From the Iraq Archives: When is Permanent not Permanent? (21 June 2008)

In a week when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates predicted that "several tens of thousands of American troops" will be staying in Iraq beyond 2011 and when The New York Times finally noticed the "disquieting talk in Washington", here is a Watching America blog from June that was already foreseeing American withdrawal as a necessary but partial fiction:

WHEN IS PERMANENT NOT PERMANENT? THE US BASES IN IRAQ

Last Friday morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, turned its eagle-eyed attention to a proposed agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments. This which would provide a mandate for the continued presence of the American military, replacing the current UN-sanctioned mandate which expires at the end of 2008.


What ensued was a propaganda piece which not verged on falsehood but sprinted over the line. Correspondent Jim Muir, evaluating the situation from deep inside the Green Zone, assured listeners that the "Status of Forces" agreement was essential to prevent Iraq from falling into disorder. A platform was then offered to retired General Jack Keane, the man "behind the surge strategy in Iraq", to lay down the law, so to speak.

Any Iraqi opposition, Keane assured, was due to the "hubris" of the apparent Iraqi success in establishing control of areas such as Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi security forces still were in need of American support. (Thus, as the expertise of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show has long noted, the perfect argument: If there is instability in Iraq, we need to put in more American forces; if there is some sign of stability, we need to keep those forces there.)

Having put America's supposed ally in its place, Keane could then add that there was no provision in the agreement --- none whatsoever --- for the US to carry out aerial operations without the authorisation of the Iraqi Government. No provision, none whatsoever, for the exemption of American military forces from Iraqi law.

The only problem is that Keane was blatantly lying. And the BBC, had it had the integrity that it claimed in its report, could easily have called up the evidence to show he was lying.

They could have done so because, the day before their report, Patrick Cockburn of the Independent had spectacularly exposed the provisions of the agreement. The US Government is seeking an indefinite right to use more than 50 bases throughout Iraq. And (take note, General Keane) "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".

(Cockburn had a bit more the following day. Far from this being a free-and-fair negotiation, the US Government was threatening a "freeze" on $50 billion of Iraqi assets in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The funds are linked to $20 billion in outstanding court judgements in the US against the Iraqi Government. Currently the US Government has kept them "immune" from seizure, but they are threatening to revoke this immunity if there is a hitch in the negotations over the Status of Forces Agreement.)

All credit to Cockburn for pulling this together, but this is far from a new story. The negotiation has been going on for months and, as was discussed during the most recent Petraeus-Crocker show before the US Congress, the Bush Administration is avoiding any reference to the agreement as a "treaty" to avoid putting it up for Congressional approval.

The story has taken on new impetus, however, not just because of the 31 July deadline set for its completion but because of the growing opposition --- private and public --- in Iraq. Unnoticed by most media outlets in the US and Britain, thousands of Iraqis have been taking to the street in demonstrations. Leading clerics in Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani and Grand Ayatollah Mudaressi, have not only objected but warned of "a popular uprising". The issue may lay behind a serious split in the Iraqi Government, with former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari being expelled from current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

And, in the latest development, the Status of Forces Agreement now appears to be playing into the hands of Iran. Only last month, the US Government spin was that Iraqi officials were travelling to Tehran to chastise the Iranians for providing weapons to insurgents. Well, Prime Minister al-Maliki was in Iran last week and --- guess what? --- Iranian duplicity wasn't the Number One item on his agenda.

Instead, al-Maliki is all but pleading with the Iranians to lift their opposition to the agreement, assuring Tehran that “we will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors”. Significantly, according to reports of the talks, the Iraqi delegation was discussing with Iranian counterparts increased cooperation on issues such as border control and intelligence.

The SOFA episode is the ultimate demonstration, as the Bush Administration approaches its end, of the "hubris" not of Iraqi but American over-confidence. To the end, the US is trying to play a military hand in the belief that the presence of its equipment and troops assures power (not to the Iraqis, I hasten to add, but to Washington). The game, however, is now more political than military. As Iraqi support --- on the street, amongst the clerics, and within political factions --- erodes for the purported US "cooperation", American force is now a bystander. A far-from-powerless bystander, to be sure, but still a bystander as the "new Iraq" emerges in a complex local and regional environment that can no longer be organised by agreements despatched from Washington.

Non-Story of the Day: 30,000 More US Troops in Afghanistan

Most newspapers run the statement of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the US will be deploying another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan over the next year. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a separate statement, confirmed that 3000 were already on their way.

It's a non-story because, as we reported last week, the Pentagon have been steadily leaking this information. More significant is Mullen's red-meat warning, "When we get additional troops here, I think the violence level is going to go up. The fight will be tougher."

In other words, get ready for the long haul, folks. And forget any namby-pamby talk about a political approach or, heaven help us, a negotiated way out of this mess. This is a head-on military confrontation.



That in turn points to a US strategy being led, not by the politicians --- even an Obama --- but by the generals taking advantage of the "transition" period. David Petraeus has pretty much gotten his wish, without having to go through the difficulty of running for elected office, to be top dog in Washington.

The point is made this morning, inadvertently, by a puff-piece editorial --- "a stable, safe and free Iraq is emerging" --- by stay-the-course hawk Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham. Noting that Barack Obama has bolstered Gates with the appointment of a military man, James Jones, as National Security Advisor, the trio go further with their call for a "a responsible redeployment from Iraq, based on the new and improved realities on the ground". How best to do that?

Of course, it's by "seek[ing] the counsel of Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of coalition forces in Iraq". (No one seems to mention anymore, despite Thomas Ricks' excellent account in his book Fiasco, that Odierno's heavy-handed methods in 2003/4 in Iraq gave a big boost to the insurgency.)

But, if you want the really significant dimension of the story, note Mullen's statement that most of the US troops will be deployed to Helmand province, where Britain currently has the military lead. Then match that up to a report in The Times that "Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and senior commanders are concerned that the British government lacks the 'political will' for the fight".

In other words, "London, put up or stand aside". But, either because of political concerns or (more likely) the strains on Britain's armed forces, the Brown Government isn't willing or able to step up the military game in Afghanistan, at least in the short turn. And that in turn means the US is taking over in another section of the country.

Get ready. It's going to be a very tough fight, indeed.

Obama Acts: Guantanamo to Close

OK, now I'll join the optimists who expect an Obama Administration commitment --- despite the last, desperate interference of Vice President Dick Cheney --- to shut down Camp X-Ray soon after the Inauguration in January 2009:

The Defense Department is drawing up plans to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison in anticipation that one of President-elect Barack Obama's first acts will be ordering the closure of the detention center associated with the abuse of terror suspects.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates still technically works for George W. Bush, so the confirmation from the Pentagon indicates that the current Administration is standing aside. More importantly  the Department of Defense, which helped launch this illegal and counter-productive regime, is now prepared to shut it down.

The downside of this process is that it will still take months to find and implement an arrangement for the 250 detainees still at the prison. It is unclear how many will be kept under lock-and-key in the American system and if those released can return to their home countries, have to be accommodated in the United States, or will be accepted by a third country such as Portugal.

Iraq Non-Surprise of the Day: We'll Stick Around for A While

It didn't take long for the US military to confirm our speculation that a lot of US troops won't be coming home soon. From The New York Times:

The top American commander in Iraq said Saturday that some soldiers would remain in a support role in cities beyond summer 2009, when a new security agreement calls for the removal of American combat troops from urban areas.

The commander, Gen. Ray Odierno, said American troops would remain at numerous security outposts in order to help support and train Iraqi forces. “We believe that’s part of our transition teams,” he told reporters in Balad while accompanying Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who arrived on an unannounced trip Saturday.

Odierno's spokesman coined a new term to cover the retention of troops --- they're now "enablers" --- but his boss tipped off the long-term strategy:

General Odierno said Saturday, as Pentagon officials have said previously, that the agreement might be renegotiated with the Iraqi government. “Three years is a very long time,” he told reporters.

And, just to drive the point home, Secretary of Defense Gates identified the Bad Guy to justify Occupation Lite:

The president-elect and his team are under no illusions about Iran’s behavior and what Iran has been doing in the region and apparently is doing with weapons programs.

To me, it looks like US policy is now being fashioned, not by the President or the President-elect, but by Gates, Odierno, and General David Petraeus, the head of the US military's Central Command. This doesn't mean that Obama is opposed to the policy --- far from it, if he put his foot down, he would have a chance of limiting the commitments --- but with his increasingly unreal statement that US troops will be withdrawing from iraq within 16 months, Barack is letting himself be boxed in.