Iraqis Unhappy with US Demand for Indefinite Presence

by Damozel | One of my colleagues has been saying for some time that none of the candidates will actually bring the troops home because, as a practical matter, the US can't afford to bring the troops home.  Thanks to Bush and Halliburton, we've spilled even more US money than US blood, and there's no way we can just walk away from all of that investment.  Is this true?  I refuse to believe it.  But maybe that is just me being 'in denial.'  The current negotiations over the terms on which we will be allowed by the Iraqis to stay in Iraq are making me wonder.

The UN mandate authorizing our continuing presence in Iraq is due to expire at the end of the year. As BN-Politics recently noted, quite a few high-ranking members of the Iraqi government really wants us gone.  While the Bush Administration, as always, maintains that its doings in Iraq are really none of our business, angry Iraqis have spilled the beans about Bush's plans for a continuing presence.  According to Iraqi politicians, our government wants to maintain 58 bases in their country indefinitely.  (WaPo)   (And that's significantly less than they initially bargained for.  Initially, they wanted 200.) (WaPo)

Oddly enough, the Iraqis aren't down with that.

As always, the administration is all about keeping the details of the agreement out of the public domain.  The Iraqis are the ones who are spilling the beans.(WaPo)  Oddly, they seem to feel that having an ongoing military presence there would represent a form of occupation.

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "...

"What the U.S. wants is to take the current status quo and try to regulate it in a new agreement. And what we want is greater respect for Iraqi sovereignty," said Haider al-Abadi, a parliament member from Maliki's Dawa party. "Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. And that will never happen."(WaPo) 

Top government offiicials are now asking that we play less of a role in Iraq.    

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them. (WaPo)

If they want us gone, why can't we go? you're probably wondering.  You and I  don't want a military presence in Iraq.  I know people who do, and I know why, and I don't share --- or agree with --- their reasons.

Well, you can look at what the Iraqis say that the Bush Administration initially asked for --- besides 200 military bases --- and draw your own conclusions.

Iraqi officials said the U.S. government also demanded the continuation of several current policies: authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to Askari, positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran. (WaPo; emphasis added) 

Apparently 'we' have made some concessions since negotiations began.  Even those concessions are pretty telling.

Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of parliament who has been briefed on the negotiations, said the Americans recently had changed their position on four key issues: Private contractors would no longer be guaranteed immunity; detainees would be turned over to the Iraqi judicial system after combat operations; U.S. troops would operate only with the agreement of the Iraqi government; and the Americans would promise not to use Iraq as a base for attacking other countries. (WaPo) 

At  Kiko's House, Shaun Mullen points out one more little 'open secret' about the deal.  '[A]lthough the word oil does not appear anywhere in the agreement, there is an open secret of a quid pro quo: U.S. oil companies get first dibs at Iraq’s vast untapped oil wealth and Al-Maliki gets coup insurance.'   He points out that the agreement will have two overriding disadvantages for both the part of the US that doesn't include the Bush Administration and its cronies and for the Iraqis:

The biggest problem with the agreement from an American perspective is that it locks the U.S. into a long-term military role in a country with a cauldron conundrum: There will be unrest as long as America troops remain there and unless they hole up in their bases, American troops will continue dying.

 The biggest problem with the agreement from an Iraqi perspective is that it is deeply humiliating. In one fell swoop, it neuters Iraq's national sovereignty, something of no less pride and importance to Iraqis than it is to Americans. ( Kiko's House)

In the meantime, what does Congress have to say about all this?  Until this week, very little.  While the US is party to more than 80 bilateral agreements in countries where our forces are stationed, such agreements 'are traditionally signed by the U.S. president under his executive authority.'(WaPo)  And we all know how Bush loves his executive authority.

But on Monday, Senators Levin (D-Mich) and Warner (R-Va), chairman and ranking minority members of the Armed Services Committee, 'demanded' in a letter to Condoleezza Rice that Bush Inc. "be more transparent with Congress, with greater consultation, about the progress and content of these deliberations." (WaPo)  Congress, they argued,  'has legitimate concerns about the authorities, protections and understandings that might be made" in the agreements.' (WaPo) 

While, as noted, the Iraq agreement currently under negotiation is one of many such agreements, its terms are far from typical.  In fact, it might be argued that its terms are more in line with a defense treaty --- which would require Congressional approval.   

Some lawmakers think that Bush is 'trying to tie the hands of Bush's successor.'  Gee, you think?   Of course, some of us also think that he is positioning himself for that military strike against Iran.

Even now, he's telling all of Europe that he's secretly been a 'man of peace' all along and that the last thing on earth he wants is to be forced to strike Iran.  And for once he's telling the truth:  it is the last thing he wants.  I don't want to believe it, but I firmly do believe that if he's not reined in, he'll be launching that military strike before his term ends. 

Since beating the war drums hasn't drummed up any support, he's apparently trying a different tried and true tactic:  the failure of international diplomacy and the argument that since the rest of the world wouldn't toe the line as easily as the American public, he has no choice except military action.  And America can't afford a military strike against Iran.

Memeorandum has blogger reactions here.

Recent Related BN-Politics Postings

BBC:  Around $23 Billion Lost in Iraq Due to Contractor Fraud & Mismanagement

Bush Regrets Gun-Slinging Rhetoric Dennis Kucinich Presents Articles of Impeachment to Congress

Scott McClellan to Testify before Judiciary Committee; a GOP footnote on Rove & his Tactics

Bush's Farewell European Tour

Iraqi Parliament wants U.S. Out Burma Junta Kicks Cyclone Victims out of Shelters

Oil Prices Up, Stock Prices Down