Thursday
Dec252008
From the Iraq Archives: When is Permanent not Permanent? (21 June 2008)
Thursday, December 25, 2008 at 11:24
In a week when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates predicted that "several tens of thousands of American troops" will be staying in Iraq beyond 2011 and when The New York Times finally noticed the "disquieting talk in Washington", here is a Watching America blog from June that was already foreseeing American withdrawal as a necessary but partial fiction:
WHEN IS PERMANENT NOT PERMANENT? THE US BASES IN IRAQ
Last Friday morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, turned its eagle-eyed attention to a proposed agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments. This which would provide a mandate for the continued presence of the American military, replacing the current UN-sanctioned mandate which expires at the end of 2008.
What ensued was a propaganda piece which not verged on falsehood but sprinted over the line. Correspondent Jim Muir, evaluating the situation from deep inside the Green Zone, assured listeners that the "Status of Forces" agreement was essential to prevent Iraq from falling into disorder. A platform was then offered to retired General Jack Keane, the man "behind the surge strategy in Iraq", to lay down the law, so to speak.
Any Iraqi opposition, Keane assured, was due to the "hubris" of the apparent Iraqi success in establishing control of areas such as Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi security forces still were in need of American support. (Thus, as the expertise of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show has long noted, the perfect argument: If there is instability in Iraq, we need to put in more American forces; if there is some sign of stability, we need to keep those forces there.)
Having put America's supposed ally in its place, Keane could then add that there was no provision in the agreement --- none whatsoever --- for the US to carry out aerial operations without the authorisation of the Iraqi Government. No provision, none whatsoever, for the exemption of American military forces from Iraqi law.
The only problem is that Keane was blatantly lying. And the BBC, had it had the integrity that it claimed in its report, could easily have called up the evidence to show he was lying.
They could have done so because, the day before their report, Patrick Cockburn of the Independent had spectacularly exposed the provisions of the agreement. The US Government is seeking an indefinite right to use more than 50 bases throughout Iraq. And (take note, General Keane) "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".
(Cockburn had a bit more the following day. Far from this being a free-and-fair negotiation, the US Government was threatening a "freeze" on $50 billion of Iraqi assets in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The funds are linked to $20 billion in outstanding court judgements in the US against the Iraqi Government. Currently the US Government has kept them "immune" from seizure, but they are threatening to revoke this immunity if there is a hitch in the negotations over the Status of Forces Agreement.)
All credit to Cockburn for pulling this together, but this is far from a new story. The negotiation has been going on for months and, as was discussed during the most recent Petraeus-Crocker show before the US Congress, the Bush Administration is avoiding any reference to the agreement as a "treaty" to avoid putting it up for Congressional approval.
The story has taken on new impetus, however, not just because of the 31 July deadline set for its completion but because of the growing opposition --- private and public --- in Iraq. Unnoticed by most media outlets in the US and Britain, thousands of Iraqis have been taking to the street in demonstrations. Leading clerics in Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani and Grand Ayatollah Mudaressi, have not only objected but warned of "a popular uprising". The issue may lay behind a serious split in the Iraqi Government, with former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari being expelled from current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.
And, in the latest development, the Status of Forces Agreement now appears to be playing into the hands of Iran. Only last month, the US Government spin was that Iraqi officials were travelling to Tehran to chastise the Iranians for providing weapons to insurgents. Well, Prime Minister al-Maliki was in Iran last week and --- guess what? --- Iranian duplicity wasn't the Number One item on his agenda.
Instead, al-Maliki is all but pleading with the Iranians to lift their opposition to the agreement, assuring Tehran that “we will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors”. Significantly, according to reports of the talks, the Iraqi delegation was discussing with Iranian counterparts increased cooperation on issues such as border control and intelligence.
The SOFA episode is the ultimate demonstration, as the Bush Administration approaches its end, of the "hubris" not of Iraqi but American over-confidence. To the end, the US is trying to play a military hand in the belief that the presence of its equipment and troops assures power (not to the Iraqis, I hasten to add, but to Washington). The game, however, is now more political than military. As Iraqi support --- on the street, amongst the clerics, and within political factions --- erodes for the purported US "cooperation", American force is now a bystander. A far-from-powerless bystander, to be sure, but still a bystander as the "new Iraq" emerges in a complex local and regional environment that can no longer be organised by agreements despatched from Washington.
WHEN IS PERMANENT NOT PERMANENT? THE US BASES IN IRAQ
Last Friday morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, turned its eagle-eyed attention to a proposed agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments. This which would provide a mandate for the continued presence of the American military, replacing the current UN-sanctioned mandate which expires at the end of 2008.
What ensued was a propaganda piece which not verged on falsehood but sprinted over the line. Correspondent Jim Muir, evaluating the situation from deep inside the Green Zone, assured listeners that the "Status of Forces" agreement was essential to prevent Iraq from falling into disorder. A platform was then offered to retired General Jack Keane, the man "behind the surge strategy in Iraq", to lay down the law, so to speak.
Any Iraqi opposition, Keane assured, was due to the "hubris" of the apparent Iraqi success in establishing control of areas such as Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi security forces still were in need of American support. (Thus, as the expertise of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show has long noted, the perfect argument: If there is instability in Iraq, we need to put in more American forces; if there is some sign of stability, we need to keep those forces there.)
Having put America's supposed ally in its place, Keane could then add that there was no provision in the agreement --- none whatsoever --- for the US to carry out aerial operations without the authorisation of the Iraqi Government. No provision, none whatsoever, for the exemption of American military forces from Iraqi law.
The only problem is that Keane was blatantly lying. And the BBC, had it had the integrity that it claimed in its report, could easily have called up the evidence to show he was lying.
They could have done so because, the day before their report, Patrick Cockburn of the Independent had spectacularly exposed the provisions of the agreement. The US Government is seeking an indefinite right to use more than 50 bases throughout Iraq. And (take note, General Keane) "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".
(Cockburn had a bit more the following day. Far from this being a free-and-fair negotiation, the US Government was threatening a "freeze" on $50 billion of Iraqi assets in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The funds are linked to $20 billion in outstanding court judgements in the US against the Iraqi Government. Currently the US Government has kept them "immune" from seizure, but they are threatening to revoke this immunity if there is a hitch in the negotations over the Status of Forces Agreement.)
All credit to Cockburn for pulling this together, but this is far from a new story. The negotiation has been going on for months and, as was discussed during the most recent Petraeus-Crocker show before the US Congress, the Bush Administration is avoiding any reference to the agreement as a "treaty" to avoid putting it up for Congressional approval.
The story has taken on new impetus, however, not just because of the 31 July deadline set for its completion but because of the growing opposition --- private and public --- in Iraq. Unnoticed by most media outlets in the US and Britain, thousands of Iraqis have been taking to the street in demonstrations. Leading clerics in Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani and Grand Ayatollah Mudaressi, have not only objected but warned of "a popular uprising". The issue may lay behind a serious split in the Iraqi Government, with former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari being expelled from current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.
And, in the latest development, the Status of Forces Agreement now appears to be playing into the hands of Iran. Only last month, the US Government spin was that Iraqi officials were travelling to Tehran to chastise the Iranians for providing weapons to insurgents. Well, Prime Minister al-Maliki was in Iran last week and --- guess what? --- Iranian duplicity wasn't the Number One item on his agenda.
Instead, al-Maliki is all but pleading with the Iranians to lift their opposition to the agreement, assuring Tehran that “we will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors”. Significantly, according to reports of the talks, the Iraqi delegation was discussing with Iranian counterparts increased cooperation on issues such as border control and intelligence.
The SOFA episode is the ultimate demonstration, as the Bush Administration approaches its end, of the "hubris" not of Iraqi but American over-confidence. To the end, the US is trying to play a military hand in the belief that the presence of its equipment and troops assures power (not to the Iraqis, I hasten to add, but to Washington). The game, however, is now more political than military. As Iraqi support --- on the street, amongst the clerics, and within political factions --- erodes for the purported US "cooperation", American force is now a bystander. A far-from-powerless bystander, to be sure, but still a bystander as the "new Iraq" emerges in a complex local and regional environment that can no longer be organised by agreements despatched from Washington.