 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
June 5, 2008
By: CHANGED THE LOCKS THREE TIMES...Patrick Cockburn claims that details of the long term deal for maintaining US troops in Iraq sought by the Bush administration (the Security Framework agreement and associated Status of Forces Agreement) have leaked to the Independent. Similar details have emerged in Arab media in recent days as well. Nevertheless, to be taken with a grain of salt and all: Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. The powers enjoyed by the US would, reportedly, also include the ability to move foreign armies (coalition partners), as well as military hardware and equipement, in and out of Iraq without consultation with the Iraqi government. In addition, the US would not pledge to defend Iraq from foreign aggressors - but rather would retain the right to review the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, we wouldn't want to cede any of our sovereignty. As mentioned previously, the Bush administration is pushing very hard to get this arrangement finalized by the end of July - in part to affect the policy trajectory of the next administration and to offer a boost to GOP hopeful John McCain. If McCain were to win, this deal would allow for a seamless continuation of Bush administration policy. If Obama were to win, there would be a certain level of deference shown to prior commitments - though this would not necessarily prevent Obama from renegotiating or creating a new set of agreements. However, it should be acknowledged, even an Obama administration might be tempted by the ability to maintain a military foothold of such dimensions in the middle of such a strategic oil producing region. More importantly, perhaps, this deal will cause considerable upheaval in Iraq - with that country's various political groups, and their respective constituencies, potentially pushed toward conflict (not to mention the propaganda boon it will provide Osama bin Laden, and the further degradation to our image in the region). The general state of play is as follows: Moqtada al-Sadr and certain Sunni groups oppose any long term deal outright (preferring the setting of a timetable for measured withdrawal). The Fadhila Party (an offshoot of the Sadrist movement) is also said to favor a timeline for withdrawal. The Sadrist position enjoys widespread popular support in Iraq. Considering the Iraqi public's overwhelming preferences, electoral considerations likely influenced, at least in part, recent statements criticizing the proposed deal emanating from Maliki's own Dawa party, as well as our closest ally (and Iran's) ISCI (headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim). That being said, the terms leaked thus far are so onerous that even these parties that rely on our presence to prop them up likely find certain elements difficult to swallow. In fact, the infringement upon Iraq's sovereignty are so extensive that even one time favorite Ayad Allawi has come out against the parameters of the deal. It should be noted, however, that thus far the opposition from Maliki and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has been to specific provisions, but not the general notion of a long term deal. In a similar vein, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has begun making his qualified opposition known. According to Hakim (via Juan Cole), Sistani lists the following elements as essential to any such deal: - Preservation of Iraqi national sovereignty The Bush administration opposes all four of Sistani's planks, though the second is probably not a deal breaker, nor would the third and fourth should the votes align with the Bush administration's goals (though that is highly unlikely - at least in terms of the national referendum. Parliamentary approval is more of a possibility considering the likely support of the Kurds as well as some Sunni groups that now prefer the US to remain as a bulwark to Shiite hegemony). Cockburn's article states that Dawa/ISCI might be too vulnerable to push back and might fold in the end: Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. This indeed might be the case, but if Sistani opposes the deal, it would be almost impossible for Maliki and Hakim to offer their assent. That might actually provide Maliki and Hakim with a plausible excuse to explain their position to the Bush administration ("We'd love to agree to this, trust us we would, but we can't oppose Sistani..."). Further, if they do ratify this deal, as Ilan Goldenberg points out, it will prove electoral suicide for Maliki/Hakim in the upcoming provincial elections slated, now, for November. That is, absent a decision to postpone those elections (which could lead to intra-Sunni strife from the Awakenings groups that want a cut of political power) or absent a massive effort to manipulate the results and weaken their more powerful adversaries (the Sadrists, for example). Just to be clear, the further "weakening" of the Sadrists would likely involve military operations and large scale loss of innocent life akin to what was seen in Sadr City and Basra in recent months. In fact, rumor has it that another Sadr stronghold, Amara, might be next. Liberation! Democracy! Freedom! —Eric Martin 11:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)Comments
Are they leaking extremely bad conditions so that Sounds like a negotiation with window dressing for US empire of military bases continues. Ruling the world isn't easy or cheap. So empire on you sons of Rome and Ottomania, heirs to Kipling and George Bush. Meanwhile we crumble at home--the rich wont pay taxes or serve in the military, wages declining, schools and roads in bad shape-- but soldier on you sons of empire. Posted by: Dr Wu, I'm just an ordinary guy on June 5, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINKGod Bush Iraq! I thought we weren't seeking "permanent bases." 50???? US out now. Operation Screw the Iraqis. The USA likes to DU it in the desert. Posted by: Tom Nicholson on June 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKthe US would not pledge to defend Iraq from foreign aggressors - but rather would retain the right to review the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Well, of course. Otherwise we might be required to bomb ourselves. Posted by: rea on June 5, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKObama should pre-emptivly declare that if elected he will not be bound by any "agreement" regarding Iraq that is not ratified by the Senate. Posted by: alameda on June 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKI think maybe the leak has accomplished it's objective: "Iraq lawmakers want US forces out as part of deal" Posted by: jhm on June 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKOne time I was in TJ and wanted to buy a blanket. The blanket dealer wanted $25 bucks. Ended up paying $5. Posted by: the fake fake al on June 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKSuch conditions would be utterly unacceptable to any state or people with a shred of national pride. Only a fool would propose them, and only a traitor would accept them. So much for a genuinely representative or democratic government for Iraq. If Bush wanted to provoke an uprising, he could not have designed his demands better. Crude, barbaric and brutishly insensitive to national pride. Posted by: morzer on June 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKSTILL COMES REEEEELING THROUGH THE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOR Posted by: mattstan on June 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKThey're not really permanent bases. Sooner or later the oil will run out. Posted by: thersites on June 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKProud to be an Americaaaaaaan. Sing it, everyone!! Posted by: Everyman on June 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKFWIW, Ambassador Crocker more or less denies this in the Times this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-crocker.html “I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing. Mr. Crocker commented at length, and sometimes disdainfully, on a London newspaper report of “a secret plan” whereby the United States would keep 50 permanent military bases in Iraq, keep control of Iraqi airspace and insist on legal immunity for American soldiers and contractors. “Is this what you’re looking for?” a journalist asked. “Well, as a matter of fact, it is not,” Mr. Crocker said, rejecting the suggestion of a hidden agenda in American negotiations with the Iraqi government on future relations between Washington and Baghdad. “That is just flatly untrue..." Just another data point, for whatever it's worth. The game is to try to figure out what unconscionable trap they're setting for the Iraqis and the American people which isn't literally 100% inconsistent with Crocker's phraseology. Posted by: bcamarda on June 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKIf Bush wanted to provoke an uprising, he could not have designed his demands better Mission accomplished? I mean, we can't leave while there's an uprising going on, is there? Posted by: thersites on June 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKWait, what does "sovereign" mean again, George? Apparently I misunderstood. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on June 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINKWow, I have never had so many questions about an article in my life... I really need help here. I can't get any news on how the Iraq oil industry strikes are going. I haven't heard squat on how the Hydrocarbon Law is getting along. Are these things no longer relevant to the Iraqi/US equation? Does anyone else on the planet besides me think it rather obvious that the US is all but refusing to leave this ONE country in this ONE part of the world. Does anyone but me disbelieve that Terrorists are all lumped up in this one country and we are valiantly fighting them There to keep them from coming Here? Does anyone else feel our illustrious leadership has begun to show the world dangerous and exploitable weaknesses in this driving need to stay in Iraq? What is the message we are sending those enemies? "The US would not pledge to defend Iraq from foreign aggressors?" Then what is all the administrative screaming about Iran for? This one sentence should be shoved in the face of every single Iran war-advocate. I was under the impression that our troops are skirmishing with native Iraqi insurgents? Is that not true? I am unable to make the connection with how the suppression of native insurgents will affect a global terrorist network in the long term. This is a great article but it, like so much else out of Iraq, creates more questions than it answers. I can't make heads or tales out of it. Posted by: Zit on June 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKWell, of course. Otherwise we might be required to bomb ourselves. or Turkey. Posted by: B on June 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINKFORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY. Pelosi@1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. Posted by: Mike Meyer on June 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK". . . even an Obama administration might be tempted by the ability to maintain a military foothold of such dimensions in the middle of such a strategic oil producing region." A piece of paper is supposed to enable us to do that? Posted by: SqueakyRat on June 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKDick Cheney and the neocons have not created some novel approach to foreign policy. From a historical perspective they are entirely unremarkable imperialists. Their personalities, rhetoric, reasoning and goals fit comfortably into the British imperial ethos. The outline of the Bush agreement is more than a little reminiscent of the Anglo-Iraqi Treaties that gave Iraq nominal independence in 1921 and gave the British long-term economic and military rights, including bases. The British reinvaded Iraq during WWII to protect oil supplies and tried to strengthen the previous pacts with an extension of their imperial prerogative at the time of their departure in 1947. But this led to great resistance within Iraq and the country became increasingly nationalistic. The Hashemite monarchy installed by the British held on until it was overthrown in 1958 in a military coup. A line of coups ended when Saddam Hussein took control in 1979. The Anglo-American invasion is nothing more than a restoration of anglosphere prerogatives lost in 1958 when the Republic of Iraq was founded - as everyone knows oil has been the prime motivator since it was discovered in 1927. It is, in essence, a defeat of the secular Arab-nationalist movements in Iraq and its replacement by a Islamist government. The reason "Islamism" is a problem is because it is the only anti-Western nationalism left after the end of communism and the long decline of Nasser’s pan-Arabism. Posted by: bellumregio on June 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK Cockburn writes: "Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing." If this is right, it's a measure of how far the government of Iraq is from being a national state: the Prime Minister is ready to trade his country's sovereignty for a chance to keep his circle of quislings on top. Posted by: SqueakyRat on June 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK>“... we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing." Translations: 1) Thousand year lease > 'permanent'. The Anglo-Iraqi treaty of 1947 was approved but it never really went into effect because of home resistance. It was a mix of open opposition and a matter of just ignoring it. The Americans will be gone sooner than later and so will Dick Cheney's ambitions. George Bush's soaringly naive dreams of historical greatness will turn out to be exactly the opposite of what he hoped. The Iraqis understand what is going on; they understand it far better than the Americans. The occupation of Iraq is wildly expensive. Dick Cheney and the careless aristocrat George Bush would drive the American population to penury to achieve their transformation of the Middle East and to maintain what they think of as American hegemony. But others will not be so sanguine and will be more willing to sacrifice the empire of good intentions. Long after the British had the capacity to maintain their empire the old tony imperialists were calling for its reestablishment. They even got a bit of blustering imperial pastiche in the Falklands to reinvigorate Thatcher's premiership, but Blair in Mesopotamia was nothing but sad. Americans will follow the same decline. Let us hope it is not like the Russians in Afghanistan or the Spanish in Cuba. Posted by: bellumregio on June 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKNixon could negotiate with China. They're tying his hands. Posted by: SteinL on June 5, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKSomeday Iraq will be "Our Jewel in the Crown" Posted by: R.L. on June 5, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKI remember reading some of these 'demands" a few days back. Don't remember whether I saw them on Juan's excellent blog -or elsewhere, but I just had to laugh. Everyone of them was so far beyond the pale of what anyone without a gun to his head would accept. Now, I have to admit, that just maybe, this is made up pro-arab propaganda spread by Al Jazeera, but if this stuff is even 10% true, that leaves only two possibilities: (1) Bush & company are simply mad. (2) They are crazy like a fox. They figure a massive revolt against the treaty will not build until after an Obama administration takes office, and they can blame the revolt & withdrawl on hippy libruls. Posted by: bigTom on June 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKIf the Iraqi people turn-out to be that stupid & accept this deal, treaty or whatever the hell you want to call it - they do not deserve their own country & need to be colonized. Posted by: ZombieNation on June 5, 2008 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINKNo, they're not permanent bases says the US-just temporary bases. And we really don't have troops in Iraq and we're not really interested in occupying Iraq and controlling their oil. If you think we're out to control you, you just don't know how good we really are. Posted by: Dr Wu, I'm just an ordinary guy on June 5, 2008 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINKIf the American people turn-out to be that stupid & accept this deal ... they do not deserve their own country & need to be colonized. Fixed it for ya. Posted by: thersites the peace troll on June 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINKThis is simply stunning. The US army will have more power in Irak than it has on US soil. This is a recipe for long term political instability in Irak, but who cares ? What we really want is permanent control of the oil fields. Post a comment
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
