by Damozel | Speaking of the Bush administration's various foreign policy failures, it looks as if the Iraqis have decided they can't stomach that 'security pact' (secret treaty) the Bush administration has been secretly trying to negotiate. During a visit to Jordan, Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki has said that negotiations over the terms on which US forces can remain in Iraq had reached 'a dead end.' (WaPo)
As previously discussed, the Bush administration has been busy while we were all looking elsewhere negotiating for a status-of-forces agreement and a statement of the Iraq/US relationship that incorporate provisions for a long-term US presence and 60 military bases (BN-Politics). Among much else, the Iraqis --- who don't have the Bush administration's interests in 'discretion' --- say that 'Washington is insisting that American forces have a free hand in launching military operations when and wherever they want.' (WaPo) The terms of the agreement seem more consistent with a secret treaty than the sort of agreement that the executive branch has the power to negotiate and sign off on without ratification (BN-Politics)
Maliki stated in Jordan that negotiations have reached a 'dead end,' though he said that talks would continue (whatever that's worth). Those who know speculate that Iraq and the US won't be able to hammer out acceptable terms before expiration of the US mandate sanctioning US presence in Iraq expires. (WaPo) In that case, some Iraqi officials have indicated that they may ask the UN to extend the current agreement. (WaPo)
A New York Times editorial sums up the 'disconnect' between what Bush --- yes, my fellow Democrats, and John McCain --- want and what the Iraqis (and most Americans) want.
These steps appear calculated to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely — exactly the wrong course for both countries. Any talk of long-term basing rights, in particular, will only feed popular resentments. And the suggestion that America is prepared to continue the war indefinitely will, once again, relieve Iraq’s leaders of any pressure to take responsibility for their own security or their political future.
President Bush has made clear that he plans to keep American troops in Iraq for as long as he is in office. But this deal appears to be an especially cynical attempt to tie his successor to his failed Iraq policy.
Oddly, by pushing so hard, Mr. Bush may achieve that which seemed impossible: unity among Iraq’s disparate ethnic and political groups. But the last thing the United States needs is another country held together by its fury with the United States.
Like Mr. Bush, Senator McCain is clearly not listening to the Iraqis any more than he is listening to the American people....
What makes this all the more confusing is that in recent months there has been some tentative progress in Iraq. American and Iraqi casualties have declined, and there are signs that the central government is beginning to assert its authority against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City and against allies of Al Qaeda in Mosul. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain cannot have it both ways: insisting that American troops must stay if things go badly, and that they must stay if they go well. [emphasis added]
Among other things the US is asking for is immunity for US contractors in Iraq who are engaged in official actions. Maliki says no."We could not give amnesty to a soldier carrying arms on our ground," he said. "We will never give it." ( WaPo)
Other issues are of grave concern to Congress, such as Baghdad's expectation that 'a firm U.S. commitment to protect Iraq from foreign aggression.' (WaPo) Maliki said: '"what we wish is . . . that if Iraq is subject to a foreign aggression it would be defended. And on the American side that was abandoned as well. So we reached a clear point of disagreement." (WaPo)
As Dorian de Wind points out at The Moderate Voice, the Bush administration's attempt to override the sovereignty of the Iraqi people is the height of irony and hypocrisy.
At Donklephant, Justin Gardner suggests that we recognize that our little exercise in nation-building has failed.
Folks, if it hasn’t become obvious already, let this serve as yet another reminder that Iraq is going to take the form it wants to, and to delude ourselves that we can somehow shape it by maintaining a large presence in the country is folly. Once we handed over the political reins to the Iraqis, that was it. Why we haven’t realized that yet isn’t surprising given this administration’s abysmal track record for making good foreign policy decisions, but there’s no time like the present!
And let me ask, strategically, doesn’t it make a hell of a lot more sense for us to get out of the country so these politicos can’t scapegoat us any longer? Instead, we can simply offer financial aid so they continue to rebuild their infrastructure and possibly military assistance, but only if they really need it. And after that, let the political chips fall where they may. No more nation building for us. Game over.
There are rumors that the Bush administration is using, or has threatened to use, 'more than $30 billion in Iraqi Central Bank reserves...held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.'(WaPo)
The bank also houses the Development Fund for Iraq, through which all of Iraq's oil revenue is funneled before it can be spent by the government. The fund was established in 2003 by the U.S. occupation authority and later taken over by the Iraqi government under the oversight of the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Its balance fluctuates and is currently about $20 billion.(WaPo)
The Bush administration has denied any intention of pressuring the Iraqi government in this fashion.(WaPo) '"At no time have we suggested that our interest in preserving Iraqi funds from attachment or other action within the U.S. . . . would be a lever or issue" in the negotiations, a senior U.S. official said.'(WaPo)
The Iraqis, another U.S. official said, "have been slow" to set up an alternative arrangement for their funds and risk legal claims against them without U.N. protection. "Our advice [to Baghdad] has been to get some really good lawyers," the official said.
I'll say.
On that issue --- the use of financial pressure to persuade the Iraqi government to accept the Bush administration's deal--- you can draw your own conclusions. The problem with the reflexive lying of Bush Inc. is that there's just no guarantee that they won't occasionally tell the truth if the truth happens to favor them.
McCain Weighs in on Bush's Failed Detainee Policy
Comments