians who were hunted down and killed or the british racism in India where they slaughtered the whole Mughal family just to please their crowns f**** ego where were human rights then? You dont define the time frame as to what happens when and how and when it should move on.

I am against Saddams murder of his people but it was their inteernal matter not your countrys bloody business. PERIOD.

fine, then don't bitch about rednecks shooting Arabs who live here ok?

consider this post a warning. you post was very close to flambating.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi m21man

Yet they must apear so. It is why you have the concept of plausable deniability.

The political power of a politician is in peoples belief in them.

Kind Regards Walker

By your argument, we should leave all dictators in power because our leaders are not angels.

[walker 0]

By your argument, we should leave all dictators in power because our leaders are not angels.

Hi m21man

Please enlighten me as to how you came to this marvelous conclusion about my beliefs?

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please enlighten me as to how you came to this marvelous conclusion about my beliefs?

Quote[/b] ]If TBA wants to decry a dictator and rid the world of him they must show a moral and ethical acendancy. If that is its given reason for war then it is going to be examined and it must apear purer than Ceaser's wife. Even questionable is not good enough. It must be as pure as the driven snow; by your own admission in your view it is not even close to that.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please enlighten me as to how you came to this marvelous conclusion about my beliefs?

Quote[/b] ]If TBA wants to decry a dictator and rid the world of him they must show a moral and ethical acendancy. If that is its given reason for war then it is going to be examined and it must apear purer than Ceaser's wife. Even questionable is not good enough. It must be as pure as the driven snow; by your own admission in your view it is not even close to that.

Hi m21man

That is exactly what I said and the bit you edited out or missed was I then went on to say why.

Let me repeat but make it more clear for you.

Quote[/b] ]It goes to fundamental question of defence of your nation.

Consider if your electorate and congress believes or worse has proof your administration lies in order to go to war. It is once more asked to be involved in a war. The administration is believed to have cried wolf in the past and lied.

Now you have to ask yourself if they cry wolf again will they be believed?

Are you willing to risk your nations defence on somone who crys wolf?

It is not I that stop TBA removing future dictators; but a wolf crying TBA that imasculates its ability to call its people to remove dictators by removing its peoples belief in their nation's administration's honesty.

TBA the only administration to 'Bobbet' itself.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Walker, I think you are making a mistake by comparing Bush's questionable business ethics with Saddam's human rights abuses. Apples and oranges. While economic corruption certainly isn't an endearing quality, it's still a far cry from murdering tens of thousands of people. There are shades of gray and no matter how you twist it, Saddam still comes off darker than Bush. That doesn't mean that Bush's a good guy.

There is also a certain irrelevance to the economic corruption discussion which IMO is used too much to vilify Bush. And I think it's a bad strategy as it leads to a loss of credibility and people dismiss the real objections against Bush and his merry men.

First of all, you must separate policy/ideology from corruption. While those two often go hand in hand, their origins are separate and important to understand if you wish to overcome them in the future. Personally, I like to stay away from corruption accusations as they are first of all difficult to prove and second none of my business as it's not my tax money potentially being squandered.

As an illustrative example: Giving the Carlyle group or Haliburton contracts without bidding is a potential case of corruption. The refusal of letting other countries bid on contracts on the other hand is policy.

The policy of the Bush administration provides more than a solid ground for objections (or outrage more like it). The basic premisis for that policy is that America should by any means necessary make sure that it remains the world's only superpower. It furthermore dictates that America should do what's best for it without any regard for the rest of the world. It's very well described on the website of the New American Century Project - the primary ideological organization of the neo-conservatives (founded by several prominent members of the current and previous Bush administration).

They outlined already in 2000 that Iraq should be invaded and were even kind enough to say why:

1) To put an American strategic presence in the Mid East

2) To secure oil supplies that are not Saudi Arabian and by that eliminating a middle hand

3) To remove US troops from Saudi Arabia

4) To create an American business presence in the Mid East

There was of course no mention of WMD and terrorism back then - that topic was added ad-hoc to get public support for a war. And while those claims were obviously a load of crap, it was a part of policy - or more like an eagerness to implement policy, no matter what. Obviously it worked as opinion polls show that the American people in general doesn't give a flying fuck about the fact that the pre-text for the war was a fantasy (not true for Britain though where it seems to matter more - although not enough to impeach Blair).

Of course we can now see that this policy hasn't quite payed off. On the contrary, none of the primary goals have been fulfilled. Post-war Iraq is a complete mess both politically, economically and militarily. Also in their agressive efforts of pushing through the American will, Bush has managed to alienate most of USA's friends and allies. As a result of that US tax payers ended up paying the reconstruction bill, adding to a record budget deficit.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is not I that stop TBA removing future dictators; but a wolf crying TBA that imasculates its ability to call its people to remove dictators by removing its peoples belief in their nation's administration's honesty.

TBA the only administration to 'Bobbet' itself.

Kind Regards Walker

The fact that WMDs have not been found hasn't changed many people's opinions about TBA. If they didn't support TBA before, they don't now. If they supported TBA before, then they're probably convinced that there are WMDs in Iraq.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you think we (western countries) should stand by while attrocities happen, simply because we ourselves are not perfect beings of light?

Yes , did the world attack you when blacks in your country were subjected to racism (similiar to saddams anti-shiiteness) , did the world attack you when your bombs dropped throughout your so called precise bombings killing people throughout the world without your country even apologizing to them .. damn this hypocrisy...

I could go on and on about the Native red indians who were hunted down and killed or the british racism in India where they slaughtered the whole Mughal family just to please their crowns f**** ego where were human rights then? You dont define the time frame as to what happens when and how and when it should move on.

I am against Saddams murder of his people but it was their inteernal matter not your countrys bloody business. PERIOD.

fine, then don't bitch about rednecks shooting Arabs who live here ok?

consider this post a warning. you post was very close to flambating.

Oh please .... keep that universal reply of every mod on nearly forum of 'flame baiting' at bay , my post wasnt flame baiting at all if it was anything then it was mirroring you a hypocrital image of america , a side which is always shaded by the power and money america boasts.

Fact is american govt and the british are as dirty as the Iraqi regime or anyother for that matter , i replied to Toadlifes post in which he thinks his country has superior morals then others when that s not clearly the case as i pointed out. No ones an angel , and saying (we western) countries as if theyre the only one who know about Human rights and shit is nothing but ultranationlism. The war wasnt even made for saving the iraqi people or anything it was purely about Oil as it is and controlling that wealth and to have a new spring board base now that SA isnt a friendly host.

Btw when did i bitch about red necks killing arabs or anything    , what had that got to do with this argument anyway?

But wait a minute if red necks start killing arabs how would america show the world that its the land of free or whatever ...

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]It is not I that stop TBA removing future dictators; but a wolf crying TBA that imasculates its ability to call its people to remove dictators by removing its peoples belief in their nation's administration's honesty.

TBA the only administration to 'Bobbet' itself.

Kind Regards Walker

The fact that WMDs have not been found hasn't changed many people's opinions about TBA. If they didn't support TBA before, they don't know. If they supported TBA before, then they're probably convinced that there are WMDs in Iraq.

And that is very sad.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is not I that stop TBA removing future dictators; but a wolf crying TBA that imasculates its ability to call its people to remove dictators by removing its peoples belief in their nation's administration's honesty.

TBA the only administration to 'Bobbet' itself.

Kind Regards Walker

The fact that WMDs have not been found hasn't changed many people's opinions about TBA. If they didn't support TBA before, they don't know. If they supported TBA before, then they're probably convinced that there are WMDs in Iraq.

And that is very sad.  

Well it seems the coins looking pretty much the same on both sides doesnt matter which side you flip , they got a excuse ready

[Jinef 2]

I can't be arsed posting much in here anymore, people are dying and you guys are still nattering on about why it started in the first place.

What i find annoying is that the protests against the war have finished.... they all start ranting about how it should stop as they were moving troops into the gulf, no point as it's a big commitment to do that and public opinion was still divided.

Now however everyone pretty much agrees it all went tits up yet everyone has gone apathetic, now would be a good time to raise the pressure on the politicians.

As all they can fucking say for themselves now is that they haven't found WMD and another 2 soldiers have died. Now people are forgetting that still the military is deployed and basically trying to control a few million rather pissed off Iraqis.

I am getting irate at how our goverment can keep the military commited on false pretences, come on Elizabeth fucking dissolve Tony Blair and his minions and get us the fuck out of here!

Edit: This is stream of though typing, i don't promise it will make sense.

[theavonlady 2]

Edit: This is stream of though typing

Ooooooooooooooooh! That's so Shakespearean!

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am getting irate at how our goverment can keep the military commited on false pretences, come on Elizabeth fucking dissolve Tony Blair and his minions and get us the fuck out of here!

Great idea! Let's all leave, let some new psycho dictator take over, and come back in 2015 for Gulf War 3: Return of The Dyslexic .

[bn880 5]

Why do you think there would be another Gulf War? And what, more US involvement? WTF is it with you Americans and thinking you have a place in the mid-east by deploying armies? I don't see how it is up to the Anglicos to keep messing in the mid-east constantly.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why do you think there would be another Gulf War?  And what, more US involvement? WTF is it with you Americans and thinking you have a place in the mid-east by deploying armies?  I don't see how it is up to the Anglicos to keep messing in the mid-east constantly.

Because if all American forces left Iraq, the Iraqi government that would take over would be very anti-American and would likely launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. The president would then get pissed off, and then proceed to launch GW3.