Go to Original
Secret US Plan for Military Future in Iraq
By Seumas Milne
The Guardian UK
Tuesday 08 April 2008
Document outlines powers but sets no time
limit on troop presence.
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.
The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments,
dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended
to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military
operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons
of security" without time limit.
The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says
the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence
in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and
other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is
likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.
Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of
US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers
over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with
other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military
and other members of the multinational force.
Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army
in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional
elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected
to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants
to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the
year.
One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling
in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form,
particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is
more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."
It is also likely to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised
by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration
of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection
by US forces.
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement
would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has
around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic Congress
members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services
committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to
a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.
Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include
security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked
draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States
and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the
US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or
political independence of Iraq is threatened."
Significantly - given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter's
close relations with the Iraqi administration's Shia parties - the draft agreement
specifies that the "US does not seek to use Iraq territory as a platform
for offensive operations against other states".
General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, is to face questioning from all
three presidential candidates on Capitol Hill today when he reports to the Senate
on his surge strategy, which increased US forces in Iraq by about 30,000 last
year.
Both Clinton and Democratic rival Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop
withdrawals from Iraq. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain
troop levels until the country is secure.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(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. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" 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 "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story