Iraq Permanent Bases

Does James Baker Control Bush's Iraq Policies?

Bob Fertik — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:10:22 -0400

Is James Baker the real White House puppetmaster?

Did he write the plan to invade Iraq in April 2001, five months before 9/11?

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain “a prisoner of its energy dilemma” as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

That April 2001 report, “Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,” was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Is Baker writing the contracts that ExxonMobil and other oil giants are trying to impose on Iraq?

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

Those widely-reported contracts were rejected by Iraq because they were too greedy, but you have to read AfterDowningStreet.org to learn that.

"We did not finalise any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees as they wanted a share of the oil," [Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani] said.

Is Baker writing the ~~occupation diktat~~ "security agreement" too? That was also too greedy, so U.S. negotiators are scaling it back by removing immunity for contractors and control over Iraqi airspace.

Iraq’s foreign minister said Tuesday that the United States had agreed to lift immunity for foreign security contractors operating in Iraq, making them subject to prosecution under Iraqi law, according to Iraqi politicians.

Is Baker engineering an even more disastrous war with Iran?

In all of these crucial stories about Iraq, the "deciders" are never identified. We know Dick Cheney is the "decider" within the government, but is he really just taking orders from James Baker in his role as consiglieri to the Bush Organized Crime Family?

The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930

Jonathan Schwarz — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:06:52 -0400

Several recent articles about the Bush administration's efforts to conclude an "agreement" with Nouri al-Maliki's government report Iraqis are comparing it to the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930—something most Americans have never heard of. Here's a story from yesterday:

After Iraqi negotiators briefed lawmakers last month, politicians from all walks paraded in front of microphones to denounce the U.S. proposals. Some commentators likened the U.S. position to the Iraqi-British treaty of 1930, which gave Britain virtual control of the country and is widely seen here as a humiliation.

And this is Patrick Cockburn, writing in the Independent:

Critics of the agreement in Iraq see the powers being demanded by the US, such as the use of 58 bases, the freedom of the US to carry out operations and arrests without consulting the Iraqi government, and the immunity of US troops, as compromising Iraqi independence. They have denounced the deal as ominously similar to the Anglo-Iraqi treaty of 1930 under which Iraq was nominally independent but Britain retained bases and covert control.

Standard American historical ignorance isn't solely to blame here; the 1930 treaty is difficult to find, existing only as a pdf tucked away in an obscure corner of the UN website. So I thought it would be useful to put the text online here. (Thanks to Glen Rangwala for locating the pdf version.)

As you'll see, Iraqis are correct to be suspicious: the circumstances in 1930 and what the U.K. demanded are uncannily similar to the circumstances in 2008 and what the U.S. demands. In 1914 the U.K. invaded the area of the Ottoman Empire that would become Iraq, using exactly the same rhetoric as the U.S. ("Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerers or enemies, but as liberators," according to British general Stanley Maude upon his arrival in Baghdad.) Just like the U.S., the U.K. was granted a mandate to run Iraq by the international organization of the day (the pre-U.N. League of Nations). Just as then, Iraqis wanted to get out from under the mandate and be declared a sovereign nation. But just as then, the occupying power would only allow this if a "sovereign" Iraq granted their troops the right to stay.

The 1930 treaty reads almost exactly like U.S. proposals today, starting with the 2007 Declaration of Principles. Only the names have been changed. (Or rather, some of the names; the Iraqi prime minister in 1930 was also named Nouri.)

To start with, there's the same absurd pretense that it's a voluntary agreement between equals:

His Majesty the King of 'Iraq...authorises His Britannic Majesty to maintain forces upon 'Iraq territory at the above localities in accordance with the provisions of the Annexure of this Treaty on the understanding that the presence of those forces shall not constitute in any manner an occupation and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of 'Iraq. (Article 5)

There's the same commitment to "defend" Iraq by taking it over completely:

The aid of His Majesty the King of 'Iraq in the event of war or the imminent menace of war will consist in furnishing to His Britannic Majesty on 'Iraq territory all facilities and assistance in his power including the use of railways, rivers, ports, aerodromes and means of communication. (Article 4)

There's the same basing rights for the occupying power, with the bases belonging to Iraq but being "leased" to the occupiers:

The strength of the forces maintained in 'Iraq by His Britannic Majesty...shall be determined by His Britannic Majesty from time to time after consultation with His Majesty the King of 'Iraq...His Majesty the King of 'Iraq will grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance leases of the necessary sites for the accommodation of the forces of His Britannic Majesty in those localities. (Annexure 1)

And the same immunity for occupying forces:

[T]he immunities and privileges in jurisdictional and fiscal matters, including freedom from taxation, enjoyed by the British forces in 'Iraq will continue to extend to the forces referred to in Clause 1 above and to such of His Britannic Majesty's forces of all arms as may be in 'Iraq in pursuance of the present Treaty... (Annexure 2)

Whether the U.S. will be able to get everything the British did remains an open question; brazen colonialism isn't as easy as it used to be. But Americans should understand that history is repeating itself here, and will likely continue to do so: for all the words the British put on paper about an "alliance" of "friendship," they eventually were kicked out of Iraq ignominiously, leaving behind them a lasting residue of hatred.

• • •

The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF 'IRAQ. SIGNED AT BAGHDAD, JUNE 30, 1930.

His MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, and His MAJESTY THE KING OF 'IRAQ, whereas they desire to consolidate the friendship and to maintain and perpetuate the relations of good understanding between their respective countries; and Whereas His Britannic Majesty undertook in the Treaty of Alliance signed at Baghdad on the thirteenth day of January, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six of the Christian Era, corresponding to the twenty-eighth day of Jamadi-al-Ukhra, One thousand three hundred and forty-four, Hijrah, that he would take into active consideration at successive intervals of four years the question whether it was possible for him to press for the admission of 'Iraq into the League of Nations; and

Whereas His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the 'Iraq Government without qualification or proviso on the fourteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine that they were prepared to support the candidature of 'Iraq for admission to the League of Nations in the year One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two and announced to the Council of the League on the fourth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, that this was their intention; and

Whereas the mandatory responsibilities accepted by His Britannic Majesty in respect of 'Iraq will automatically terminate upon the admission of 'Iraq to the League of Nations; and Whereas His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of 'Iraq consider that the relations which will subsist between them as independent sovereigns should be defined by the conclusion of a Treaty of Alliance and Amity:

Have agreed to conclude a new Treaty for this purpose on terms of complete freedom, equality and independence which will become operative upon the entry of 'Iraq into the League of Nations, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

His MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND, AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, FOR GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Francis Henry HUMPHRYS, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, High Commissioner of His Britannic Majesty in 'Iraq; and

His MAJESTY THE KING OF 'IRAQ:
General Nuri Pasha al SA'ID, Order of the Nadha, Second Class, Order of the Istiqlal, Second Class, Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Prime Minister of the 'Iraq Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Who having communicated their full powers, found in due form, have agreed as follows:

Article 1.

There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of 'Iraq.
There shall be established between the High Contracting Parties a close alliance in consecration of their friendship, their cordial understanding and their good relations, and there shall be full and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common interests.

Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes not to adopt in foreign countries an attitude which is inconsistent with the alliance or might create difficulties for the other party thereto.

Article 2.

Each High Contracting Party will be represented at the Court of the other High Contracting Party by a diplomatic representative duly accredited.

Article 3.

Should any dispute between 'Iraq and a third State produce a situation which involves the risk of a rupture with that State, the High Contracting Parties will concert together with a view to the settlement of the said dispute by peaceful means in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of any other international obligation which may be applicable to the case.

Article 4.

Should, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 above, either of the High Contracting Parties become engaged in war, the other High Contracting Party will, subject always to the provisions of Article 9 below, immediately come to his aid in the capacity of an ally. In the event of an imminent menace of war the High Contracting Parties will immediately concert together the necessary measures of defence. The aid of His Majesty the King of 'Iraq in the event of war or the imminent menace of war will consist in furnishing to His Britannic Majesty on 'Iraq territory all facilities and assistance in his power including the use of railways, rivers, ports, aerodromes and means of communication.

Article 5.

It is understood between the High Contracting Parties that responsibility for the maintenance of internal order in 'Iraq and, subject to the provisions of Article 4 above, for the defence of 'Iraq from external aggression rests with His Majesty the King of 'Iraq. Nevertheless His Majesty the King of 'Iraq recognises that the permanent maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty is in the common interest of the High Contracting Parties.

For this purpose and in order to facilitate the discharge of the obligations of His Britanic Majesty under Article 4 above His Majesty the King of 'Iraq undertakes to grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance sites for air bases to be selected by His Britannic Majesty at or in the vicinity of Basra and for an air base to be selected by His Britannic Majesty to the west of the Euphrates. His Majesty the King of 'Iraq further authorises His Britannic Majesty to maintain forces upon 'Iraq territory at the above localities in accordance with the provisions of the Annexure of this Treaty on the understanding that the presence of those forces shall not constitute in any manner an occupation and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of 'Iraq.

Article 6.

The Annexure hereto shall be regarded as an integral part of the present Treaty.

Article 7.

This Treaty shall replace the Treaties of Alliance signed at Baghdad on the tenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-two of the Christian Era 1, corresponding to the nineteenth day of Safar, One thousand three hundred and forty-one, Hijrah, and on the thirteenth day of January, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, of the Christian Era 2, corresponding to the twenty-eighth day of Jamadi-al-Ukhra, One thousand three hundred and forty-four, Hijrah, and the subsidiary agreements thereto, which shall cease to have effect upon the entry into force of this Treaty. It shall be executed in duplicate, in the English and Arabic languages, of which the former shall be regarded as the authoritative version.

Article 8.

The High Contracting Parties recognise that, upon the entry into force of this Treaty, all responsibilities devolving under the Treaties and Agreements referred to in Article 7 hereof upon His Britannic Majesty in respect of 'Iraq will, in so far as His Britannic Majesty is concerned, then automatically and completely come to an end, and that such responsibilities, in so far as they continue at all, will devolve upon His Majesty the King of 'Iraq alone.
It is also recognised that all responsibilities devolving upon His Britannic Majesty in respect of 'Iraq under any other international instrument, in so far as they continue at all, should similarly devolve upon His Majesty the King of 'Iraq alone, and the High Contracting Parties shall immediately take such steps as may be necessary to secure the transference to His Majesty the King of 'Iraq of these responsibilities.

Article 9.

Nothing in the present Treaty is intended to or shall in any way prejudice the rights and obligations which devolve, or may devolve, upon either of the High Contracting Parties under the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Treaty for the Renunciation of War signed at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight.

Article 10.

Should any difference arise relative to the application or the interpretation of this Treaty and should the High Contracting Parties fail to settle such difference by direct negotiation, then it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Article 11.

This Treaty shall be ratified and ratifications shall be exchanged as soon as possible. Thereafter it shall come into force as soon as 'Iraq has been admitted to membership of the League of Nations. The present Treaty shall remain in force for a period of twenty-five years from the date of its coming into force. At any time after twenty years from the date of the coming into force of this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will, at the request of either of them, conclude a new Treaty which shall provide for the continued maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty. In case of disagreement in this matter the difference will be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals. Done at Baghdad in duplicate this thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and thirty, of the Christian Era, corresponding to the fourth day of Safar, One thousand three hundred and forty-nine, Hijrah.

(L. S.) F. H. HUMPHRYS.

(L. S.) Noury SAID.

ANNEXURE TO TREATY OF ALLIANCE.

The strength of the forces maintained in 'Iraq by His Britannic Majesty in accordance with the terms of Article 5 of this Treaty shall be determined by His Britannic Majesty from time to time after consultation with His Majesty the King of 'Iraq.
His Britannic Majesty shall maintain forces at Hinaidi for a period of five years after the entry into force of this Treaty in order to enable His Majesty the King of 'Iraq to organise the necessary forces to replace them. By the expiration of that period the said forces of His Britannic Majesty shall have been withdrawn from Hinaidi. It shall be also open to His Britannic Majesty to maintain forces at Mosul for a maximum period of five years from the entry into force of this Treaty. Thereafter it shall be open to His Britannic Majesty to station his forces in the localities mentioned in Article 5 of this Treaty, and His Majesty the King of 'Iraq will grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance leases of the necessary sites for the accommodation of the forces of His Britannic Majesty in those localities.

Subject to any modifications which the two High Contracting Parties may agree to introduce in the future, the immunities and privileges in jurisdictional and fiscal matters, including freedom from taxation, enjoyed by the British forces in 'Iraq will continue to extend to the forces referred to in Clause 1 above and to such of His Britannic Majesty's forces of all arms as may be in 'Iraq in pursuance of the present Treaty and its annexure or otherwise by agreement between the High Contracting Parties, and the existing provisions of any local legislation affecting the armed forces of His Britannic Majesty in 'Iraq shall also continue. The 'Iraq Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the altered conditions will not render the position of the British forces as regards immunities and privileges in any way less favourable than that enjoyed by them at the date of the entry into force of this Treaty.

His Majesty the King of 'Iraq agrees to provide all possible facilities for the movement, training and maintenance of the forces referred to in Clause 1 above and to accord to those forces the same facilities for the use of wireless telegraphy as those enjoyed by them at the date of the entry into force of the present Treaty.

His Majesty the King of 'Iraq undertakes to provide at the request and at the expense of His Britannic Majesty and upon such conditions as may be agreed between the High Contracting Parties special guards from his own forces for the protection of such air bases as may, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, be occupied by the forces of His Britannic Majesty, and to secure the enactment of such legislation as may be necessary for the fulfilment of the conditions referred to above.

His Britannic Majesty undertakes to grant whenever they may be required by His Majesty the King of 'Iraq all possible facilities in the following matters, the cost of which will be met by His Majesty the King of 'Iraq.
1. Naval, military and aeronautical instruction of 'Iraqi officers in the United Kingdom.
2. The provision of arms, ammunition, equipment, ships and aeroplanes of the latest available pattern for the forces of His Majesty the King of 'Iraq.
3. The provision of British naval, military and air force officers to serve in an advisory capacity with the forces of His Majesty the King of 'Iraq.

In view of the desirability of identity in training and methods between the 'Iraq and British armies. His Majesty the King of 'Iraq undertakes that, should he deem it necessary to have recourse to foreign military instructors, these shall be chosen from amongst British subjects. He further undertakes that any personnel of his forces that may be sent abroad for military training will be sent to military schools, colleges and training centres in the territories of His Britannic Majesty, provided that this shall not prevent him from sending to any other country such personnel as cannot be received in the said institutions and training centres. He further undertakes that the armament and essential equipment of his forces shall not differ in type from those of the forces of His Britannic Majesty.

His Majesty the King of 'Iraq agrees to afford, when requested to do so by His Britannic Majesty, all possible facilities for the movement of the forces of His Britannic Majesty of all arms in transit across 'Iraq and for the transport and storage of all supplies and equipment that may be required by these forces during their passage across 'Iraq. These facilities shall cover the use of the roads, railways, waterways, ports and aerodromes of 'Iraq, and His Britannic Majesty's ships shall have general permission to visit the Shatt-al-Arab on the understanding that His Majesty the King of 'Iraq is given prior notification of visits to 'Iraq ports.

(Initialled)

F. H. H.

N. S.

Bush Abandons Contractors to Preserve Military Occupation of Iraq

Bob Fertik — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:21:48 -0400

Here's some surprising news out of the Iraq SOFA talks, via Jonathan Steele of the U.K. Guardian:

Recent US concessions will allow Iraqi courts to have jurisdiction over thousands of private contractors in Iraq, currently immune from prosecution... Iraq is still insisting US troops be chargeable in Iraqi courts. The US is unlikely to concede this.

Bush wanted full immunity for both troops and contractors, but that was a deal-breaker for Iraqis and they said No. So for the first time in his life, Bush had to choose.

Bush's choice was between military occupation and economic plunder. Surprisingly, he chose occupation over plunder.

If a deal is signed with this structure, it will be difficult if not impossible for armed contractors to do business in Iraq, because their employees could be prosecuted in Iraq for shooting innocent Iraqis, as they did last year in Nisour Square. So mercenaries like Blackwater are likely to start heading home.

And without mercenaries to protect them, other U.S. businesses will have to decide if they can risk doing business without armed American guards. No doubt many will also bring their employees home.

So why did Bush decide to put occupation ahead of plunder? The simplest answer is that within the Bush administration, the neocons triumphed over the plunderers.

The American people still don't know why Bush actually invaded Iraq. The two major theories are (1) BushCheney's oil buddies wanted to control Iraq's oil, and (2) the neocons who created PNAC wanted bases in Iraq to project U.S. military power in the heart of the Middle East after our bases were closed in Saudi Arabia.

These are not mutually exclusive, and both were important reasons for Bush's invasion. But with the expiration of the U.N. mandate, the Iraqi government decided the U.S. could not continue to treat Iraq as a colony, and therefore had to scale back its presence. Bush had to rank his priorities, and bases trumped oil.

This explains why John McCain is so determined to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for ~~100~~ ~~10,000~~ 1,000,000 years. If our goal was bringing "democracy" to Iraq, we could leave now, which is what American "democracy" wants. But John McCain doesn't care what the American people want - only what the neocons want.

That's the "noble cause" for which Cindy Sheehan's son Casey gave his life. It's too bad neither George Bush nor John McCain dares to tell Cindy or the rest of the American people.

Iraq SOFA

Bob Fertik — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:11:06 -0400

How do Iraqis feel about Bush's proposed Status of Forces Agreement?

Shia

Sunni

Kurd

Oppose

Sami al-Askari, on foreign relations committee, close to al-Maliki

Haider al-Abadi, MP from Maliki's Dawa party

Hadi al-Amiri, head of the Badr Organization, the former armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the country's largest Shiite political party

Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior lawmaker from the Supreme Council

Support

Bush's Iraq SOFA is DOA

Bob Fertik — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:07:15 -0400

The Busheviks are finally admitting what I've been saying for weeks: the Iraqi government will not accept Bush's occupation terms as spelled out in his proposed Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). AP reports,

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. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the U.S. must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place.

Maliki wants our troops to keep him in power, but he's not willing to give them immunity for war crimes as Bush is demanding.

So now attention shifts to the U.N. Security Council. Will Maliki actually request an extension of the U.N. mandate that authorizes the U.S. occupation, after he promised last December's extension would be the very last?

We'll be watching...

Bush-Maliki Agreement is Dead

Bob Fertik — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:48:51 -0400

As I've been writing for weeks, the Bush-Maliki "security agreement" simply ain't gonna happen. It became a dead letter last week when the shocking news leaked that Nouri al-Maliki rejected Bush's document and drafted his own.

Of course Ambassador Ryan Crocker keeps insisting there will be a deal by July 31, but even the Pentagon Post doesn't believe him.

One of the key reasons is Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. immunity.

Iraqis across the political spectrum have objected to Bush administration proposals for unilateral authority over U.S. military operations in Iraq and the detention of Iraqi citizens, immunity for civilian security contractors, and continuing control over Iraqi borders and airspace.

As I've written, time is on the side of Iraqi negotiators who can simply wait for Bush's term to expire so they can negotiate a better deal with his successor.

Failure to reach an agreement on the arrangements, which must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, would leave the negotiations over a future U.S.-Iraqi relationship and the role of U.S. forces in the country to the next American president.

So how will Bush keep his occupation going beyond its December 31 expiration date?

The Iraqi government may request an extension of the United Nations security mandate authorizing a U.S. military presence, due to expire in December.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? But there are at least two problems. First, the Iraqi Parliament is just as opposed to extending the U.N. mandate as it is to the Bush-Maliki agreement. Second, Maliki himself promised Parliament and the U.N. that 2008 would be the absolute last year of the U.N. mandate.

Will Maliki simply do a triple-back-flip on the single biggest issue facing Iraq and request the U.N. extension? He is under tremendous pressure to end the U.S. occupation, including angry mosque protests every Friday by Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters, and increasingly oppositional declarations from moderate Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Here's what happened across Shia-controlled Iraq during the second weekly protest, according to AFP:

People torched a US flag in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City after weekly Friday prayers to denounce a proposed agreement to deploy American troops in the country beyond 2008.

The protesters also set on fire an effigy of US President George W. Bush and vowed alliegance to anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, as Iraqi troops watched from rooftops, an AFP correspondent said...

In the cities of Kufa, Karbala and Basra, Shiites on Friday held prayers and demonstrations to denounce the negotiations between Washington and Baghdad.

So if Maliki does a triple-back-flip, he will antagonize every powerful faction in Iraq, both armed and religious. His government will lose any last shred of legitimacy, and his party and its allies will get crushed in the fall elections by Sadr's supporters.

According to one Iraqi official, "It would be suicidal for Al-Maliki and his partners especially the Iraqi Supreme Council to sign a security pact without the consent of Al-Sistani and other Shia senior clerics."

So we'll see whether Maliki goes ahead with the request - or whether he simply sits on his hands and lets the U.S. occupation die a quiet and long-overdue death, while Bush and Cheney's heads explode.

Let's not forget where Maliki is going next week to plot his next step: to visit Bush's arch-enemy, Iran.

Update 1: UK reporter Patrick Coburn says Bush is resorting to mafia-style extortion to pressure Maliki into signing Bush's deal:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) 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

I'm sure that news will be welcomed by the "Arab street" - not!

And as Kagro X notes, Bush is using tortured American vets as pawns:

The same money that was so critical to long term Iraqi and regional stability one Friedman Unit ago that it couldn't even be used to compensate American soldiers who had been tortured by Saddam Hussein. Same money, now being held hostage by Bush to force the Iraqis to accept a perpetual American military presence in their country, all arranged without Senate approval by calling this treaty by another name: a "Status of Forces Agreement."

Maybe Congress will haul Condi before the cameras to testify under oath about this grotesque extortion scheme?

Shocking News from Iraq: Maliki Rejected Bush's Agreement and Wrote His Own

Bob Fertik — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:55:52 -0400

In the flurry of news stories over the weekend about the status of the crucial Bush-Maliki agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after January 1, the most important fact was entirely overlooked by the U.S. media: Maliki has obviously rejected Bush's proposal, because he has written his own.

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi negotiators have a "vision and a draft that is different" from the Americans but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

Interestingly, that shocking news was reported only by Robert H. Reid of the AP, and not by Richard Oppel Jr. and Stephen Farrell of the NY Times. Did "OppRell" (remember "WoodStein" from Watergate?) not know about the Maliki draft, or did they (or their editors or Dick Cheney) not want to tell their readers to continue to "catapult the propaganda"?

For a weak and dependent leader like Maliki, rejecting Bush's draft and substituting his own is a huge act of defiance.

It tells us Maliki wants an agreement with the U.S., but Bush simply wasn't willing to modify his terms enough to satisfy Maliki's needs. Obviously Maliki told Bush his terms and Bush said no.

(When I write "Bush" I should probably write "Cheney," but for simplicity's sake I'll stick to "Bush.")

What are the key sticking points in the negotiations? According to OppRell,

The Americans want to continue to have “a free hand” to arrest Iraqis and carry out military operations, and they want authority for more than 50 long-term military bases, Mr. Adeeb said. He said that he doubted that a security pact along the lines sought by the Americans would pass in the Iraqi Parliament.

Mr. Abadi, another senior member of Dawa, said Americans were insisting on keeping control of Iraqi airspace and retaining legal immunity for American troops, contractors and private security guards.

There's the key word that I keep harping on - full immunity for Americans, even if they steal, rape, kidnap, torture, or murder - all of which has been documented by the U.S. media.

As with the issue of warrantless wiretapping, full immunity is Bush's bottom line. That's why he's been unable to cut a deal with Congress on FISA: because House Democrats refuse to give him full immunity, due to unrelenting pressure from the Netroots (yay us!!!).

Immunity is crucial to Bush because he refuses to operate within any laws, and he wants his governmental and non-governmental agents to have the same unlimited power he has.

(As Andrew Tilghman points out at TPM, Bush is trying to privatize as much as of the occupation as he can. But contractors would be even more vulnerable than soldiers if Americans lost immunity because Iraqi officials would have fewer qualms about arresting non-uniformed Americans, and American employees can sue their employers, unlike soldiers.)

Unfortunately for Bush, he can't preserve immunity for Americans in Iraq by himself - he needs Maliki to agree. So for the first time in Bush's Presidency, he is unable to simply impose his will.

No doubt he is putting tremendous pressure on Maliki. So why did Maliki take the extraordinary step of rejecting Bush's draft agreement and writing his own?

Maliki is conflicted about U.S. troops. On the one hand, Maliki's government is weak, and so is his military. Without U.S. troops propping him up, he would be unable to defeat Moqtada Al-Sadr's large militia - at least for now.

But on the other hand, most Iraqis bitterly resent our presence, even if they are not actively trying to kill us. Maliki, as an elected leader, has to be responsive to the will of the Iraqi people.

So Maliki wants U.S. troops, but only up to a point. And that's exactly why his negotiations with Bush over the fine print of a bilateral agreement are stuck.

Which brings us back to Bush. If Bush wanted to reach an agreement with Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a while on terms that were acceptable to Maliki, he could probably find a way to meet Maliki half-way.

But Maliki is both unwilling and unable (due to pressure from the Iraqi people, the Iraqi parliament, Al-Sadr, and even Ayatollah al-Sistani) to accept full immunity as part of the terms of the agreement.

So if the positions of Bush and Maliki are fundamentally irreconcilable, will there be an agreement by the crucial deadline of December 31?

Maliki has the upper hand in his negotiations with Bush. Even without an agreement, he knows U.S. troops will be there to keep him in power. He knows McCain will keep our troops there forever, and even Obama will only remove one combat brigade per month over 16 months and leave a residual force after that.

So he has no important reason to sign any agreement with lame-duck Bush, and every reason to try to negotiate a better one with Bush's successor.

On the other hand, Bush desperately needs an agreement that preserves full immunity after December 31, or U.S. troops and contractors will be subject to Iraqi law. Without an immunity agreement, Maliki would have full power to enforce Iraqi law by arresting a U.S. soldier or contractor any time he wanted.

Since Bush is desperate and Maliki isn't, Maliki clearly has the upper hand. That means Bush has a choice: either to agree to Maliki's document with limited modifications that are acceptable to the Iraqi people, or get no agreement at all.

Bush's entire Presidency has been devoted to the idea that Bush never negotiates on key points. But with time running out on his presidency, and with Maliki looking beyond Bush to the next president, it it looks like Bush finally has no choice but to accept Maliki's broad framework and get the best deal he can on the crucial details, especially on the question of immunity.

I can't wait to read what Maliki's document actually says...

Update 1: According to Reuters, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh says the Bushevik promise of a agreement in July is officially off the table:

"I don't think that we can meet this date. There is a difference in viewpoints between Iraq and the U.S. I don't think that time is enough to end this gap and to reach a joint understanding ... Therefore, we are not committed to July as a deadline," he told al-Arabiya television.

So what fantasy date will the Busheviks float next? And when will Congress realize there won't be an agreement by January 1?

Update 2: More shocking news: Maliki is discussing the US-Iraq agreement with the leaders of our undeclared enemy Iran!

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will visit Iran next week to strengthen political and economic ties between the two countries, Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Iraqi ambassador to Iran Abu Heidar al-Sheikh as saying on Tuesday.

Al-Maliki would discuss with Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the security pact between Iraq and the U.S., al-Sheikh told reporters.

If anything would send Bush back to the bottle (or was it cocaine? Bush told Scotty he simply can't remember), this is it.

Iraqis Are Adamantly Opposed to U.S. Immunity

Bob Fertik — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:22:00 -0400

Just days after key Iraqi leaders said they'd rather wait to negotiate with President Obama than with Bush, White House propagandists are desperately trying to prop up the corpse of the Bush-Maliki "Agreement." The anonymous article by Reuters quotes an anonymous US official:

A senior U.S official said on Monday that the United States still hopes to reach a new security agreement with Iraq by July, even though Iraqi officials say negotiations are at an early stage...

A senior U.S. government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said President George W. Bush's goal of completing the negotiations by July still stood.

"The consultations on all these issues are quite intense. We certainly intend to work -- and the Iraqi side has not told us anything to the contrary -- towards the idea of moving forward ... by July on this," he told reporters.

Oh really? Then why is an un-anonymous Iraqi spokesman saying the opposite?

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Sunday that talks on the deal were still at an early stage and that Washington and Baghdad differed over what should be in it.

According to AP's Robert H. Reid, the Iraqis have drafted an entirely different document!

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi negotiators have a "vision and a draft that is different" from the Americans but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

"There is great emphasis by the Iraqi government on fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq in its lands, skies, waters and its internal and external relations," al-Dabbagh said. "The Iraqi government will not accept any article that infringes on sovereignty and does not guarantee Iraqi interests."

How different are the Iraqi and U.S. documents? According to the NY Times,

The Americans want to continue to have “a free hand” to arrest Iraqis and carry out military operations, and they want authority for more than 50 long-term military bases, Mr. Adeeb said. He said that he doubted that a security pact along the lines sought by the Americans would pass in the Iraqi Parliament.

Mr. Abadi, another senior member of Dawa, said Americans were insisting on keeping control of Iraqi airspace and retaining legal immunity for American troops, contractors and private security guards.

Those differences are vast and it's hard to imagine how they can be bridged. And the crucial issue - as I keep saying - is immunity. Iraqis are adamantly opposed to immunity, and they refuse to be rushed into an agreement by lame-duck Bush.

Of course the Bush Administration refuses to accept the reality that U.S. troops and contractors will lose immunity on January 1. According to Walter Pincus, the State Department and the Pentagon recently proposed new contracts that extend for years.

Which raises a key question Congress needs to ask before they vote on spending $163 billion more to occupy Iraq well into 2009: what exactly are the termination provisions for those contracts if U.S. contractors lose their immunity? Will the taxpayers - you and me - have to pay for uncompleted work when the contractors' lawyers insist on bringing their immunity-less personnel home?

Growing Likelihood the Iraq Occupation Will Become Illegal on January 1

Bob Fertik — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:49:25 -0400

As the House prepares for yet another vote on giving Bush $163B to occupy Iraq well into 2009, events on the ground are increasing the likelihood that the occupation will become illegal on January 1.

According to the NY Times,

Tens of thousands of Shiites in Baghdad and southern Iraq who are loyal to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr denounced the negotiations in rallies after noon prayers on Friday, criticizing any pact that would allow American troops to establish a long-term presence in Iraq. “No America! No Israel!” demonstrators shouted in Sadr City, the Baghdad district that is Mr. Sadr’s base of power.

But it's not just Shia militants who oppose any treaty with the U.S.; Sunni militants feel exactly the same way and want to join forces with the Shia to drive the U.S. out.

Of course Bush isn't negotiating with the insurgents, but instead with the Iraqi "government" he created. And that's clearly not going very well, according to ABC:

On Monday, Iraq's national security council asked the prime minister to ensure that the deal would not violate Iraqi independence.

On Thursday, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the largest parliament bloc, released a statement saying, "Since many of the specified points of the deal violate Iraq's national sovereignty, so they are not acceptable to Iraqis."

Now when Arabs don't want to make a deal, it's not their style to say "go Cheney yourself." Rather, they let the slow passage of time do the heavy lifting. According to the NY Times,

“This agreement is between Iraq and the United States president, and the American policy is not clear,” said Ali Adeeb, a senior member of the Shiite Dawa Party and a close ally of Mr. Maliki’s. “We can wait until the American elections to deal with a Democratic or Republican president”...

“The negotiations now are not equal, and the results will be more for the benefit of America,” said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker. “To have a long-term agreement with the Bush administration, which has five months to go, is wrong,” he added. “The Iraqi government should wait for the new American administration and then have an agreement with it.”

If the moderate Shia and Kurds won't sign a treaty with lame-duck Bush, who's left? The minority Sunni faction quit the government because they had no influence.

And to make things worse, it's an election year in Iraq too - and the occupation is obviously the top issue for angry purple-fingered Iraqi voters.

One American official in Baghdad said that the Iraqis appeared to be unwilling to make any concessions before the country’s provincial elections later this year to avoid seeming, to Iraqi voters, — to be too accommodating to the occupying forces. “They are playing hardball right now,” the official said.

As I have argued repeatedly, Bush desperately needs a treaty to allow U.S. troops and contractors to remain after the U.N. mandate expires on December 31. But the biggest enemy he faces isn't rejection by the Iraqi government he created, but instead his own lame-duck status.

So what will happen on January 1 when the U.N. mandate expires? Will U.S. troops and contractors lose their immunity and be subject to Iraqi criminal and civil law?

If so, lawyers for the Pentagon and the contractors will tell their bosses to bring all Americans home, or face the nightmare of seeing Americans locked up in Iraqi jails.

This is not a wildly speculative scenario; we all saw how humiliating it was when Iran seized 15 British sailors in 2007.

So before Nancy Pelosi forces the House to vote again on spending $165 billion more to occupy Iraq in 2009, shouldn't she find out if that occupation will be illegal?

Sadr Mobilizes Against Fantasy US-Iraq Agreement

Bob Fertik — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:12:08 -0400

If the Bush-McCain Zombie Lie frames U.S.-Iraq relations in the past, the Bush-Maliki Fantasy Agreement frames U.S.-Iraq relations in the future.

I'm calling it a "Fantasy Agreement" because I see no evidence it will ever be written, let alone signed, ratified, and implemented.

Bush and Maliki issued the "U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation" last November 27, but that wasn't an actual agreement - it was just a vague set of talking points that have been revised over time in response to harsh criticism from the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi Parliament.

Meanwhile there have been numerous reports about ongoing "negotiations," but still nothing resembling an actual document, which was supposed to be signed this summer. The closest we get to a "document" is State Department propaganda like this, in Al Jazeera of all places:

The US government is close to reaching an agreement with the Iraqi government over its long term military role in the country but will not seek permanent bases in the nation.

Bush administration officials told Al Jazeera that they expect to finalise a deal by the end of July over the so-called Status of Forces agreement, or Sofa.

Oh really? Then the draft of the document must be pretty close to finished, right? So how come no one has seen it?

Bush and Cheney both made "suprise" visits to Iraq recently to push the agreement along, but their visits produced no results. And the clock is ticking and time is running out, because the U.N. mandate that grants immunity to U.S. troops and contractors expires on December 31.

There has been a lot of news this week about the "Fantasy Agreement," and none of it is good for Bush and Maliki. As CNN reports, Muqtada Al Sadr is organizing "massive resistance" to any proposed agreement.

the popular cleric renewed his call for a timetable for the departure of U.S. troops and called for delegations to approach the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League and other Iraq neighbors to discuss the agreement.

Protests against the agreement should be carried out after Friday prayers "until further notice or until the treaty is canceled," al-Sadr said.

If the government rejects his call for a referendum on the agreement, al-Sadr will order his offices "to work on collecting millions of signatures opposing" it, the message said.

Iraq's senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has reportedly issued a fatwa against the agreement.

And while Sadr and al-Sistani speak for Shia, their views are precisely mirrored by militant Sunni:

The Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq, headed by Harith al-Dhari, the most important single spokesman for the Sunni resistance, issued a statement today that it introduced as follows: "The long-term agreement with the American occupation will have no weight with the Iraqi people, and the nationalist forces will take it upon themselves to reply to those responsible, and to hold to account those who are involved in it, and without a doubt there will be a new price to pay in the blood of pious martyrs"--but that ends with a call to every anti-occupation segment of Iraqi society to participate in resisting this move, each in whatever way they can.

It looks like Bush has finally succeeded in uniting Iraqis across sectarian lines. Too bad they are only united on killing Americans and our political allies to end the U.S. occupation.