From the Iraq Archives: When is Permanent not Permanent? (21 June 2008)

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.

Iraq: Showdown Averted?

Iraq-watchers can take a deep breath, at least for a few days. It looks like the al-Maliki Government has avoided an immediate crisis through a bit of manoeuvring, a bit of luck, and a bit of a climbdown.


First, the manoeuvring and the luck. The Iraqi Parliament didn't push the Government to the wall over the extension agreement setting a date of 31 May 2009 for the withdrawal of troops from Britain and five other countries. Having voted the initial agreement down on the weekend and then postponed a vote on Monday, the Parliament accepted that the withdrawal could be set by a Government resolution.

Members made their point that al-Malilki couldn't just railroad his proposals through. The luck for the Government came in the thank-you gift they could offer to Shia'a and Kurdish Parliamentarians: the departure of the Sunni Speaker of Parliament, Mahmud al-Mashhadani.

The Speaker was on shaky ground with his flamboyant, unpredictable behaviour, including repeated threats to resign. Last week, however, he went too far, trying to cut off discussion of the case of shoe-thrower Mantazer al-Zaidi and calling his colleagues "the worst Parliament in the world".

So, for the moment, the Government and Parliament each can claim maintenance of some authority, an uneasy but essential compromise in the run-up to elections.

Now for the Government climb-down. The 24 Interior Ministry officials arrested last week on allegations of developing a post-Baathist political party have now been bailed on lesser charges of preparing false documents.

The episode has turned into a struggle between al-Maliki and Co. and the Minister of the Interior, Javad al-Bulani, an "independent" (in both party affiliation and approach) Shi'a politician. If the arrests were political score-settling, al-Bulani's public position, the outcry from other parties, and American concern all clipped the Prime Minister's wings.

And now? Well, one might suggest a few days of uneasy truces all round.

Those few days may be turn out to be exactly one week, however. That's when Muntazar al-Zaidi comes to trial --- if he does not plead guilty, letting al-Maliki off the political hook, then the manoeuvres will start anew.

Update on Muntazar al-Zaidi: I Will Not Apologise

Al Jazeera has the only significant update this morning, reporting on a meeting between Muntazar al-Zaidi and his lawyer, Dhiya'a al-Sa'adi. Al-Sa'adi, clarifying the alleged letter sent by al-Zaidi to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, makes clear that al-Zaidi has no wish to apologise to George Bush:

Muntazer al-Zaidi considers what he did when he threw his shoes at President Bush as exercising his freedom of expression, in opposing and rejecting the occupation, which has brought misery to Iraq.

Al-Sa'adi continued:

His actions were solely targeted at President Bush to tell him that he rejects the occupation and all that it stands for in Iraq, in particular, in light of the inhumane way that Iraqi prisoners have been treated by the American forces.

Al-Sa'adi also confirmed the reports from al-Zaidi's brothers that the journalist had been badly beaten:

There are visible signs of torture on his body, as a result of being beaten by metal instruments.

Medical reports have shown that the beating he was subjected to has led to him losing one of his teeth as well as injuries to his jaw and ears.

He has internal bleeding in his left eye, as well as bruises over his face and stomach. Almost none of his body was spared.

Update: Al-Maliki Showdown with Parliament over Troop Withdrawal?

Here is CNN's headline, which is misleading and misses the point, "Iraqi Lawmakers Reach Deal on Non-U.S. Troops".

What has happened is potentially more dramatic. "Main political parties" have agreed on a way to bypass Saturday's Parliamentary rejection of an agreement under which troops from six countries, including Britain, would withdraw by 31 May 2009. This would come through "a resolution that would empower the Cabinet to authorize international troop presence without requiring Parliament to pass a law".



In other words, Parliament is being asked to withdraw itself from the matter, allowing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to push through the agreement before the current UN mandate for military presence expires on 31 December. Of course, Parliamentarians may bow to the will of the "main parties" --- which I presume include Daw'a and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Then again, members may choose to make a stand, as they initially did with the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States.

If they do, it means British troops will be confined to their bases as of 1 January 2009. Far more importantly, there will be a political crisis in advance of provincial elections next year.

Update on Muntazar al-Zaidi: Brother Confirms "Torture"

The Iraqi Government's blocking of any news of Muntazar al-Zaidi's status, as politics turns to other issues such as the showdown over the status of the troops from Britain and five other countries, is almost complete today --- at least in the "Western" media.

The only story of significance is in The New York Times, reporting on the first visit to al-Zaidi by a family member. Speaking on al-Baghdadia television after the visit, al-Zaidi's brother Uday claimed that his brother had been "tortured". Muntazar al-Zaidi was stripped to his underwear, had cold water dumped on him, and was hit with a thick cable. Earlier beatings and burnings by cigarettes had left him with "bruises on his face, stitches on the bridge of his nose and swelling in his legs, arms and hands".

After the treatment, Muntazar al-Zaidi "told [his captors] to bring me a blank sheet of paper and I would sign it, and they could write whatever they wanted. I am ready to say I am a terrorist or whatever you want.” He added, however, that he did not write or sign anything as a result of the beatings and that his letter to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had not been coerced.

Significantly, the Times did not bother to follow up on the Al Baghdadia interview, for example, by noting the reports in Sunday's The Observer of Muntazar al-Zaidi's beating on his way to the police station. The reporter did call al-Maliki's office who --- unsurprisingly --- declined to make any comment.

Disturbingly, al-Zaidi has not been allowed to see lawyers. There is no information on when he might come to trial.