EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
US to Boost Gulf Presence After Iraq Pullout: Report
The United States is planning to bolster its military presence in the Gulf after it pulls out its remaining troops from Iraq, the New York Times reported in its online edition on Sunday.
All US troops are due to leave Iraq by the end of the year. The report this morning indicates Washington was negotiating to maintain a combat presence on the ground in Kuwait and was considering deploying more warships in the area. (AFP, Ali al-Saadi) President Barack Obama said on October 21 that he had decided to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year and the paper said that U.S. military officers and diplomats worried that the withdrawal could bring instability to the region.
It said Washington was negotiating to maintain a combat presence on the ground in Kuwait and was considering deploying more warships in the area.
No one at the Pentagon was immediately available to comment.
The United States also wanted to expand its military ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, it said.
The proposal needed approval by GCC leaders who are due to meet in the Saudi capital Riyadh in December, the paper said.
(Editing by Louise Ireland)
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
11 Comments so far
Show AllVP: " Sounds good ". Well I am very sure it sounds good to the International banksters, Wall Street banksters, the Pentagon. the defense industrial complex, the Federal Reserve Bank, Obama and most of the corrupt politicians who are bought and sold in Congress!
Bait and switch.
As Visiting Professor noted, this does indeed sound like "the big lie revealed." As troops leave Iraq, bases--far more significant--remain and so does the American mercenary force. Recall that it was misbehavior by U.S. mercenaries (AKA "contractors") that provoked the disaster in Fallujah marking the collapse of Occupation Iraq and the rise of the anti-American liberation struggle plus sectarian violence. Leaving the mercenaries behind is extremely dangerous for U.S. national security - U.S. government control over them is far too loose.
So things do indeed look like the U.S. people are being set up for another round of pouring U.S. gasoline on Mideast fires. But another outcome is possible. If Washington could adopt a positive-sum attitude, i.e., could base policy on a search for win-win outcomes, then the continuing U.S. military presence could be used as a bargaining chip to reach compromise agreements with Iran rather than as the foundation for a short-sighted and self-defeating new era of pro-Zionist empire-building that will only destabilize the Mideast, endanger Israeli security, weaken Israeli democracy, and--of course--do the same for U.S. security and democracy. Yeah, I'm dreaming, but it all starts with attitude: positive-sum is much more effective and cheaper than zero-sum.
William deB. Mills
shadowedforest.blogspot.com
You're presuming a modicum of rational and thinking on the part of the psychopaths in power, Mr Mills. I'm afraid nothing short of total defeat will ever make them see reason, and since that will not be achieved on battlefield, obvioiusly, it is up to us to unseat them at home. Occupy everything.
So much for fantasy and dreaming, but the policy is based on win- lose, we win they lose. No matter how bloody it gets.
They could be used nearby to help Israeli settlers now in East Jerusalem and the West Bank to move back to Israel as well as tear down any of the wall Israel has built outside its borders. One last thing they could do is to make sure that any water being diverted to Israel from the occupied territories, including Gaza, is shut off.
"U.S. military officers and diplomats worried that the withdrawal could bring instability to the region."
hey, diplomats and officers! looks like several here might have some ideas on how to bring stability, but you guys don't really want stability, do you?
As always Congress has the power to stop this escalation by refusing its funding. Even before the next general elections we will know how the so-called but faux-progressives voted on this issue. There should be a lowering of funding equal to the difference of the cost of maintaining 40,000 soldiers in Iraq and in the USA. If, however, the funding request for maintaining more soldiers "near Iraq" goes up, all of these scoundrels plus their overseer Obama deserve to be thrown out of office.
Another poor article by Reuters
Troops in the Gulf? Which Gulf? Gulf of Mexico? It is the Persian Gulf and Reuters is following the Pentagon lead by not using the proper name.
And why are we there? No hint from Reuters.
And how much will it cost and how will it be paid for? Reuters is silent.
" Instability to the region ". Translation: People that could cause instability to American power; that could become a threat to America's hegemony; could threaten American corporate, vested interests of the Empire!
The epitome of hypocrisy. What could be more unstable than the American foreign policy of drone terrorism, greed and murder in that region ?