Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is There Sovereignty for Iraq?

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Is There Sovereignty for Iraq--or Isn t There? Amid Iraqi Fury, U.S. Offers Concessions on Military Bases By PATRICK COCKBURN
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      "Is There Sovereignty for Iraq--or Isn't There?"

      Amid Iraqi Fury, U.S. Offers Concessions on Military Bases

      The reaction in Iraq to the US demands for the long-term use of
      military bases and other rights has been so furious that Washington
      is now offering limited concessions in the negotiations George Bush
      is willing to modify some of the demands so the Iraqi government can
      declare "a significant climbdown" by the American side allowing
      Baghdad to sign the treaty by July 31.

      In practice, there is less to the American "concessions" than would
      first appear. For example, the US is lowering the number of bases it
      wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to
      compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors according to
      information leaked to this reporter.

      But the US currently only maintains about 30 large bases in Iraq,
      some the size of small cities; the rest are "forward operating

      The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied my report that the
      US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is
      that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi
      soldiers stationed outside the bases.

      It will also be difficult for the US to concede that the tens of
      thousands of foreign contractors in Iraq, who vary from heavily
      armed security men to support staff, be liable to Iraqi law because
      the US Army has become dependent on these forces and could scarcely
      function without them.

      The new deal between Iraq and the US is in theory a "status of
      forces agreement", which the US already has with more than 80 other
      countries, but, in practice, it is a manoeuver by the US
      administration to avoid calling the agreement a treaty which, under
      US law, would then have to be submitted to the Senate. With American
      politicians wholly absorbed in the presidential election there
      appears to be only limited interest by congressmen and senators in
      demanding that the agreement, when signed, be submitted to them.
      The fate of the new agreement may depend on the attitude of Iran,
      which has denounced it fiercely, claiming it would permanently
      enslave Iraq and turn it into an American client state. Senior Iraqi
      politicians denouncing the deal include members of the main
      government party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), such
      as Jalal al-Din al-Saghir.

      "Is there sovereignty for Iraq – or isn't there?" he was quoted as
      saying. "If it is left to them [the US], they would ask for immunity
      even for American dogs. Other Iraqi politicians have questioned the
      continuation of the American occupation in any form.

      Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, promised Iranian leaders
      during his visit to Tehran last weekend that Iraqi territory would
      not be used as an American platform for a military attack on Iran.
      It is noticeable that the Iraqi politicians within ISCI most
      vehement in opposing the deal are close to the Badr militia wing of
      ISCI that has traditionally had close links to Iran.

      Patrick Cockburn is the the author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the
      Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq"



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.