Exclusive Interview With Two Iraqi Members of Parliament: Is Bush Trying to Cement Long-Term Presence in Iraq?

Permanent bases in Iraq, legal impunity for all American soldiers and contractors, control of Iraqi airspace, and, most shockingly, the use of Iraqi territory for attacking other nations in the region. These are a few of the items on the table in negotiations between President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki to establish a new security pact that would define the legal parameters for continued US presence in Iraq after the UN authorization expires at the end of this year. The Bush administration denies that these items are on the agenda, but both the Independent and Gulf News have reported receiving a leaked version of the security pact that includes these allowances. The leaked draft of the agreement has not been independently verified.

Mystery surrounding the specifics of the security pact has not prevented widespread outrage in Iraq over reports that it will prolong US military presence indefinitely and impinge on Iraqi sovereignty. On May 30th, tens of thousands of Sadrists took to the streets to protest against the agreement. Because the security pact has not been positioned as a treaty, neither Bush nor Maliki will require authorization from their legislatures. Muqtada al-Sadr has demanded that the agreement be brought to a national referendum.

The parameters of the leaked agreement have created serious difficulties for Maliki, who must reconcile the competing interests of the US, Iran, and the Iraqi people. I spoke with Nadim al-Jaberi and Khalaf al-Illyan, two members of the Iraqi Parliament who are worried of the possible political backlash of the security pact. Neither politician believes that the stated items are palatable to the Iraqi people, or to Maliki, and they fear the negative effect that simply negotiating such parameters would have on the Iraqi public.

Nadim al-Jaberi is a senior member and former secretary-general of Fadhila, a Shiite party that controls the Basra provincial government. The group, which holds 15 seats in parliament, withdrew last year from talks to join al-Maliki's cabinet after complaining of US interference.

Khalaf al-Ilyan is one of the three leaders of the Iraq Accordance Front, parliament's largest Sunni Arab bloc with 44 of the House's 275 seats. Last year, he played a prominent role in the Sunni decision to walk out of the Cabinet in protest of al-Maliki's policies.

Comments

[Susanfrom29]

I have just sent the following to my Senators, suggest others do something similar, at least asking for an investigation.

The London newspaper, The UK Independent is again writing of the agreement soon to be signed between Iraq & the US ensuring our bases will be there forever, well, at least 50 of them.

I appreciate the difficulty of accomplishing much with the slimmest of majorities in the Senate, but on this issue I really expect to hear something from our Senators.

Here are the links to the articles. I understand the same information is coming from the Gulf News:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

I am sending this same request to Sen Boxer and hope to hear soon of your views on this issue.

Thank you,
Xxxxxxx

[LittleBrother]

Apart from the monstrosity of the citadel in Baghdad (euphemistically called an "embassy"), there are military bases throughout Iraq. Not a couple of Quonset huts and an LZ for choppers, either; these have been described as virtual "towns", with their own bus routes and fast food franchises, etc.

This imperialist approach seems to be one of many insidious techniques that the criminal maladministration borrowed from the Zionists-- build permanent installations on disputed land, thereby creating a fait accompli. Because once the land is developed, built on, and inhabited, it's almost impossible to dispossess the illegal or illicit inhabitants.

The ONLY proper fate for these installations is either to give them outright to the Iraqi government-- abandon all claim and title-- or to raze them all down to the bare earth, and then salt the earth for good measure. Well, maybe skip the salt, if the Iraqis can put the soil to good use.

Assuming that Obama is elected, it will be very interesting to see how he will actually handle the issue of all that militarily-developed real estate.

[xxnounxx]

Well it was obvious from the begining,bsuh/america wants to stay for good in iraq,and dominate and dictate it.
i smell the return of empirsim.
Its all about oil and aunty isreal to bush and his gang,they dont give a toss about iraqi's.But iraqi's have just started waking up to the ugly facts,even people who are iraqi refusgees and hated saddam hssaien,it around hitting their heads and saying,where are the good old days gone,what fools we where to beleive the americans true intentions.
atleast they where safe under the dictatorship of saddam,atleast they had work and fee education and free medical care..some even say iraqis deserved someone like saddam who kept religion out of politics and no one dared to even think of sectarian revolts.

[timm0]

Whatever the hell the agreement is, I'd question the legal jurisdiction for it. If the president can unilaterally enter into something like that without Congressional approval, then another NEWER president should be able to tear it up. If it can be torn up easily, then I'm not quite as worried. Of course, maybe an impeachment would help....

[RedDogBear]

You are correct about the legality of this agreement. Treaties are supposed to be ratified by congress, if this isn't ratified it can be undone easily by the next president. Then why is Bush doing it? Like a lot of things they do its about perception not legality. Once the agreement is in place the right wing will blather on about how we must "keep our promises" and "not turn our back on our friends". Of course we are having to practically hold the Iraqi leaders at gun point to make them sign it but again perception. That won't get reported in the MSM.

[syllepsis]

Illegal actions on the part of the Executive are impeachable offenses. But Bush will not be impeached for this. So, the shredding of this 'pact' by a Democratic President will become the 'illegal' act by default- Shredding legal treaties is illegal; If Bush negotiated a treaty that raised no impeachment issues, it must have been legal; Thus, Democrats are lawbreakers as well as promisebreakers and wimps.
This is how Bush hopes it will play. Perception will be on his side.

[Susanfrom29]

Oh, but this isn't a treaty! It is simply an "alliance." Honest.

And it will be signed by the Iraqis or else Mr. Bush will release $20 billion Iraqi dollars currently being held in the Federal Reserve Bank to the Americans who were tortured in the first Gulf War and have since won the judgments in US Courts. In other words, bush might, all of the sudden, find some compassion for victims of torture.

The only place that is more Orwellian than the Bush White House is 1984.

[KillTheMessenger]

This one could be torn up independent of "legality". Who is going to care? Who is going to prosecute? Who is going to cry crocodile tears?

[globalmusing]

Why isn't this all over the front pages of all newspapers, front and center on all news shows? Bush & Co are aiming for permanent bases in Iraq through this agreement, and our Congress hears about it from the Iraqis? H-E-L-L-O!!!!!!!!

[SamThornton]

Perhaps most significant of all, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the real power in Iraqi politics, recently publicly, absolutely rejected any SOFA or other agreement that leads to a permanent US military presence. He's the one person in Iraq no one can go against and survive. At the moment, U.S. officials can't even get an audience with Sistani, let alone try to persuade him of anything.

[appleknocker]

The Iraqis don't want to be an American colony? After all we've done for them? The ingrates!

[LizM]

Anyone who has been paying attention for the last three years would know that Senator Biden has been working tirelessly in the Senate to put that body on record as being opposed both to permanent US military bases in Iraq and to US control over Iraq's natural resources. He is also working to prevent the administration from attempting to enact any long-term security agreements with Iraq without the consent of the US Senate which the administration would not receive.

I would suspect, by the way, that the Iraqi leaders you spoke with, support what Senator Biden has been advocating to reverse US policy in Iraq and to promote and facilitate a political solution that would allow US troops to withdraw without leaving a failed state in their wake.

[scooperss]

It's a shame the dem nomination for President was all about *making history* instead of actually looking at records of candidates.