Not sure I believe it, not sure I don’t:
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.
I’ve long believed that the war in Iraq was rooted in ulterior motives. Motives that could be as straightforward as regional stabilization or as complex as evangelical zionism. I don’t claim to know what the motives really are, but I do believe they are long-term in nature. Iraq, in my opinion, can never be a functional Western-style democracy unless we keep a heavy presence there. Orthodox Islam is too rooted in the unification of mosque and state to allow it, and there are many orthodox Muslims in the country.
Ergo, for Iraq to be what we want it to be, we have to stay. It will be interesting to see if this story develops, or if its just another piece of propaganda in the information war.
I didn’t have to read beyond the first paragraph that this would be overstated, and not just because it’s “The Independent” or the writer’s name is “Cockburn” (or to translate into American, this is the “Village Voice” and the writer’s name is “Blumenthal”).
What could it possible mean to “perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.”
There is no discussion in the Independent article on whether this “Thing” in the works is an “agreement” or a “treaty.” That might sound like a distinction without a difference, but it’s an enormous one under US law and precedent — the former probably doesn’t require Senate ratification, the latter certainly does. There’s debate over what constitutes an agreement’s “agreementness” and a treaty’s “treatiness,” but it’s almost certainly the case that if a Thing’s provisions impose an obligation on the US under international law (rather than provide an option to do something itself), then it’s a treaty.
To cite precedents, the Status of Forces Agreements the US has with NATO, Japan and South Korea did not go before the Senate for approval, so a SOFA with Iraq probably wouldn’t either. But in all three cases there was an existing context of an overall security treaty which DID face such a vote. The Independent article curiously mentions none of this and doesn’t state whether the deal, e.g., would require the US to come to Iraq’s aid if invaded, as most security treaties that provide for foreign forces do. It’s all about the US would retain the right to do this, that and the other (because the Prime Mover US is all that little rag cares about).
CASH VALUE for the ridiculous claim of “perpetuate indefinitely, regardless of November” …
If it were a formal treaty that WOULD be theoretically binding on a new administration, it could only be so if ratified by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Imagine that happening between now and Jan. 20, 2009? Dawkins’s “flying spaghetti monster” is more imaginable.
But if it were simply an executive-signed basing agreement that didn’t go before the Senate, similar to the UN deals that have been negotiated over the past couple of years since the Provisional Authority was dissolved, then it could no more bind a President Obama, a President McCain or a President Mickey Mouse. No more than those abortion-related executive orders that keep getting reversed in the first week of each party shift in the White House. (And the Iraqis would be foolish to agree to such for that very reason. If they’re gonna stick their necks out, they will insist on something binding; otherwise, they can and should kick the can down to January 20 and take it from there.)
Another consideration: Even if it were a formal treaty, both every treaty specifically and international law generally have some sort of dispensation provision, that is, stated terms on which a party can repudiate a treaty. And ultimately, in the international state of nature, no treaty is truly binding upon a sovereign convinced that repudiating a treaty dramatically serves its interests. And if a President Obama were the sovereign …