The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
By Patrick Cockburn, The Independent UK
Posted on June 6, 2008, Printed on June 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/87084/
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 US 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 was signed it would
delegitimize 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 ft 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.
Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate
Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a
permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is
to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally
opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition
government cannot stay in power without U.S. backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between
Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in
Iraq.
Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement
limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect
they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their
credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance
now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority
Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he
forced the U.S. to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi
constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to
believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi
Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.
The U.S. is adamantly against the new security agreement being put
to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The
influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers
to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the
grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the
agreement but the office of Vice President Dick Cheney has been
trying to force it through. The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan
Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.
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 Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly
supported a guerrilla war against U.S. occupation, is likely to be
split.
© 2008 The Independent UK All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/87084/
