US-Iraq Security Pact: Impasse over Sovereignty

[fourier jr]

Since there's no thread about this yet:

AMMAN (AFP) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Friday that negotiations with the United States on a long-term security pact are deadlocked because of concern the deal infringes Iraqi sovereignty.

"We have reached an impasse because when we opened these negotiations we did not realize that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept," he said in Amman.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gK64eeNme-jyZF-g9qsIQhGe64vA

That's an understatement! Check out this report from the National Security Archive about a newly-declassified military powerpoint from 2003(!):

Documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the U.S. started drafting the agreement in November 2003. While information available in the heavily redacted copies that were provided does not specifically address such hot-button, present-day issues as the number and location of bases, or control of airspace, these preliminary planning documents show that from the outset U.S. aspirations for conducting military operations based in Iraq were essentially without limit.

The Bush administration had initially hoped to see the security pact accepted by an interim Iraqi Governing Council that it itself had appointed. The documents outline a number of "red lines" that the Defense Department and the Central Command considered crucial during the early planning, including unlimited authority to conduct military operations; the "absolute" prerogative to detain, interrogate and intern Iraqis; the right to establish its own rules of engagement; complete freedom of movement entering, departing, and within Iraq; full immunity for U.S. forces and contractors; immunity from international tribunals; and exemption from inspections, taxes, and duties.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB252/index.htm

& of course since that was drafted in 2003, it wouldn't have specifics like how many US bases & where they'd be, etc, however:

Information reported by Patrick Cockburn of the Independent indicates that the deal under discussion calls for:

* Indefinite perpetuation of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House
* More than 50 permanent U.S. bases in Iraq
* U.S. carte blanche to conduct military operations and to arrest Iraqis and anyone else in Iraq without consulting the Iraqi government
* Immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. forces and private contractors
* Control of Iraq's airspace below 29,000 feet
* Unlimited freedom to pursue the "war on terror" through operations in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

 

[Astronuc]

* Indefinite perpetuation of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House
* More than 50 permanent U.S. bases in Iraq
* U.S. carte blanche to conduct military operations and to arrest Iraqis and anyone else in Iraq without consulting the Iraqi government
* Immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. forces and private contractors
* Control of Iraq's airspace below 29,000 feet
* Unlimited freedom to pursue the "war on terror" through operations in Iraq.

That is unacceptable.

That certainly is not freedom - but subjugation - occupation.

I heard a few weeks ago that some Iraqis and the Iraqi government were objecting to US policies and future plans.

 

[lisab]

I heard a few weeks ago that some Iraqis and the Iraqi government were objecting to US policies and future plans.

Either Al-Sadr is reacting to that anger, or he is trying extreme measures to regain control of his Al-Mahdi Army. He stated today that he will start a new movement against US forces.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4134498.ece

Al-Sadr really worries me.


Edit: I found an article with a bit more detail:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/13/iraq.alsadr/?iref=hpmostpop

Apparently, Al-Sadr is re-directing most of the Mehdi Army to humanitarian duties, and he will form a new fighting group to attack "the occupier."

 

[edward]

I doubt that we have enough troops to occupy fifty bases, unless some of them will just be outposts.

There are definitely several really large bases that were to be completed this year.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/bases.htm

A lot of the links seem to be disappearing.

Edit: As far as permanent bases go we played this tune before on PF. There were a lot of doubters back in 06.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115112

 

[BobG]

Either Al-Sadr is reacting to that anger, or he is trying extreme measures to regain control of his Al-Mahdi Army. He stated today that he will start a new movement against US forces.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4134498.ece

Al-Sadr really worries me.


Edit: I found an article with a bit more detail:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/13/iraq.alsadr/?iref=hpmostpop

Apparently, Al-Sadr is re-directing most of the Mehdi Army to humanitarian duties, and he will form a new fighting group to attack "the occupier."

Al-Sadr is kind of interesting. He has enough popularity among Shiites (the majority) that he could wind up an important leader in the Iraqi government. Making that transistion from insurgent military leader to civilian political leader is going to be a little tricky. I'm not even sure how he keeps his army under control so they only target the occupiers and not the Sunnis. He's kept them under some control for nearly a year, though.

I don't think he'll turn out to be the guy that brings unity to Iraq. That person has yet to emerge and may never emerge. In fact, that person usually doesn't emerge.

 

[seycyrus]

Which of those conditions are the most restricting, unacceptable do you think? The ones about law/arrest?

The US has about 30 bases in Germany, about ten in Korea for instance. %o in a country the size of Iraq seems to be a simple extension.

 

[Astronuc]

Which of those conditions are the most restricting, unacceptable do you think? The ones about law/arrest?

The US has about 30 bases in Germany, about ten in Korea for instance. %o in a country the size of Iraq seems to be a simple extension.

Assuming the conditions are true (I haven't independently verified), the following are clearly unacceptable:

* U.S. carte blanche to conduct military operations and to arrest Iraqis and anyone else in Iraq without consulting the Iraqi government
* Immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. forces and private contractors
* Control of Iraq's airspace below 29,000 feet

Arbitrary arrest and detention, kidnapping (rendition), torture are crimes against humanity. That would be illegal in the US. It's not acceptable for US military or mercenaries to conduct such activities outside the US on anyone. Most of the people arrested by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan were released without charge, ostensibly because they were innocent.

The US govt, AFAIK, does not arrest or kidnap Germans or Koreans. What the US proposes in Iraq would not be acceptable in Germany or Korea.

It's time to stop the aggression.

 

[seycyrus]

Assuming the conditions are true (I haven't independently verified), the following are clearly unacceptable:

* U.S. carte blanche to conduct military operations and to arrest Iraqis and anyone else in Iraq without consulting the Iraqi government
* Immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. forces and private contractors
* Control of Iraq's airspace below 29,000 feet

Yes I agree. Of those 3, I find he airspace one to be the least restrictive. I don't think Iraq will be in a condition to control its airspace for quite some time anyway.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Why not help them instead of doing it for them?

I think this will deepen the roots of the US war in Iraq, making it even more difficult for Obama or anyone else who wants to pull out of Iraq.

 

[seycyrus]

Help them? In what way? By providing them with technology and such? If that is the desire, then the US is far more likely to assist a country that has allowed it to use it's air space, than a country which has denied it.

 

[BobG]

Assuming the conditions are true (I haven't independently verified), the following are clearly unacceptable:

* U.S. carte blanche to conduct military operations and to arrest Iraqis and anyone else in Iraq without consulting the Iraqi government
* Immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. forces and private contractors
* Control of Iraq's airspace below 29,000 feet

Arbitrary arrest and detention, kidnapping (rendition), torture are crimes against humanity. That would be illegal in the US. It's not acceptable for US military or mercenaries to conduct such activities outside the US on anyone. Most of the people arrested by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan were released without charge, ostensibly because they were innocent.

The US govt, AFAIK, does not arrest or kidnap Germans or Koreans. What the US proposes in Iraq would not be acceptable in Germany or Korea.

It's time to stop the aggression.

I think the sticking point on "immunity" is allowing US military or civilian contractors to be tried by the Iraqi court system. The US generally doesn't allow foreign countries to try US military regardless of what country you're talking about. The US military tries its own (Abu Graib and other crimes).

Saying civilian security firms hired by the US are only subject to US law is going to be a lot harder case to sell. The US will have to quit relying on so many civilian security personnel.

 

[mheslep]

...It's time to stop the aggression.

By who? Iran? Al-Sadr? Turkey? Syria? AQI?

 

[Astronuc]

By who? Iran? Al-Sadr? Turkey? Syria? AQI?

Those go without saying.

I was referring to the US.