U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq
McClatchy Washington reports that Shiite lawmakers ’say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed “status of forces” agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.’ The wording of McClatchy forces one to wonder ‘demanding or asking?’
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
“The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,” said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. “We were occupied by order of the Security Council,” he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. “But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.”
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.
“It would impair Iraqi sovereignty,” said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party of the proposed accord. “The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq… if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.”
Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces’ conduct in Iraq.
Although the arrangement above may make some sense to Bush et al. it should be perfectly obvious why the Iraqi government is not quite willing to play ball. The Bush administration wants to make sure that Iraq will not fall into chaos, and that - at the same time - Iran will not be able to increase its influence over its neighbor. It also wants to force the next administration to be involved in Iraq, regardless of whether they want it or not.
But from an Iraqi perspective it does not make any sense whatsoever. Many people have compared permanent bases in Iraq to the US bases in Europe. Such an arrangement would, basically, keep the Iraqi government sovereign. There could be debates, there could be problems, but whatever would happen, Iraq would decide about its own affairs. The proposed arrangement, however, would change all that. Iraq would basically turn into a puppet-state of the United States. It does not take a genius to figure out that most Iraqis oppose such a plan.
More here (Firedoglake) and here (Informed Comment).
If there’s anything to it at all, I suspect that by "bases" they mean working posts and not permanent bases as is being implied.
I have to take just about everything from McClatchy with a bushel of salt. ANy "news agency" with "Truth to Power" as their masthead slogan has already declared a determined bias.
Clearly the "bases" are not forts they’re clearly like pit stops, operating bases. Surely a mere couple would be of some size an air base a port supply site but really. I’d also echo the thought that the SOFA process is negotiations