Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

**Some key quotes:
**

**--------------------------------------
**

**Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases **

   President offers concessions after furious reaction in Baghdad to American 'colonialism'


              By Leonard Doyle in Washington
        Thursday, 12 June 2008

Faced with Iraqi anger over a US plan to enable Washington to keep military forces in the country indefinitely, George Bush is offering concessions to the government of Nouri al-Maliki in an effort to salvage an agreement, it emerged yesterday.

                               The proposed terms of the impending deal, which were first revealed in The Independent, have had a predictably explosive political effect inside Iraq.

Negotiations between Washington and Baghdad grew fraught, with Iraqi politicians denouncing US demands to maintain a permanent grip on the country through the establishment of permanent military bases.

Officials complained that the plan which allows US troops to occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, would turn Iraq into a colony of the US, and create the conditions for unending conflict both in Iraq and the Middle East.

With Washington’s Iraqi allies rising up in revolt against the plans, Mr Bush ordered a negotiating shift this weekend after speaking to Mr Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister. “Now the American position is much more positive and more flexible than before,” a leading Iraqi negotiator in the talks was quoted as saying.

Senior Iraqi officials want a major reduction of the US military footprint in Iraq as soon as the UN Security Council mandate approving their presence expires at the end of the year. Iraqi officials also want US forces confined to barracks unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance. Emboldened by recent successes by Iraqi security forces, many officials want the US troops to leave altogether.
President Bush, who is on a farewell tour of Europe, wants a new agreement sealed by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory in Iraq and say his 2003 invasion has been vindicated before he leaves office.

But any long-term settlement to maintain US forces in Iraq would cut the ground from under the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, who has promised to withdraw US troops if he is elected in November.
The Bush administration says a new agreement is needed to ensure stability in Iraq, as without one or an extended UN mandate, there would be no legal basis for US forces to remain.

The growing Iraqi anger with the proposal was front-page news in the US yesterday. Sami al-Askari, a senior Shia politician close to Mr Maliki told The Washington Post: “The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonisation of Iraq … If we can’t reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, ‘Goodbye, US troops. We don’t need you here any more.’”

The Democrat-controlled Congress is also uneasy about President Bush’s attempt to impose a colonial-style mandate on Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans have questioned Mr Bush’s assertion that he does not require congressional approval for the proposed agreement.

The argument is focused on negotiations on a status of forces agreement defining the legal rights and responsibilities of US forces. As framed, it gives the US military free reign to operate in the country. There is also proposed “security framework” covering the relationship between the US and Iraq.

Momentum is also growing within the Maliki administration for the US to leave altogether. Mr Maliki was in Iran this week where the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him not to sign up to any long-term security deals with Washington.

The agreement is being negotiated by David Satterfield, the US State Department’s top adviser on Iraq, who still maintains it can be initialled by a July deadline which Mr Bush set last year last year. “It’s doable,” he told reporters in Baghdad. “We think it’s an achievable goal.”

At a news conference, Mr Satterfield kept repeating that the US wants only to create a more independent Iraq. “We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened,” he said.

But Iraqis say that US demands for long-term military bases in the country even if the numbers are reduced, give the lie to that assertion.

US negotiatiors are also determined to maintain policies that allow them to arrest Iraqis without the approval of Iraqi courts, maintaining immunity for US troops and contractors from Iraqi prosecution and carrying out military operations without the Iraqi government’s knowledge or approval.

Washington also wants to retain control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, which has raised concerns that President Bush wants to have the option of using Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

I think its great that Iraqi leaders are fighting for thier true independence and are not falling for the old… ‘we need to stay permanently to protect you, and we also want nick your oil at the same time’.. trick. I think its time to teach this old dog some new tricks…

2

Re: Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases

Talks on US-Iraq pact at ‘dead end’

Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, says talks with the US on a new long-term security pact have reached a "dead end

The US and Iraq are negotiating a new agreement to provide a legal basis for US troops to stay in Iraq after December 31, when their UN mandate expires.

They are also negotiating a long-term strategic framework agreement on political, diplomatic, economic, security and cultural ties.

''We have reached a dead end, because when we started the talks, we found that the US demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept," al-Maliki said during a visit to Jordan on Friday.

3

Re: Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases

On what terms are the u.s. bases staying in Japan, South Korea, etc..? Are they universal terms that U.S. carries, or do they change accordingly?

Also, i think it's the beginning of the a quagmire in my view because the friction between Iraqi Govt. and U.S. Govt has just started to grow, it's anyone's guess how far it'll go. We can only hope for the best.

I just hope U.S. troops can return home, and Iraq can start to rebuild itself (better than before).

4

Re: Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases

I just hope U.S. troops can return home, and Iraq can start to rebuild itself (better than before).

maybe u.s. troops want to go home but bush do not let them home.

5

The current pact being pushed on Iraq is similar to the 1930 treaty Iraq had with Britain:

Another bad deal for Baghdad
By Karl E. Meyer

Tuesday, June 17, 2008
With only perfunctory debate, the Bush administration is pressuring a divided Iraqi government to approve a security agreement that could haunt Washington’s relations with Baghdad for years to come.
The “strategic alliance” that President Bush is proposing eerily resembles, in spirit and in letter, a failed 1930 treaty between Britain and Iraq that prompted a nationalist eruption in Baghdad, a pro-Nazi military coup and a pogrom that foreshadowed the elimination of Baghdad’s ancient Jewish community.
The outline of the deal, which has not been made public, has been described by a high-level Iraqi insider, Ali A. Allawi, a moderate Shiite who was a post-invasion finance minister.
Writing this month in The Independent of London, Allawi noted a disturbing parallel between the proposed alliance between the United States and Iraq and the earlier treaty that formally ended Iraq’s post-World War I status as a British mandate.
“The treaty gave Britain military and economic privileges in exchange for Britain’s promise to end the mandate over the country,” Allawi wrote.
“The treaty was ratified by a docile Iraqi Parliament but was bitterly resented by nationalists. Iraq’s dependency on Britain poisoned Iraqi politics for the next quarter-century. Riots, civil disturbances, uprisings and coups were all features of Iraq’s political landscape, prompted in no small measure by the bitter disputations over the treaty with Britain.”
Under the 1930 pact, Iraq had to consult Britain on security issues and allow it the use of Iraqi airports, ports, railways and rivers. Two major military bases were leased to the British, who were empowered to station their forces throughout Iraq. British personnel were granted immunity from local prosecution.
Almost 80 years later, the Bush administration seeks a startlingly similar arrangement. While not formally a treaty (having been carefully crafted to avoid the requirement of Senate ratification), the wide-ranging pact that the United States proposes nearly replicates the 1930 accord.
According to press reports based on leaks from the Iraqi Parliament, the pact envisions giving the Americans rights to as many as 58 military bases and control of Iraqi airspace. It would grant immunity from Iraqi laws to American military personnel. And it would empower American officials to detain suspected terrorists without the approval of Iraqi authorities.
The agreement, which Washington is pushing Baghdad to sign by July 31, would replace the UN mandate that now authorizes the American occupation.
Iraq would be freed from Security Council sanctions and would benefit from continued American military and economic aid. Iraq could also receive as much as $50 billion in blocked assets, dating back to the first gulf war, that are now held by the United States.
The 1930 treaty was followed by Iraqi independence and then more than a score of coups, countercoups, massacres and rebellions. Many Iraqis objected to British collusion with the ruling Sunni elite, and protested the use of British warplanes to suppress tribal uprisings.
The legal immunity given to British forces generated even more resentment, a history detailed by Elie Kedourie, a British scholar born in Baghdad.
The nationalist uprising culminated in an Axis-backed putsch in April 1941, when Iraqi colonels exploited these grievances to seize power bloodlessly. Following the only pro-German coup in the wartime Middle East, British forces rushed to Baghdad to oust the leaders, who fled as Allied troops approached.
To preserve the fiction that Iraq’s liberation was indigenous, however, the British held back from crossing the Tigris and entering downtown Baghdad. That May, absent any occupying authority, two days of looting and rioting broke out as the capital’s Jews were celebrating the festival of Shavuot, while the British troops looked on. This pogrom, called the farhud, claimed hundreds of lives and presaged the wholesale destruction after 1948 of the largest and oldest Jewish community in the Arab Middle East.
After its 1930 treaty with Iraq, Britain proved unable to ensure order during the decade of nationalist tumult that followed. Rarely has the proverb about repeating history been more vividly signaled.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=13773315

6

Hopefully this time round, iraqi leadership will not let that happen. Bush is already back tracking on some issues, including no immunity for private contracters, lets hope us the troops arnt given immunity either.

teggy your right, this quagmire has only just begun. American didnt invade iraq for nothing, it wants something in return and one way or another, she will try and take it no matter what the costs.

The trouble is however, the iraqi leadership is (although time will tell) not as weak or fickel as most arabs regimes are, for the reason being, they have a strong leadership, and that leadership although not on the scene, is by no means ready to bow down to american sovereignty, not one bit.

Secondly, iraq has strong ties with its neighbour iran, politically, culturally, and historically. This relationship was strong enough to continue through the likes of saddams era, what makes anyone think it will dissappear now? Most likely it has and will become stronger.

So even if the goverment allies itself with america, most likely the people will not. Hence, Iraq as a base support to intimidate and attack iran is simply suicidal.

Although America likes to think she has authority in Iraq, in reality however, there is none. It is iraq's neighbours pulling the strings here, and it is they who contain the real power base. Its the same reason america called on for thier help during the war on 'terror' and is the same reason bush's 'all options on the table' threats are laughed at and simply dismissed by iran, because as far as they're concerned, that table has no legs to begin with.

So all in all it should be interesting to see where this deal is going, and how far the americans and iraqis can go together, before they turn on each other..

7

Re: Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases

Iraq is in a way foot-soldier for the Iranian regime. They do twist the American arm every now and then, and it is very apparent. Pressure tactics. I wonder what the breaking point of this stretch would be, and how it would end up from there on..

U.S. would like to keep reserve forces in Iraq, even if that means a limited number. But whether Iraqi regime will allow that, is not so clear. In my personal opinion, i don't think they will allow it, and if they do allow it under "favorable treaty conditions" it will not last very long. Just my opinion.

Frankly, i think it's a bit too late to dictate terms to Iraqis because they're pretty upset with the foreign presence for various reasons. Had U.S. gone in, toppled Hussain regime, and withdrawn and upon departure signed a treaty, it would have lasted much longer because back then U.S. still maintained majority of its credibility on the global scene. Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore.