Bush's secret deal would ensure permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq

[DogPoundPup]

PATRICK COCKBURN

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.

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 U.S. troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize 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 U.S.

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 U.S. troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq -- a victory that he says Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 -- 10,000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. 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 precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now.

The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal were signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad, which will be seen as an American pawn.

The U.S. has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region.......

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/365757_secretdealonline05.html?source=rss

[qazplm]

1. there is no legal way

Bush can bind the next president to do anything.

Treaties can be revoked, and so can agreements, and since the former would never pass, this would be the latter.

[DogPoundPup]

2. Regarding "since the latter would never pass"

Last paragraph in article...
"The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favor a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want U.S. forces to dilute the power of the Shiia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against U.S. occupation, is likely to be split."

Cockburn is giving us 'fair warning' anyhow.