Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Leaked Draft Agreement Reveals Iraq End-game: Indefinite Occupation

By Kevin Tillman, AlterNet. Posted April 8, 2008.


Not that it should come as a surprise.

George W. Bush and Nouri al-Maliki want to sign a long-term security treaty. Both are executives of countries with Constitutions that require treaties to be ratified by their respective legislatures, and both know that ratification doesn't stand a snow-ball's chance in Hell of happening.

So, in true American democratic style, they've taken to calling what any reasonable person would consider a long-term security treaty a "co-operation agreement," saying that it's the equivalent of the kind of non-binding "status of forces" deals the U.S. has with hundreds of countries around the world. As such, the two leaders argue, the legislature has no say in the matter. If all this sounds familiar, it should.

Now, the Guardian has gotten a hold of a leaked draft of the deal, and we can see the endgame taking shape.

The Guardian's Seumas Milne:

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, cooperation agreement, bush, maliki

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
where's the Odom article?
Posted by: Ripcord on Apr 8, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday Alternet post an article by General Odom which advocated withdrawal from Iraq
(of course, today General Paetrus will testify that we should stay in Iraq)

Today the Odom article has disappeared.

I recall a similar disappearance when an article by the top ex-JAGs advocated against torture and the next day that article disappeared, too.

How does this happen?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Misson Accomplished" time again?
Posted by: Babygoat on Apr 8, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first clue was the gigantic embassy, how many $$$$'s did that cost, how many deaths, injuries, displaed persons, destructon of property, and laws broken, Constitutions suspended and rights tramped on? So much waste-so little humanity! The cost in lives, money and national security coulda/shoulda been used for alternative
energy funding, food, medication and human resources. A suggestion is to use the embassy to house Iraqi refugees returning to their country as we leave.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress has a say on Everything, it's called Funding
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Apr 8, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This notion that Congress won't have a say is BS. Congress has to fund everything that our tax dollars and debt is spent on.

The President cannot keep our military in Iraq with this agreement if Congress refuses to fund it.

Unfortunately our Congressional representatives have no balls and are more worried about being good toadies for the party leadership and moving up in its ranks than doing the right thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this the deal
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 8, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Obama was referring to last week when he said he wouldn't be beholden to it?

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all we have to do now is
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Apr 8, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
find some spines for the democrats. they have cowered so many times I don't believe any more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Spines?" "Balls"?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Apr 8, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of us aren't paying attention. 80% of Democrats support a quick end to the war.

So what are these Democratic Congresscritters "afraid" of? It sure as hell isn't their own constituents. Are they "afraid" of the Rove slander machine? Rove's gone. "Afraid" of the Administration? 3 words: 20% approval ratings. Scary, huh?

Smell the coffee, folks: there's nothing left to be "afraid" of. And they show lots of "balls" when it comes to standing up to their own constituents - although sometimes it helps when you go to their public events and yell at them. DeFazio moved when we did that. Sort of fun, too.

Ergo: THEY AREN'T AFRAID. They SUPPORT THE WAR. Maybe they're just corrupt, maybe they're really Republicans: whatever. But they aren't afraid, and it's time to face up to that and stop making excuses for them. They're inexcusable, and we might as well say so. That's why their approval ratings are even lower than Bush's.

What you need is someone else to vote for, and the Greens are working on that. You can help us out, or you can just whine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Spines?" "Balls"? Posted by: Patralink
» RE: "Spines?" "Balls"? Posted by: jetscientist
Did you expect something else from the progeny of Columbus the barbarian?
Posted by: PakiBoy on Apr 8, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is how Europe and her illegitimate spawn USA have become rich over the last 500 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Karma
Posted by: backyardbbq on Apr 8, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only have this to say…karma. They won't get away with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And because Bush says it's not a treaty...
Posted by: Quannah on Apr 8, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Senate doesn't have to ratify it. Congress better not let them get away with this... it's clearly unconstitutional.

Article II, Section 2, to be precise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Oregoncharles-see above
Posted by: blackie4aces on Apr 8, 2008 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A majority of Congress voted for the war authorization for a President they had to know would immediately use it. Congress could have ended this war two years ago had they wanted to. This shit is all about "oil." Anyone who does not see that is hopelessly naive. Throw in Milton Friedman's brand of wild west free market capitalism-i.e., a chance to steal everything in Iraq of any value whatsoever-and you understand completely what this totally illegal and immoral invasion was for. To leave after the expenditure of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and come away with nothing is utterly out of the question.

When McCain talks about being there for a hundred years he is not in the least bit kidding, though he is probably wrong. The actual plan is to be there as long as the oil holds out, and that definitely will not be for a hundred years. Fifty, maybe.

Clinton, who owes everything to many of the corporate interests that have been raping or plan to rape what is left of that moribund country, will not pull out of Iraq. Quite frankly, the impression she is giving during her campaign is more than disingenuous; it is as close to being a bald-faced lie as a lie can be without being explicitly falsely stated. Since she hasn't had a whole lot of problems with the bald-faced ones, this particular mendacity must be a piece of cake.

The energy situation is very, very grave. America without virtually unlimited access to petroleum is a different place overnight. The American nation's current quality of life is based on oil and debt. The mega wealthy-who very much wish to stay that way-understand this. Politicians ultimately represent them, not us regular folks, although very few regular folks would be real happy if our oil based economy suddenly tanked-virtually disappeared. This fact gives the ruling class some confidence that they can manufacture cover if need be.

There were other ways to accomplish the goals of a continuing flow of energy supplies, at least as a stop-gap measure while an effort on a grand scale was launched to develop alternatives, but theft is so much more profitable than negotiation. And there would be intense competition for the dwindling reserves with other rapidly developing nations. Despite all their blather about the Darwinian benefits of competition, the Free Marketers don't really like competiion for themselves. That's for us. Ask Haliburton and their cohort corporate interests who went to Iraq with no-bid cost-plus (guaranteed profits) contracts in their pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oregoncharles-see above Posted by: Patralink