The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which provided a basis for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq and mandated that U.S. troops leave Iraq by December 31, 2011, was signed and agreed upon in the final months of 2008. Several leaders like Grand Ayatollah Sistani spoke out against the agreement claiming it prolongs and further legitimizes the U.S. occupation.

Sistani was concerned with the fact that the pact did not give Iraq the authority to control the transfer of occupation forces into and out of Iraq, did not permit control of shipments, and granted occupying forces immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. plans to reassert itself by sending a helicopter unit to Afghanistan to lend support to four additional ground brigades that will be sent to Afghanistan later in the year. (While those in the Bush Administration may be behind many of the current actions between the U.S. and Afghanistan, Obama has expressed support for a “surge” in Afghanistan.)

The recent Mumbai attacks have members of the Bush Administration considering the prospect of future incursions into Pakistan. Bush and Obama have expressed interest in taking out “sanctuaries” in Pakistan where members of al Qaeda are.

Current U.S. foreign policy guarantees that the policy of intervention will be employed.

History shows intervention has been employed often and the employment of intervention quite often leads to war crimes and crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the U.S.

Even if the U.S. does not formally send forces in, “covert” operations or the arming of sects like Hamas in Israel to take on the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Taliban in Afghanistan to take on the Soviets is, for the most part, standard operating procedure---a tactic for increasing U.S. power in regions of the world.

U.S. foreign policy is such that many Americans cannot and will never be able to name all the conflicts the U.S. is invested in. And, in fact, those quite familiar with U.S. foreign policy operations often talk about the struggles listed above knowing full well that a country or two has probably been left out or glossed over.

That said, if the modus operandi of those in the U.S. government is to ensure blowback is 100% possible after Obama’s inauguration, if the Bush Administration’s plan for exit is to make sure violations of international law and crimes against humanity continue under an Obama Regime, why stop with Gaza and Georgia or Iraq and Afghanistan?

Before Obama takes office and empowers citizens of the world to raise their voices higher against the idea of pre-emptive or preventive war or war crimes/crimes against humanity, one has to wonder if any other conflict will flare up before January 20th.

Certainly, the world has grown to expect it. And with Obama silent on Gaza and other Bush policies, Bush has been granted carte blanche on U.S. foreign policy during the final days of his presidency.