Tom Engelhardt can say "permanent bases," but points out that the US media can't. There's nary a peep from the MSM online about General Abizade's House subcommittee testimony except for this short piece from Reuter's:
Reuters WASHINGTON -- The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said Tuesday.
Even the Reuters release doesn't seem to have been widely picked up. Al Jazeera has a little more extensive reporting on Abizades comments about permanent bases.
Here's a question to ponder: Does the US presence in Iraq "bolster moderates against extremists" or is there any reason to think it will? If the answer to that is "no" then I guess that leaves. . . protecting the flow of oil, not that this has anything to do with resource geo-strategy:
"Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world's economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality."--Dick Cheney, Institute of Petroleum Autumn lunch, 1999
US policy in the Middle East has never been driven by oil interests:
"The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing."--Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
Read more.
Shameless plug of my blog. . . errrrr. . . I mean. . . Crossposted at If-Then Knots!