Article in "Avante!" by Rui Paz, collaborator of the International Department
During his electoral campaign, Obama had promised the USA would rapidly withdraw its occupation troops from Iraq. This promise was one which most contributed for the wave of enthusiasm created round that nomination. Recently, the North-American President reported that, at least 30 thousand soldiers will continue to occupy Iraq, even after the official "withdrawal". In a statement, at Camp Lejeune military base, in North Carolina, he declared that, the so-called " combat troops", would be withdrawed, up to 2010. George Bush himself had proclaimed, some time ago, that the Iraq war was over. And after, one can see for oneself. According to Bush’s former Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, who stayed on in the Obama Administration, 35 to 50 thousand soldiers will remain in the country. Gates does not call it occupation army, but instead, "military formation" of the Iraq army and declares, " it is considered to be a mission of a different nature"(CNN). This signifies the USA have no intention of respecting Iraq’s sovereignty and, they will only definitely abandon the Tiger and the Euphrates, if they are able to achieve, over there, a favourable regime, towards the petroleum and geostrategic interests. An Iraq, free from the occupation and governed by the Iraqis and for the Iraqis, is not a Washington goal.
Also in Afghanistan, facing the growing resistance against the foreign military troops, the Pentagon is preparing the transfer of 17 thousand Iraqi soldiers to Indukuch and trying to drag the USA’s allies into a greater participation in the war. Thus, was the desire of Bush’s Administration when Rice attempted to convince the main NATO states to shed more blood in Afghanistan. The 2009 first months were the beginning of one more bloodshed year in Afghanistan, with numerous civil casualties, killed by the NATO troops and, in particular, by USA soldiers. The current situation is such that the Pentagon, in its desire to weaken the resistance, which it has, propagandistically and exclusively called as "Talibans", has begun to consider the " good" and the "bad" Talibans.
The "good" or "moderate" would be those who would be willing to negotiate the permanence of the North-American domain, in the region. The "bad", those who do not accept to participate in a favourable regime to the maintenance of the USA’s interests. One must recall that, these tactics have been followed by Clinton, within Yugoslavia, on what concerns the UCK, which was considered, many times, as a "terrorist" to a "liberation movement", according to Washington’s strategy. The International Court, in the Hague, ordered a capture mandate against a Head of State in office, in Sudan, who had never attacked other States, but as it’s well known, does not handover priority to the geostrategic and petroleum interests of the North-American super-power. But George Bush, who built up a tempest of lies and tore the International Law fundamental principles, by attacking Iraq, provoking the death and the chaos of millions of Iraqis, carries on free. The CIA crimes are not under investigation, nor within the USA, nor within the international instances. Israel carries on doing, at its free will, occupying the Palestinian territories, and denying the Palestinian people it’s right to a free and sovereign State. The responsible against the Palestine, Lebanon and Yugoslavia aggressions, remain unpunished. Meanwhile, the American army proceeds with military manoeuvres, in South Korea, threatening all the Far East. For who is aware, far from relenting, imperialism sustains all the options to avoid revolt and the peoples’ resistance, namely the war, as an answer to the crisis, which tends to worsen more rapidly than ever the capitalist world leaders ever imagined.
