By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 9:52AM
What?
Permanent U.S. bases in Iraq? I've never heard of anything so absurd! Why, you -- you -- you
conspiracy theorist! How can you be so shrill, so irresponsible, so, so, so...
Oh, wait.
Iraq's government is prepared to offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for an American guarantee of long-term security including defense against internal coups, The Associated Press learned Monday.
The proposal, described to the AP by two senior officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like, once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.
Make no mistake: this is Nouri al-Maliki offering the U.S. a permanent presence in return for guaranteeing the security of
his government. (
Would-be PM Ayad Allawi can't make President Bush a counteroffer as good as
that.) In exchange for a platform for the indefinite projection of American power throughout the Middle East, the Bush Administration probably considers protection for Maliki and his coterie to be a small price to pay. No wonder the negotiation of a mandate for foreign troops in Iraq at the United Nations -- where this deal would begin to take shape -- is one of Bush's new
post-benchmark benchmarks.
more 26 Nov 2007 10:58 am
The Bush administration may not have succeeded in building a democratic government in Iraq, but it has succeeded in building a corrupt, brutal, and sectarian government that's
willing to "offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments" as long as the United States promises to
help secure Maliki's government against foreign and domestic threats. This should serve as a reminder that one reason US policy in Iraq keeps failing to produce a stable government, is that American policy objectives are in many ways incompatible with the goal of stability. An
unstable Iraqi regime lacking in state capacity or legitimacy is going to be heavily dependent on the United States to maintain power and therefore more susceptible to American influence.
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 11:12AM
So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have
released a joint declaration of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a
morning teleconference.
Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.
-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.
-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.
A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against
coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the
increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government --
with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup.
Notice also the timetable. The U.S. and Iraq will negotiate
another year-long United Nations mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which will expire (I think) in late December 2008. According to today's declaration, following the forthcoming renewal at the U.N., "we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship." That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to,
at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence. Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse.
Not stated, of course, is that Iraq would represent a military commitment
opposed by most of the American people. Nor that it would represent codifying an unpopular war into an unpopular, indefinite war. Nor even what that commitment would entail. Here's the "principle" behind future U.S.-Iraq security ties:
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
