Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the
American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the
outcome of the US 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 destabilise 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 US.
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 US presence in Iraq, the long-term
settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential
nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US 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 Mr 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 US 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 delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as
an American pawn.
The US 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 29,000ft 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.
Mr 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US
troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the
Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a
continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who
want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab
community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US
occupation, is likely to be split