« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Last Days as Emperor
The Bush administration is pressuring the Iraqi government to sign an agreement in which they will be trampled forever by American troops.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November. ... Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq.The deal would give American forces the right to detain Iraqis at will, while Americans including private contractors would not be accountable for their actions under Iraqi law. How logical is that? Logical from the point of view of an occupying power dictating its own terms.
American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.The Iraqi prime minister knows this deal will be hugely unpopular with the Iraqi people, but he depends on American backing to stay in power, so he is willing to sign it.
Mr. Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. ... 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 U.S. backing.Like all good things, the deal is being pushed in secret by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through.The agreement is, in effect, a treaty between two nations, which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate according to the Constitution. But it is being presented as something less than that, so that Bush can sign it on his sole authority without a Senate vote.
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. But by perpetuating the U.S. presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.The final irony is that none of this is being reported in the American press, but by Patrick Cockburn in Britain's Independent.
Cross-posted at eatbees blog.
Advertisement
Comments (7)
The Patrick Cockburn story was carried as the lead article in yesterday's on-line Counterpunch, which is a site that all TPMers should read daily.
June 6, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was also on Truthout, which is where I saw it. But so far as I know, nothing in the mainstream press.
June 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outside the U.S., the "secret" agreement is not so secret.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched in protest against it today.
But yes, the American media should be all over this story -- and instead it barely registers.
Congress banned the use of any recently appropriated funds for premanent bases, yet this deal would authorize 50 of them.
Congress has a constitutional right to vet any treaty, yet the Bush White House argues it can proceed entirely on its own say-so.
It's time U.S. legislators asserted their constitutional powers, and did their constitutional duty.
There isn't enough time for the process to play out, but articles of impeachment are more than justified.
June 6, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone can tell me what the Obama camp thinks of this,it would be appreciated. It seems to me that he should be leading the charge in the Senate to insist that this treaty pass their way before being finalized.
June 6, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Obama and all the Dems ought to be on this like stink on a skunk. The treaty is being negotiated because the U.N. mandate for the use of force expires at the end of this year, and the Bush Administration is trying to do an end-run around it by getting the Iraqi government to "invite" U.S. troops to stay. The treaty's inclusion of permanent U.S. bases is hugely unpopular in Iraq.
June 7, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did see a report on this on MSM, but it wasn't being touted as a major development. I think this goes to a complacency of yet another Bush-Cheney power grab and their disregard for the Constitution. My question is, what is Bush going to do if the Iraqis don't cave, withdraw our troops? Please throw us into that quandry.
June 7, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen this written about for a few months as well. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said it cannot be allowed and would need US Congress ratification to be put in place.
But can anyone provide a link where we can make our voices heard to ensure that our Congress will indeed have a voice against it?
If so, count my voice in.
June 7, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment