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

Status of Forces Agreement will Decide Whether Iraq is Independent or "a Client State of the US"

By Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!. Posted June 16, 2008.


Veteran reporter Patrick Cockburn broke the story of Bush's secret Iraq plan. He explains its terrible implications for Iraqi sovereignty.
Advertisement

Juan Gonzales: Following outcry by Iraqi lawmakers, the Bush administration is now offering limited concessions in its demands for a long-term "status of forces" agreement between Iraq and the United States.

The deal sought by the Bush administration, details of which were leaked to the press, were seen as a way of extending the U.S. occupation of Iraq indefinitely. The demands included maintaining 58 permanent military bases in Iraq, immunity for American troops and contractors, a free hand to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval, and control of Iraqi airspace. According to the London Independent, the U.S. is now lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors.

The negotiations are being held before the UN mandate authorizing the U.S. occupation expires at the end of the year. The Independent of London (recently) reported the U.S. is leveraging tens of billions of dollars in seized Iraqi assets to push through its demands.

Amy Goodman: British journalist Patrick Cockburn broke this story. He is the Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and has reported from Iraq for many years now. He is the author of several books, including The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq. His latest is called Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival and the Struggle for Iraq. Patrick Cockburn joins us now from Washington, D.C.

Welcome to this country, Patrick.

Patrick Cockburn: Thank you very much.

Amy Goodman: Can you lay out for us exactly what the deal is and how you uncovered it?

Patrick Cockburn: Well, this is an extraordinary, important development in Iraq. It really will determine whether Iraq is an independent country or not. Or will it be a client state of the U.S.?

As you reported, the U.S. negotiators were demanding initially 58 bases. They're not calling them permanent bases, though that's exactly what they are. The bases might have, let's say, an Iraqi soldier outside and a single strand of barbed wire, in which case the Iraqis will supposedly be in charge of their defense, so it won't be an American base. But everybody knows that it is.

Then there's the question of immunity for American soldiers and Iraqi contractors, i.e. they won't come under Iraqi law. And the U.S. will also control airspace and have various other rights.

Now, although Ryan Crocker and President Bush are saying Iraq under this new agreement will once again be a sovereign nation, most of the rights we associate with a sovereign nation will be in the possession of the U.S.

Juan Gonzalez: And in terms of the reaction in Iraq among the various forces there, as news of this has begun to dribble out?

Patrick Cockburn: There's been an explosive reaction, because this is a deeply divisive demand by the U.S. There will be some Iraqis who will be willing to accept it, mainly maybe the Kurds. There will be others in the government who will do it. But there will be many other Iraqis, almost certainly a majority, who will see this agreement as showing that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the U.S. It will delegitimize it. It will lay the basis for a further deepening of the war in Iraq. So it's an extraordinary -- you know, Iraq is full of spurious invented turning points, but this really is a turning point for Iraq.

Juan Gonzalez: Now, your article suggests that Prime Minister al-Maliki himself is opposed to major parts of this proposal?

Patrick Cockburn: Yes, I mean, he's -- mostly can see the downside for himself, that this is going to go down real badly with a lot of Iraqis, including people in his own majority Shia community and including people in the coalition of parties which make up his own government. And one of the senior members of his own party was saying the Americans have asked for immunity for everybody and everything, apart from the dogs they bring to Iraq. So this is not very good news for him.

But on the same time, he and his government feel at the end of the day they depend on the U.S., and they're under very intense personal pressure from President Bush and Dick Cheney's office, according to Iraqi officials I've spoken to, and it will be difficult for them to stop this happening. And they've been given a deadline of the 31st of July.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iraq war, democracy now, amy goodman, iraq occupation, muqtada al-sadr, permanent bases, ryan crocker, george w bush, juan gonzalez, federal reserve bank of n, patrick cockburn

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:
Client State
Posted by: Dboy on Jun 16, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, so I'm starting to understand some of this New Speak..it's much easier when there are context clues. So France was a "client state" of Nazi Germany, and Kuwait was a "client state" of Iraq. It's all so clear now.

dboy

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

Broke a story, or told a story?
Posted by: AHumanMind on Jun 16, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What substance is there in this "story"?

Example:
"They're not calling them permanent bases, though that's exactly what they are."

Ridiculous--if they aren't contracted to be permanent, there's no basis for claiming that they are "exactly" permanent.

Example:
"The bases might have, let's say, an Iraqi soldier outside and a single strand of barbed wire, in which case the Iraqis will supposedly be in charge of their defense, so it won't be an American base. But everybody knows that it is."

This is complete imagination, where the authority is "everybody knows". Who is "everybody"?

I hope readers will be not be eager to take this "story" seriously.

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

Me Ranting
Posted by: meranting on Jun 19, 2008 2:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to be bald soon considering how often I have to tear my hair out over the BS the American people are fed.

Where to start? Iraq not a client of the US? Next they're going to say Cuba has no ties to communism, and that Iranian rockets can reach the US- oh damn they already said that didn't they. I digress

read more of my rants here.

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