The Washington Monthly

June 10, 2008

PERMANENT PRESENCE....Juan Cole on Saturday:

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Da'wa (Islamic Mission) Party has decisively split. It is the party of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The new branch, Da'wa- National Reform, has been formed by former PM Ibrahim Jaafari.... Al-Hayat estimated that at least 10 members of parliament have also defected to the new party led by Jaafari.

Those 10 members of Da'wa- National Reform in parliament have joined a new political bloc consisting of the Sadrists (30 MPs), the Iraqi List (24), National Dialogue (11), Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila) (15). These 90 MPs oppose the soft partition of Iraq and generally have a strong Iraqi nationalist orientation. Several have expressed opposition to the US-Iraqi security agreement now being negotiated.

In Iran on Monday:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki concluded a three-day visit to Iran after meeting Monday with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who warned that the continued presence of U.S. troops was "the main obstacle on the way to progress and prosperity in Iraq."

....Khamenei and other Iranian politicians have repeatedly urged Maliki's government not to sign a status of forces agreement being negotiated with the United States. The agreement would provide a legal framework for the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year.

Later the same day in Washington:

The Bush administration is conceding for the first time that the United States may not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before President Bush leaves office.

Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks....Iraqi officials have raised a number of objections to the draft documents, both publicly and privately. And they are now suggesting that the latest proposal isn't even worth submitting to their parliament for approval.

On Monday two Iraqi lawmakers who saw the proposed draft said the document, put forward Sunday, said it seeks to address some of Iraq's concerns. It adds an explicit promise that U.S. forces in Iraq will not attack neighboring countries and that Iraqi authorities will be notified in advance of any action by U.S. ground forces, the lawmakers said.

....Hadi al-Amri, head of the Badr Organization, a pro-government Shiite party with close ties to Iran, said the latest draft was still unacceptable, and warned that the positions and interests of the two sides are so far apart that any kind of agreement is "impossible."

There's literally no one outside the Bush administration itself that supports any kind of permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. No one, that is, except for John McCain. But don't call him McBush just because he supports Bush's Iraq policy, Bush's tax policies, Bush's foreign policy, and Bush's social policies. That would be unfair.

—Kevin Drum 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Comments

Come on - we need to keep killing Iraqi civilians to "keep American secure".

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 10, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin --- stop being so shrill and bow down to the Mavericky goodness of McCain... ignore evidence and embrace the myth :)

Posted by: fester on June 10, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend an existing U.N. mandate

If the US could extend the existing UN mandate unilaterally, it wouldn't have to worry about its occupation of Iraq being illegal (well, more illegal...). So I'd assume that at least the rest of the UNSC would have something to say in the matter, yes?

Posted by: Gregory on June 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Just what we need: permanent military presence in Iraq after denying that that was our aim. There is no doubt that st. john will be bushiii. If there really are Hillary backers ready to vote for mcsame, then they were not bothered by the neocon destruction of our country, but just wanted to get their candidate in or run the country down more. If they think that once bushiii is in office that there will be free and fair elections in 2012, they have no foresight. mcsame in = democracy out.

Posted by: Michael on June 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

cool beans! I thought the SOFA was a done deal. Glad to see someone has a big hairy package.
I was kinda hating being the dopey American who sat by while the "new nazis" had their way with the world.

Posted by: Not Nuremburg on June 10, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Why shouldn't we stay in Iraq?

I mean, we have to get ready to Bomb Bomb Iran...
cut to McCain's signature smile (the one that sends hairs arising on my neck).

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on June 10, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be surprised if we end up with no basing whatsoever in Iraq, but apparently the 58 bases Bush asked for is a bit much.

I'll bet that we end up with some handful of bases in Kurdistan and a couple other places.

Posted by: TW Andrews on June 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

An agreement for us to stay in Iraq could be helpful to President Obama. Of course, a reversal is possible, but at the moment Iraq is going very well. If conditions keep improving, I think President Obama would choose a policy that maintains what our military has achieved. That policy is likely to involve keeping some troops in Iraq, if only to train and support the Iraqi military. A pre-existing agreement would make it easier for Obama's anti-war supporters to accept keeping troops in Iraq.

Posted by: David on June 10, 2008 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.johnmccain.com/

This dude is serious about being president! Check out his golf gear tab. Weird...since Bush says HE gave up golfing due to the Iraq war,

"Permanent bases for Perpetuawar." Now why don't the McCainites add that to their golf gear logos?

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on June 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Ayatollah Khamenei is correct, the US is the main obstacle to peace and stability in Iraq.

The real question is why are any Iraqis negotiating with the US about permanent bases at all? The admission the US military in Iraq will be taking action if it stays in Iraq should arouse all Iraqis to oppose the American occupation.

Posted by: Brojo on June 10, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

.....warned that the continued presence of U.S. troops was "the main obstacle on the way to progress and prosperity in Iraq."

I wonder if Cheney is going to host a meeting at the American Enterprise Institute to let Big Oil and all the unbid contract people know the bad news?

I wonder if the Theme Park and the 5 star hotels will EVER be built in the Green Zone now?

I wonder if some lobbyiest feel like they where taken for a ride by the Bush gang?

Posted by: Me-again on June 10, 2008 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo: The real question is why are any Iraqis negotiating with the US about permanent bases at all? The admission the US military in Iraq will be taking action if it stays in Iraq should arouse all Iraqis to oppose the American occupation.

The answer to the seeming conundrum is that most Iraqis no longer see the US military as an occupying force. Most Iraqis now see the US military as helping to defend them against various terrorist groups.

Posted by: David on June 10, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Doubtful. Although I saw the propaganda theme that Iraqis no longer see the US military as an occupying force on NBC News last night, the Iraqis know, but most Americans do not, that the US is blowing up houses filled with Iraqis almost every day.

Posted by: Brojo on June 10, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

We need to stay in Iraq for the $20/barrel oil. O'leily said so.

Posted by: bobbywally on June 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

We need to stay in Iraq for the $20/barrel oil. O'leily said so.
that's funny. According to Michael Savage, the price of gasloine is proof that we didn't go to Iraq for oil.

Posted by: thersites on June 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

There's literally no one outside the Bush administration itself that supports any kind of permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. -Kevin

Is that really true? Almost two-thirds of Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq within two years - about as fast as they can be withdrawn. But my sense is that the Pentagon and around two-thirds of the DC elite still want 50,000 American soldiers in permanent bases and a puppet government in Baghdad forever.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on June 11, 2008 at 6:09 AM | PERMALINK