Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
As if the problems with
As if the problems with Israel and the Palestinians weren't enough to deal with. This insanity is going to lead to an attempted military coup in this country one day. At some point the officer corps is going to rebel. And unfortunately Br. Obama has bought into this madness with his hardline absurd and foolish speech at AIPAC on Tuesday.
j-
-esus h.
That's about the most
That's about the most tactically stupid thing you could possibly do, short of starting another war. Direct administration of Iraq by America, which is what such a plan would amount to, has zero chance of success. Zero. I don't have words to express the sheer insanity of such a move.
This is an attempt to set up
This is an attempt to set up the military as a proxy negotiating agent in the competition for Iraqi oil, in anticipation of an unsympathetic American administration coming to power. It's completely at odds with the stated goal of establishing a strong central government. But then, so was establishing the Iraqi government on a sectarian basis and persistently sending the message that an Iraqi federation is a potential alternative to a central government. All in an effort to put American oil companies in an optimal bargaining position, consequences to Iraqis and the American people be damned. It would've been easier and more rational to just conquer and administer the country outright from the very beginning. You can get away with being stupid, and you can get away with being amoral, but you can't get away with being both at the same time.
This is an attempt to set up
Looks like straight conquest to me.
It would be, if there was
It would be, if there was the remotest possiblity of such a plan succeeding, and there isn't. After five years of floundering in Iraq and Afghanistan, America doesn't have the will, clout or resources to directly administer an overseas colony. Like the song says, "too much too little too late to ever try again."
After five years in Iraq
If "directly administer" means suppressing insurrection to the point of genocide, then I guess we should be thankful we don't have the will, etc.