Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Getting to the Bottom of the Deceptive, Secretive and Artificial Iraq-U.S. Negotiations

By Phyllis Bennis, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted October 27, 2008.


Whatever the U.S.-Iraqi "agreement" ends up looking like, it is unlikely to have much of an effect on the occupation.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Despite the recent surge of attention to the U.S.-Iraqi negotiations over an agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years into the future, the resulting agreement or lack of agreement is likely to have little actual impact on the occupation. The negotiations are being conducted by representatives of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- neither of whom actually want the U.S. troops to leave (Maliki's government would not likely survive the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and Bush remains committed to permanent U.S. control of Iraq, its oil, and its strategic location for U.S. military bases).

But both Bush and Maliki face political and electoral pressures to posture as if they do want a timetable for troop withdrawal. As a result, most of the negotiations seem to have focused less on substantive disagreements between the two sides, and more on finding language that disguises the reality of continued occupation and U.S. domination, with politically acceptable language extolling Iraqi sovereignty.

The negotiations are officially aimed at producing a bilateral agreement between the United States and the U.S. occupation-backed Iraqi government that would set the terms for how U.S. and "coalition" troops would continue to occupy and wage war in Iraq. The urgency surrounding the negotiations is based on the looming expiration of the current United Nations mandate for the so-called "multinational force" (diplo-speak for the U.S.-led occupation) on December 31, 2008. The goal is to create an agreement between Washington and Baghdad that would replace that mandate. Even the New York Times agrees that if there is no agreement in place after December 31st, and the Security Council has not extended the mandate, the U.S. troops occupying Iraq would have no legal basis for their presence; legally, they would have to be pulled back to their bases and quickly withdrawn from the country.

In fact, it's quite unlikely that any new bilateral agreement, or any extension of the UN mandate, will have any real impact on the fighting. The U.S. invaded Iraq illegally; it's unlikely that the government would end its occupation because of a technicality like acknowledged illegality. And those forces fighting against the U.S.-led occupation, both the resistance forces targeting the U.S. occupation alone and those extremists also committing terrorist acts against Iraqi civilians, are unlikely to stop fighting because of a new or renewed legal document; they are fighting against a hated foreign occupation, and will likely continue to do so regardless of diplomatic niceties.

It should be noted that so far the actual content of the agreement remains unclear. No version, either in Arabic or English, has been released, though Arabic drafts have been leaked, and informal English translations are all that are available. So, if the devil is in the details, the devil remains hidden.

Congress and Parliament

The agreement hasn't been submitted to Iraq's parliament, as its constitution requires, and has not been submitted to the Senate for ratification, as the U.S. Constitution requires. In fact, on the Iraqi side, even leaders of Maliki's own party have distanced themselves from the agreement, while other political leaders, most notably Shi'a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr (who called a Baghdad protest of tens of thousands last weekend) oppose it altogether. It appears that secular, nationalist, and Sunni forces remain largely skeptical. Iran opposes the agreement. Only the main Kurdish parties, Washington's closest allies, have apparently endorsed its terms. And most Iraqis, other than Maliki's supporters, are looking to better possibilities from a new post-Bush U.S. president.

The Bush administration has similarly refused to engage Congress, claiming that the agreement is "merely" an ordinary Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), similar to agreements the U.S. has with Germany or Japan. But of course there's no war being fought by U.S. troops in those countries. In Congress there is strong opposition to the agreement, but it's primarily focused on the exclusion of Congressional input and approval rather than the substance of the terms.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, oil, iraq war, iraq occupation, blackwater, mercenaries, george w. bush, military contractors, united nations, permanent bases, u.s. military, nouri al-maliki

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. She is the author of "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power" (Interlink Publishing, October 2005).

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

Advertisement
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:
Bill_Dixon
Posted by: Bill_Dixon on Oct 28, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coalition troops are already in Iraq illegally. The Security Council's overruling of Iraqi law has never been challenged, but it doesn't make it any more legal.

On 5 June 07 a law requiring parliamentary approval before renewing the UN mandate was passed by an 85-59 margin. The legislation was neither vetoed nor sent to the judiciary for review, so, according to the constitution, it was duly passed and became binding under Iraqi law. At the end of November, foreign minister Zebari was called to testify before parliament. He promised, unequivocally, that any request to extend the mandate "will not be presented to the UN Security Council prior to its submission to the Iraqi parliament for deliberation." Two weeks later, the majority nationalist group (Shiite, Sunni and secular leaders) sent a letter to the Security Council: "We reject in the strongest possible terms the unconditional renewal of the mandate and ask for clear mechanisms to obligate all foreign troops to completely withdraw from Iraq according to an announced timetable."

Last November the Security Council accepted the false US and British argument that the law was non-binding, but they would hardly do so again (or, I should say, get away with it).

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

» Not to mention that... Posted by: leafsong1
Not interested in being Big Brother - Call if You Need US
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 28, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same goes for th erest of the Middle east including Israel. and frankly we could get the hell out of European countries too. We have the Technology to get there Reasonably quickly if Needed. This is one area I am in somewhat agreemet with Ron Paul. There is No need for US to standing over these Countries shoulders, Play Bully to their detractors. It's ridiculous that a country with one of th eBest precision trained military and about 200 nukes Needs US to protect Them from a country which does NOT have Nukes.
I have faith the Israelis are quite capable of defending themselves from All Other countries in the Middle East..They Should We built it up for them and they've Kicked the shit out of others whether we helped or not.
We did Accomplish our Mission, Saddam is Out of power, Never to return....The rest is up to you folks to stake your claim, same as We had to. Independence is not something that is Granted, it is Seized! Carpe Diem Iraqis, otherwise you are back to where you started under the control of a Dominating Power.
Frankly I beleive they would have found peace much sooner if we hadn't been Clusterfucking the entire time.
Bush doesn't give a shit about their civil strife, he's there to get control of All the oil fields for his Bosses The Saudi's- apparently exactly what he was contracted to do when he Invaded!
If we truley want to help Iraq be an Independent Free standing democracy, then we should assure their opil fields remain under their control and ownership. However as such they have a bill they are Over due on to US. Hell we'll even cut them a discount since most the cost has been incurred because of McCains rectifying of the Powell Doctrine- Day late ashole, and about 10 billion short a month, and counting!
Then we need to take a lesson from this Fledgling Democracy and seize back our own energy resources. the Student teaching the Mentor.
Whether McCain is ignorant , arrogant or hell bent on destruction He has failed to remember WHO HE WORKS FOR! And that is why he'll Lose on Tuesday! If you Know how to fix all this shit you should have Spoke up sooner and DONE something to AVOID these numerous National Problems.
Know how to
Fix the Economy ..With Mr. Phil'Deregulator' Gramm behind You?
Find Bin Laden...Why haven't you shared your idea at least Petreaus?
Win in Iraq....with no clear cut goals AGAIN, No Benchmarks to grade progess
Get people back to Work....even though you've put a fork in manufacturing Jobs-'Not coming Back'
Bring people together..When you entire campaign has used only devisive tactics and Rhetoric
Re establish Friendships....when you're not sure you'd sit down with the pres of Spain!
Heal America...When your Senatorial tenure has done so much to Injury her (Big Banking,Big Oil,Trickle Down)
John McCain I have no idea Who YOU think you are but I know enough about you to NEVER speak well of you again.And I am Being Kind by refraining from additional comment.

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

Executive agreements
Posted by: leafsong1 on Oct 28, 2008 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without Congressional approval, isn't it true that any agreement signed by the Bush Regime would be an "executive agreement," and thus not binding on any future administration? If so, isn't it a trap to insist on congressional approval? When Bush relents and allows Congress to ratify the agreement, does anyone really expect this cowardly and corrupt group of politicians to refuse to ratify it?

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

Phony
Posted by: willymack on Oct 28, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bogus prezdint, false administration, phony "war". The only thing REAL here, is 4000+ American military personnel dead, and who knows how many Iraqis, Afghanis, and others dead, maimed, or left homeless and destitute? All this because of dirty lies spewed by traitors and war criminals. Why the hell aren't they on trial for their miserable lives?

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

Iraqi parliament should refuse to ratify the proposed agreement
Posted by: Garvagh on Oct 28, 2008 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the Financial Times that any agreement with Iraq should be left for the next administration. That said, I favor withdrawal of all US forces over the next year. No permanent US military bases should be kept.

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

God damn America
Posted by: pete ess on Oct 29, 2008 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, chaps, but this from a friend: God damn America. When the village bully over-reaches himself it's up to the rest of the neighbourhood to openly condemn him. To remain silent is to imply consent.
God DAMN America.

Remember, too, that any fool can say "America the beautiful" or "America the brave" and receive no criticism. It takes a brave patriot to point out aloud and inside America (I do so from outside) that what you're doing is evil.

Here's hoping you find the courage (and the leaders) to get back to being the America of your imaginations.

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

ON THE WAY OUT OF OFFICE
Posted by: Bob Graham Las Vegas on Oct 31, 2008 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing remains constant with GWB , his devious acts. IMHO , a plan has been laid to entrap both the new president of the USA and Iraq .Effectively Bush has sold out the entire country using his open selfishness and anger at the majority of citizens who openly opposed the war. Much like a angry third grader who quits the team and takes his bats, balls and all bases as he quits.

His sell out comes in the form of policies not wanted by the Iraquis in general being offered to a puppet regime, which is doomed to failure unless the USA does in fact stay long enough to fix the damage done to the people of Iraq.

God did not make this happen, it was GWB, so I will not use His name in vain, but I have to agree with the gentleman who damned Bush and the USA. We The People did not do enough to stop this run away government and there in lies the blame on all of us.

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