News

Bush Forced to Rethink Plan to Keep Iraq Bases

»

by: Leonard Doyle, The Independent UK

photo
Met by a torrent of protest from Iraqis, the Bush administration is being forced to reconsider its plan to maintain long-term military bases in Iraq.
(Photo: Evan Vucci / AP)

    President offers concessions after furious reaction in Baghdad to American "colonialism."

    Washington - Faced with Iraqi anger over a US plan to enable Washington to keep military forces in the country indefinitely, George Bush is offering concessions to the government of Nouri al-Maliki in an effort to salvage an agreement, it emerged yesterday.

    The proposed terms of the impending deal, which were first revealed in The Independent, have had a predictably explosive political effect inside Iraq. Negotiations between Washington and Baghdad grew fraught, with Iraqi politicians denouncing US demands to maintain a permanent grip on the country through the establishment of permanent military bases.

    Officials complained that the plan which allows US troops to occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, would turn Iraq into a colony of the US, and create the conditions for unending conflict both in Iraq and the Middle East.

    With Washington's Iraqi allies rising up in revolt against the plans, Mr Bush ordered a negotiating shift this weekend after speaking to Mr Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister. "Now the American position is much more positive and more flexible than before," a leading Iraqi negotiator in the talks was quoted as saying.

    Senior Iraqi officials want a major reduction of the US military footprint in Iraq as soon as the UN Security Council mandate approving their presence expires at the end of the year. Iraqi officials also want US forces confined to barracks unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance. Emboldened by recent successes by Iraqi security forces, many officials want the US troops to leave altogether.

    President Bush, who is on a farewell tour of Europe, wants a new agreement sealed by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory in Iraq and say his 2003 invasion has been vindicated before he leaves office.

    But any long-term settlement to maintain US forces in Iraq would cut the ground from under the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, who has promised to withdraw US troops if he is elected in November.

    The Bush administration says a new agreement is needed to ensure stability in Iraq, as without one or an extended UN mandate, there would be no legal basis for US forces to remain.

    The growing Iraqi anger with the proposal was front-page news in the US yesterday. Sami al-Askari, a senior Shia politician close to Mr Maliki told The Washington Post: "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonisation of Iraq ... If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, US troops. We don't need you here any more.'"

    The Democrat-controlled Congress is also uneasy about President Bush's attempt to impose a colonial-style mandate on Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans have questioned Mr Bush's assertion that he does not require congressional approval for the proposed agreement.

    The argument is focused on negotiations on a status of forces agreement defining the legal rights and responsibilities of US forces. As framed, it gives the US military free reign to operate in the country. There is also proposed "security framework" covering the relationship between the US and Iraq.

    Momentum is also growing within the Maliki administration for the US to leave altogether. Mr Maliki was in Iran this week where the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him not to sign up to any long-term security deals with Washington.

    The agreement is being negotiated by David Satterfield, the US State Department's top adviser on Iraq, who still maintains it can be initialled by a July deadline which Mr Bush set last year last year. "It's doable," he told reporters in Baghdad. "We think it's an achievable goal."

    At a news conference, Mr Satterfield kept repeating that the US wants only to create a more independent Iraq. "We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened," he said.

    But Iraqis say that US demands for long-term military bases in the country even if the numbers are reduced, give the lie to that assertion.

    US negotiatiors are also determined to maintain policies that allow them to arrest Iraqis without the approval of Iraqi courts, maintaining immunity for US troops and contractors from Iraqi prosecution and carrying out military operations without the Iraqi government's knowledge or approval.

    Washington also wants to retain control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, which has raised concerns that President Bush wants to have the option of using Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

What more proof do we need

What more proof do we need to see the surge is not working? If the surge is working, why do we need 150,000 troops and 58 bases permanently? The sanitization of the war keeps us from feeling any of the pain of the Iraqi civilians who are still dying by the hundreds every day. We do not get numbers on Iraqi troops killed, or hardly any information about what is really going on in Iraq. Because we invaded Iraq, Al Qaida has become a major player there and still is although the Army is saying they are all but wiped out, which is a big fat one. And they are not foreign influence as someone would have you believe, they are led by Iraqi citizens with foreign fighters doing the bombings. The surge is not working, period.

The other congressional

The other congressional wings of government in Iraq are not as gullible as our puppet Al-Maliki. It doesn't take to much SMARTS to realize he's a bought man.To sign this idiotic agreement would mean we legally owned them,and could do anything we wanted to do legally,or illegally without retribution. Afghanistan was only a steppingstone to invade Iraq for the sole purpose of stealing their oil,and to appease AIPAC by having a military presence in the middle east. Iraq was never a threat to us,and Bush/Chaney knew it,so tell us again Mr Bush WHY did we invade Iraq, the reasons keep changing ,and it's hard to keep up with the latest. I think one of the reasons was to liberate them. Is this Mickey mouse agreement your definition of liberating

maybe we should be putting

maybe we should be putting the focus on "Following the Money". Like I believe 'most importantly' how much is al-Malaki being bribed by Bush (or the Administration or it's front men0 TO DO HIS BEST TO SNEAK BUSH'S DEMANDS PAST IRAQ'S PARLIAMENT.

Another impeachable offense

Another impeachable offense in the making? His father must have been the Ever Ready battery, God knows who his mother must have been,

Having troops and equipment

Having troops and equipment in Afghanistan greatly facilitated the invasion of Iraq. This Administration's plans that include permanent bases and freedom to operate unrestrained appear to be for the purposes of keeping a tight grip on Iraq while providing a strategic jump-off point to invade Iran. I am concerned that if Bush and Cheney don't get the agreement they want with Iraq, they will go ahead with an attack on Iran before there is any reduction in troop levels.