"Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control"

[Begbie]

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. 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.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

The Independent

There has been talks of a deal like this for a while now. It definetly goes hand to hand with the presidential signing statement this January where president Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

This is the particular section that interests me the most.

SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN
PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.
No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appro-
priations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose
as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United
States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources
of Iraq.

The most bottom one: January 2008
List of All Presidential Signing Statements 2001-2008

Boston globe article on the signing statement:
Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act - The Boston Globe

Now If the deal were to happen, what do you think the consequences would be in Iraq, in the region and in the United States?

[spacemanc]

As Princess leah said " The more you tighten your grip, the more muslim countries will slip through your fingers " - I think she said that anyway

[Defiyur]

"The Iraqi people" (as bush calls them) are becoming free-er everyday! Look up Iraq oil law as well! I really can't even talk about it anymore without getting nauseous....

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Well perhaps you should hold off on the anti-emetics until you see more proof than one sensational article.
Besides, the Big O can just fix it when he is coronated.

[[R-CON]Wolfe]

First, Iraq's government nor military is anywhere near ready to protect itself from itself or outside sources therefore a US military presence is mandatory until that's the case.

Second, any plans between US and Iraq SHOULD remain secret; you don't want to broadcast your plan to those who wish to destroy it.

Third, foreign long-term US bases are nothing new. As a matter of public record, the Pentagon currently owns or rents over 700+ overseas bases in 130+ countries. Iraq is being added to the list. No secret there.

[agentscar]

The only thing I see wrong with this,is the immunity from Iraq Laws...And,I don't think 50 permanant bases are needed,more like 30-35...

[[R-CON]Mescaldrav]

I see everything wrong with it.......

I'm sorry to fan the flames here but even 30 bases is just occupation with a different name. I too cant really even type without feeling a bit sick. Coalition invades on a false premise, conveniently sets up all the regeneration using its own businesses, and now is trying to set up a "strategic alliance" so it can stay to monitor its new found assets.
Where is the plus side for the Iraqis in this alliance??

Put it this way. If Russia invaded America to rid the world of George Bush, and were still running the country 5 years later, would you be happy about it??

[agentscar]

The plus side for the Iraqi's are their new government,protection,U.S. money to re-biuld their country,and even more U.S money training their troops,and giving supplies such as food,toys and etc. to the people...

30-35 military bases,for a WHOLE country really isn't too many...At least 15-18 bases in Iraq is my opinion. 30-35 bases AT THE MOST...

AND,That situation with the Russia thing,makes no sense really.We'd never let them take our country,and they have no proper reason to invade,but NO,I wouldn't be happy with that..But we're not running Iraq,the Iraqi's are,we're just there giuding them to develop,and giving them military assistance and etc.

[Viper5]

Originally Posted by Mescaldrav

I see everything wrong with it.......

I'm sorry to fan the flames here but even 30 bases is just occupation with a different name. I too cant really even type without feeling a bit sick. Coalition invades on a false premise, conveniently sets up all the regeneration using its own businesses, and now is trying to set up a "strategic alliance" so it can stay to monitor its new found assets.
Where is the plus side for the Iraqis in this alliance??

Put it this way. If Russia invaded America to rid the world of George Bush, and were still running the country 5 years later, would you be happy about it??

I can find a few plus sides.

Removal of a tyrannic dictator
A chance at democracy
Money to improve the country

WRT Russia, If it was my best chance of not getting blown to bits, I'd have no problem with my friends from across the lake still being there in 5 years. Especially if my government was as useless as that of Iraq's atm. Granted, comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein is mildly, ermm, wrong.

TBH, the bases shouldnt surprise anyone. We have bases in every corner of the world. Not too many Europeans had a problem with US bases during the Cold War if I recall.

[agentscar]

Yea...The U.S. is alwayz there to help a friend,lol.

("lean on me" hits the speakers,countries all dance,lol)