Bush's Secret Iraq Base Deal
The Independent in London, reports that Bush is trying to rush through a deal with the Iraqi government before his term ends that would have major long term effects and will become an issue in the Obama v. McCain campaign.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated.
The reporter, Patrick Cockburn, has had impeccable sources in the past. If this one is true, it's time for the Democrats to raise a ruckus. Obama needs to ask McCain if he supports this new Bush Policy of a permanent American force in Iraq. The long term oil price and fiscal situation is bad enough. This is going to make it worse
Comments (16)
Actually, Obama doesn't have to ask McCain if he supports this. McCain already said, when he said he'd be comfortable with US troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years, that he supports this. This is McCain's policy. So we don't need to ask McCain, we need to tell the country.
June 5, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is new in this story? These negotiations have been going on for months.
I believe Obama and Clinton both made it clear that their opinion was that any such deal for a permanent US presence in Iraq would have to be ratified by Congress, and the power to commit the US to such a presence falls outside the president's authority. And now that he is the nominee, with an apparent lead in the polls, Obama can also make it very clear to the public and the Iraqi government that, as president, he is not going to be bound by any rushed, secret deals concluded at the last minute between that government and the Bush administration as the latter prepares to leave office, and that once in office he will revisit and re-evaluate any such deals in the course of his administration's re-assessment of the entire US presence in Iraq.
My understanding is that the Iraqi government already clearly perceives this, and knows Bush is a lame duck who cannot deliver the guarantees that Iraqi leaders would need to take such a large political risk, and that is one reason the administration has not been able to get a deal. The other reason, of course, is that such a deal would be extremely unpopular with the majority of Iraqis.
What the press should investigate is what kinds of pressure are being brought to bear on the Iraqi government to push them into making this deal. If Bush is in effect running an imperial shakedown, where reconstruction funds or something else are being withheld unless the Iraqis accede to an unwanted permanent US presence, it will not look good for him. And it will undermine the credibility of any claims he tries to make about how such a deal proves that the Iraqis want us in Iraq and that the war was therefore a good thing.
June 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has been talk of a use of force security agreement for some time. Recall that CLinton raised the question of one with Petraeus at that last hearing and initiated legislation to require Bush to get Congressional approval on any deal affecting future military action in Iraq. I should add that Clinton was criticized for "grandstanding" and being too aggressive at that oversight hearing both here and in the press generally.
June 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, as explained here and here, the admin is working two different agreements. One is a status of forces agreement to maintain a presence that they claim doesn’t require approval and the other agreement includes using forces to deter “foreign aggression,” which they claim is authorized by the AUMF and 9/11 terrorist legislation. I get a sinking feeling again that Congress is rolling over again. Clinton’s and two other bills requiring Senate approval have been stalled for months. I haven’t seen where Obama has addressed this. Does anyone have any links?
June 5, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The front page of TPM and other sites such as HUFFPO have posted a story of letter sent top our political leaders which states that the majority of the Iraqi legislators would like a timetable for withdrawal of American miltary forces, Private forces and under no circumstances the establishment of military bases. So basically the people of America want us out of Iraq so we can take care of our own internal issues and the majority of the Iraqi legislator and it's people want the US out fo Ira so it can deal with its own internal issues. Is this clear enough for America and its leaders?
June 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is, of course, a recipe for a continual war in Iraq. Our troops there will always be targets which will in turn require counter measures.
June 5, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
the "secret deal" is the latest elaboration of security "principles" ( declaration of principles) jointly announced last november that the administration is attempting to formalize (status of forces agreement) into final, binding completion.
spencer ackerman/tpmmuckraker stirs the "constitutional">http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004792.php">"constitutional sauce".
al hayat (via gulf news earlier this week) perceives high-caloric haute cuisine.
while dod insists it's all low fibre.
June 5, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
link corr. - spencer ackerman/tpmmuckraker stirs the "constitutional sauce".
June 5, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US currently maintains 117,951 facilities on 769 sites in 39 foreign locations, not counting Iraq and Afghanistan. How many of these were subject to the advice and consent of the Congress? None.
There are currently 129 SOFA-like agreements with other countries. These agreements facilitate military operations and permit the unfettered activities of the US military. None have Senate consent.
Let's hope that the Iraqi politicians can't be bought (a feeble hope).
June 5, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, I may be wrong, but I don't think any of those SOFAs address actual engagement of military force. I believe any agreements about military actions are made through treaties (i.e. we have a status of forces agreement with S. Korea but a treaty for engagement of those forces). Bush seems to be disguising this open-ended occupation (Crocker says they don't seek "permanent" bases) by splitting it into two agreements as an end run around the Senate. I'm with you though. Let's hope the Iraqi congress stops it since our congress doesn't seem up to the challenge.
June 5, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key,
There are various kinds of agreements, and no exact uniformity. Generally, the SOFA only covers the legal status of US military members, essentially allowing them to avoid prosecution for crimes against foreign nationals. There are other agreements to cover bases, or access to bases, logistics, etc.
Military operations (as you suggest) are separate. In Korea there is still a state of war, which the US has avoided ending. To the best of my knowledge no treaty is involved. In the Middle East the US has sworn to defend its allies, especially Israel, without treaties. It started with the Carter Doctrine in 1980: "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America,. . " Outside force, of course, means any non-US force which refuses to recognize US hegemony, which is why Iran is in trouble.
So while the US does have treaties that might involve military operations (NATO, SEATO, ANZUS), a treaty isn't necessary for offensive or defensive US military operations. The growing use of "executive privilege," especially by Presidents Clinton and Bush-43, but also other presidents, have unfortunately almost made treaties, or any legal process, an anachronism. Listen to the current presidential candidates talk about what kind of offensive military actions they will take as the new Decider. There's no talk of treaties; if they're not with us they're against us.
June 6, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, sir. It becomes even scarier that Congress won't assert its authority these days.
June 6, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, sir. It becomes even scarier that Congress won't assert its authority these days.
June 6, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is much more on this at "Informed Comment", Professor Juan Cole's great Blog on Iraq.
If this agreement is signed - it would mean the end of Iraq's sovereignty and from what I understand, it does not need Congressional approval.
June 5, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
news report from The Independent:
The US is holding hostage some $50bn of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.
June 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don Bacon basically answers 'No War' BUT the bottomline is the Bushies are BLACKMAILING the Iraqi's; and the little mentioned part is how the Iraqi's wanted to trade their oil in a 'more stable currency' than the U.S. dollar (like many oil trading nations are doing by using a basket of currencies for the pricing of their oil).
So much for being 'honorable' in our dealings with other nations; I just can't figure out why I keep expecting otherwise.
June 6, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink