VIEW

Article with Footnotes

What is the Future of Iraqi Sovereignty?           Negotiations over the future role and status of America’s armed forces in Iraq have been underway for some time, while any sign of agreement between the respective parties appears inconclusive and highly precarious. With the July 31st deadline already passed, the ongoing dispute over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) shows little sign of resolution. The Bush administration has been somewhat desperate to push the measure through and establish a legal framework for the continued presence of US forces in Iraq since the UN Security Council mandate is due to expire this December.

This so-called “strategic alliance” was immediately met with fierce and unremitting opposition by Iraqi politicians, religious dignitaries and the general public. The tide of opposition is such that Iraqi politicians on all sides know that whoever uncritically accedes to American demands will never be forgiven or forgotten. Their political credibility will quite simply be left in tatters.

In a story first broken in early June by the UK Independent’s Middle East Correspondent Patrick Cockburn, it became clear that the aim of the Bush administration was to ensure the permanent presence of US forces inside Iraq possessed a legal footing, so that the subsequent occupant of the Oval Office, would feel little compulsion to embark upon a course of large-scale troop withdrawals. The other and more damning implication of Baghdad’s “strategic alliance” with Washington would be that Iraq for all intents and purposes would be transformed into an American client-state, without sovereignty in any meaningful sense of the word.[1]

In his article, Cockburn, who is amongst the most well-informed and astute foreign observers of Iraqi politics, details the content of the would-be US-Iraqi agreement. When the conditions laid down by SOFA originally came to light, it was said to include the long-term use of more than 50 US military bases in Iraq; immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military operations inside Iraq without consultation of the Iraqi government. Even US total control over Iraqi airspace was deemed a very real possibility, sparking fears that the US might either use Iraq as a base from which to attack Iran, or permit the Israelis to attack Iran via Iraqi airspace.

Iraqi officials, however, haven’t been quiescent and by contrast have quite forcefully complained that such plans would transform their country into an ‘American colony’ and sow the seeds of conflict inside Iraq and the broader Middle East for years to come.[2] Former Iraqi Finance Minister, Ali Allawi has pointedly stated that the US-Iraqi agreement “raises serious alarm about its long-term significance for Iraq’s sovereignty and independence.”[3]

Opposition has only grown over time as the envisioned content of the agreement has steadily drizzled downward and become know to the Iraqi public at large. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has also voiced his dissatisfaction with the current direction of talks, and even at one point stated with apparent candor that they were at a ‘dead end’.[4] As a result much has been made in the western press of ‘Washington’s man, turning on his US-backers’.

Al-Maliki in early July made a further bold move much to the chagrin of Washington by declaring his government may soon consider a timetable for a US withdrawal of forces. "Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty".[5] Whether this is anything more than mere bluster or a stratagem to shore up the short-term approval of Iraqi nationalists is not entirely clear. That Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari later opined, al-Maliki’s protestations were more a performance for the sake of strengthening the government’s negotiating position vis-à-vis the Americans, deftly rehashing the popular mood of disaffection with the talks. This for one makes the actual stance of the Iraqi government more nebulous and harder to espy.

It seems that al-Maliki’s frosty musings on SOFA and regurgitation of nationalist sentiment have elicited some minor concessions from the Americans. First of all, it has been reported that private contractors inside Iraq will cease to possess immunity and instead be subject to Iraqi law. This was of particular concern to many Iraqis who view the privately funded, armed mercenaries who are said to be equal in number to American military personnel inside Iraq, as careless, dangerous and unaccountable. The original demand of well-over 50 military bases is also reported to have been tempered into “the low dozens”.[6]

The number of bases although important, by no means resolves the crux over who’ll in the final instance, exercise military control over Iraqi territory, airspace and territorial waters. The problem of Iraqi sovereignty will remain unresolved and continue to reside on shaky foundations.

The progress of negotiations is said to have become so fraught that President Bush was compelled to personally intervene and assure his Iraqi counterparts that SOFA wouldn’t undermine Iraqi sovereignty. Given the content of SOFA, little else, however, could be inferred and Iraqis are right to fear for their nation’s future independence since the treaty is tantamount to the

Iraq's present leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place. Some commentators have argued it's only the 150,000 or so American troops who have thus far prevented their overthrow and destruction, while at the same time their embrace of the US's plans to turn Iraq into a de jure American protectorate will surely sound the death-knell for the al-Maliki government, isolated as it already is in the heavily fortified Green Zone. Similarly, while the so-called Sons of Iraq sahwa ("Awakening") movement, comprised of elements of the former Ba'athist regime, Salafist jihadists and Sunni sheikhs, has of late been relatively quiescent and even abetted US forces in combating al-Qaeda in Iraq; such support is tenuous and could dry up relatively quickly if the right circumstances were forthcoming. Surprisingly few have pointed out that the US is currently funding and arming one of Iraq’s biggest and most battle-worn militias. A 90,000 man strong Sunni militia, with no guarantees of disbandment in the longer-term poses a worrisome question mark over the possibility of a return to sectarian hostilities. Some argue that General Petraeus has merely hit the pause button on intra-faith violence, while actually laying the ground for future violence on a hitherto unseen scale. Arab-Kurdish violence is also set to blow over the battle for Kirkuk. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Thomas Powers, puts the issue succinctly when he writes:

“At the beginning of the occupation a key goal of the Americans was to disband the militias. In creating the awakening councils, the United States has armed, paid, and in effect sponsored the largest Iraqi militia of them all…The surge, therefore, has not so much ended the sectarian strife as it has set the stage for a renewal of civil war at a higher level of violence.”[8]

The “strategic alliance” could also embolden al-Qaeda in Iraq, since the continued presence of a foreign occupation would provide plenty of grist to the jihadist mill and its very own formidable propaganda machine.

Furthermore, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shi’a militia, the Mahdi Army, the staunchly anti-American clergyman who has been relatively quiet of late as a result of a declared ceasefire in all likelihood will renew his efforts to antagonize occupation forces with alacrity and much popular backing once it becomes politically expedient to do so. Al-Sadr’s hostility to the agreement hasn’t been tamed or assuaged in the slightest. He has openly called for a national referendum, certain that Iraqi public opinion vehemently opposes the US occupation’s retrenchment. In September 2007, opinion polls found that 73% of the Shi’a held the presence of US troops in Iraq as exacerbating the security situation,[9] and there is little evidence that such unequivocal opposition to an American military presence inside Iraq has since foundered.

Finally, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the most significant Shi’a religious figure inside Iraq, whose tolerance of the occupation has been on the wane since the occupation's inception; declining from a position of relative quietism to a critical position vis-à-vis American hubris. SOFA could be the straw which breaks the camel’s back, transforming the Grand Ayatollah’s restrained criticism into untrammeled polemic. He has already been reported to have said on the one hand, that he’ll oppose any Iraq-US agreement that would jeopardize Iraqi sovereignty as long as he is alive, and also that any such agreement should be subject to a national referendum.[10]

As a marja' taqlid, or source of emulation, with an unrivalled following inside Iraq, he could issue a fatwa, decrying SOFA, leaving it stillborn and in profound need of re-evaluation. Since the beginnings of the occupation, al-Sistani has endeavored to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Grand Ayatollah al-Khoei and eschew confrontation with the occupation forces, realizing that their alienation could only hurt the Shi’a, who by virtue of Iraq’s demography (they make up some 60% of the population) are bound to win in any popular elections.

The US, however, is using $50 billion held in the US Federal Reserve Bank to coerce the fledgling Baghdad government into accepting SOFA on American terms. Thus far the Iraqi government has stuck to its guns and refused to cave, but remains under severe pressure. As Cockburn has explained:

"Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States."[11]   

The Bush administration has gone to the lengths of describing, what is a "treaty" by any other name as an "alliance", so that they’re not compelled to submit it for congressional approval. Some Democrats have been searing in their criticism of this move, which they take as further evidence of this administration’s contempt for Congress and democratic institutions more generally. Though it’s still unclear what form a US-Iraqi “strategic alliance” will take, few possess any illusions as to whether it will eventually be pushed through. Iraqi politicians have said as much, stating that the treaty will be enacted into law in exchange for a few paltry concessions.

If public protest were to reach fever-pitch, or al-Sistani and al-Sadr, alongside prominent voices in the Sunni community were to vociferously urge the necessity for a referendum on the matter, the Iraqi government may well be forced to bow to public pressure. Though a distinct possibility, it is just that and as a result we should perhaps side with the more sober evaluations and conclude that despite massive public opposition the al-Maliki government with pass a more watered-down version of SOFA. And it’s in this respect that Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, may prove to be correct, American forces are destined to be in Mesopotamia for another 100 years.

 
[1] Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control, Patrick Cockburn, The Independent, June 5, 2008
[2] Bush Forced to Rethink Plan to Keep Iraq Bases, Leonard Doyle, The Independent, 12 June, 2008
[3] This Raises Huge Questions Over Our Independence, Ali Allawi, The Independent, June 5, 2008
[4] Iraqi PM: U.S. Security Deal at a Dead End, MSNBC, June 13, 2008
[5] Has Maliki Turned on the US?, Abigail Hauslohner, Time, July 9, 2008
[6] Iraqi Sovereignty and US Bases, Patrick Cockburn, The Independent, June 12, 2008
[7] Iraq’s Sovereignty Vacuum: A Government with No Military, No Territory, Michael Schwartz, Asia Times Online, March 11, 2006
[8] Iraq: Will We Ever Get Out?, Thomas Powers, New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 9, May 29, 2008
[9] Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Fall of Iraq, Patrick Cockburn, Faber & Faber, 2008, p248
[10] Sadr Demands Referendum on SOFA; Sistani said to Support Referendum, Juan Cole, Informed Comment, May 29, 2008
[11] US Issues Threat to Iraq’s $50 bn Foreign Reserves in Military Deal, Patrick Cockburn, June 6, 2008 

© Sadegh Kabeer

Instability due to US and IRI

It is not only the US invasion which aggravated the situation in Iraq. One of the main source of instability in Iraq is the IRI-led Islamist and jihadist groups.

The notorious army of Mahdi, which counts more than 60 000 pro-IRI Shiite fanatics and are extensively more combative than Sunnite groups or even pro-governmental CSRII and the Dawa, is a potential of instability.

Although, all local Shiite parties, groups, militias are bound one way or the other with the IRI or its factions, the army of Mahdi seems to play Mullahs's international policy's card in Iraq.

The mullahs's diplomacy related to their nuclear and regional ambitions from one side and reactions of the West and UN sanctions from the other side is partly expressed by these Shiite fanatics of Mahdi armi. Their combats are orchestraded and planned by Mullahs rather than their anti-american feeling.

In this sense, the one-sided truce decided in the last August by Moqtada al-Sadr reduced certain degree of violence in iraq, but had a tactical chess move. The army is on the lurk when the IRI signals the actions.

An evacuation of the US let troops is very required by the voices of all democrats, but must be accompanied with dismantlement of all armed groups, especially those set up by the IRI.

There is no sense of nationalism in Iraqis

Some of you might suggest that Iraq will fight the colonialism; however the reality is that the Iraqi identity doesn't exist within the majority of its population. You might argue that Iraqi Arab Sunni’s will resist the American to protect their sovereignty if they decided to stay longer than they should. The truth is that they know that if USA stays Shia Arab and Kurds will continue using their prestige they’ve been given since the fall of Saddam. Shia Iraqi Arabs can't be trusted as they keep changing sides with Iran and USA for their own benefits. Iraqi Kurds are USA ally and they will continue to push for more power (referendum for Kirkuk) which would benefit them economically. So fighting colonialism is just an old saga. We need to remember that Iraq has only been around 60 years or so, so we shouldn't be surprised.

First of all FK there is a

First of all FK there is a big difference...the first, though highly flawed and manipulated was at least the product of something approaching international consent via the UN - it's therefore enshrined in international law...again it was temporary and had no predatory/exploitative agenda...the US treaty is aimed at permanently subjugating Iraq militarily, economically and politically...thankfully it appears like Maliki might reject it...Iraqis have fought colonialism since the time of the British and aren't going to stop any time soon...so get over it already...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Nice summation of

Nice summation of confounding factors in Iraq.

A 90,000 man strong Sunni militia, with no guaIrantees of disbandment in the longer-term poses a worrisome question mark over the possibility of a return to sectarian hostilities. Some argue that General Petraeus has merely hit the pause button on intra-faith violence, while actually laying the ground for future violence on an hitherto unseen scale.

General Patreaus is very shrewd. This is exactly why Maliki and Not-so-grand ayatollah Sistani will eventually acquiesce to a watered down version of SOFA. After ethnic cleansing of Baghadad city from Sunnis (see Juan cole), no shi'ite government will ever be safe from being toppled by the Sunnis, both Iraqis and foreign.

What is more ominous is General Petreaus's long-term objectives in arming,funding and training Sunnis: A region-wide sectarian conflagration is and will be in the making if Iran/hizballah misbehaves. Now, the US has all the leverage it needs to stay in the region for the next 100 years.

Jim Jones brand Kool-Aid

Sorry for the delay in responding. I took Fatollah’s suggestion and tried to beat up Hanoun the teenage son of our neighborhood’s Palestinian drycleaner owner, didn’t work out as planned but the refresher course on how more efficiently kill unsuspecting Iraqi civilians was a resounding success.  As you know because of their daily practice at home and abroad the Revolutionary guard is full of hands on experts at killing civilians, we had a guest instructor flown in from Tehran’s HQ of Qods Force who was the best of the best Islamist cutthroats. As to who will drink the poison chalice, metaphorically speaking, the next time the doped-up commander of the faithful gives a televised audience I prefer a Jim Jones brand Kool-Aid served up to all of the ruling Islamist cabal.   

Fred, great points.

Fred, great points.

Sadegh, so as I said, the

Sadegh, so as I said, the U.N mandate is still valid, and the democratically elected Iraqi government has requested, through U.N, the presence of U.S troops.

Also, I will shockingly surprised if I you come out and say that this U.N and Iraqi mandate that has been in place so far since the invasion, has not violated Iraqi sovereignty.

Finally, I will ask all misguided leftists and IRI apologists like yourself to come out and be decent enough to say that they are pro IRI and for them, as long as a regime is anti U.S, regardless if it massacres its people, destroys its country and violates human rights principals in every fashion you can think of, should be supported solely because its anti U.S.  

The temporary ceasefire is

The temporary ceasefire is now officially over...hostilities will resume as of now...but who will eventually be forced to play Khomeini and drink the poisoned cup?!!!!

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Fred, do not patronize Iran or Iranians.

Instead of putting your condescending attitude at display, go and beat some helpless Palastinian civilians or plan killing some more Iraqis. That is what you are good at! You are NOTHING without America! Nothing! Otherwise, I would choose the filthy Mullahs over the likes of you any given time! Fatollah

Break is over

Well lets don’t play semantics with zero sum and giving life and all. I wish you health and a long life and wish no one would give up his/her life for  Iran because in my book Iran is within every individual Iranians and each one taken away is like an annexed  piece of Iranian territory. We are in the thick of it what zero sums are we talking about. The rapes, mutilations and the rest of daily horrors on top of an unrelenting maniacal cultish Islamist regime that has been proven to be immune to internal reform makes it couple of light years away pasts zero sum argument. And this idea of Iran will be there long after this regime is not that sound. You should know better than anyone that there are historical as well as opportunistic forces readying their digestive systems to devour different parts of Iran. The longer this regime stays in power the more people will be willing to welcome invaders, remember the Sassanid. We might put one another on ease by thumping our collective chests playing up the nationalistic aspects of Iranian society but we cannot be blind to historical facts. Whenever people have had it with tyranny they fought the regime with apathy in facing invaders and invaders we have had aplenty. Anyway this semi rational conversation on my part was to assure you nothing is personal, lets go back to our usual role,  it precipitates more clicks and  lets other know about the diversity of views however they are misguided and consistently wrong, in this case, the wrong one  being  you. As in the resumption of jabs, it is a shame such talent as yours is being waosted. 

I have to say Fred that is

I have to say Fred that is the most reasonable thing I've every heard you say...and dare I say a compelling argument with which I at least in part agree...but again I don't think it's a zero-sum game...priorities are important...but I don't see why I should be relentlessly bashed for examining, scrutinzing and criticizing both sides and writing about other issues beside Iran (though they are often more relevant than they at first appear)...Iran is our country and I would give my life in a heart beat to defend its dignity, independence, and sovereignty...Iran will be long after the demise of this regime and I believe it a gross error to forsake our country because the IRI happens to be at the helm...  

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Prioritizing the fight

For the second and hopefully final time, there is no personal animosity whatsoever; there is a very high possibility and probability of you being a decent chap in your personal life. It is all about this world view that for the better good lets go after the biggest dog, the rest will fall into place as the result. There is nothing wrong with that either, as a matter of fact it is not only admirable it should be the eleventh commandment. Only dizzy- heads with morality of potatoes are unaware of or deny the history of exploitation and human suffering. The beef with this kind of mindset is that it is fine and dandy for a citizen of a free country to advocate and as payback for his freedom try to propagate it and emancipate others.  Unless you count Islamist republic as a free country this scenario does not apply to us. In another word it is as misplaced as a Tutsi in the middle of ethnic cleansing in Rwanda dedicates all his knowledge and effort toward exposing the misdeeds of the colonial powers and just see it sufficient to say the situation around him is terrible. As human beings and citizens of this world we can be a lot more effective were it that our country was among the freed ones. This attitude of enemy of my enemy if not my friend is my ally in the case of Islamist republic has taken many admirable people to defending just the type of brutality that they originally were fighting against. As we are typing back and forth people are being discriminated against, raped, mutilated and many murdered by the Islamist republic, it is all about prioritizing the fight.

Fred: tireless apologist for U.S. and Israeli governments

Why is every critic of the U.S. and Israeli governments graced with the cut-and-paste routine of: "Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies, blah, blah, blah"? Perhaps Fred's frequent accusations of "anti-semitism" against everything and everyone would carry a little more credibility if he himself weren't such an anti-Muslim bigot. It's a rule of thumb that those individuals who fling about charges of "anti-semitism" against everyone are themselves the most inveterate of Muslim-haters and Israeli/U.S. government apologists.

Please post this comment in its entirety, as I have refrained from using profanity.

I love you too Fred...But

I love you too Fred...But in all seriousness you know full well that I've condemned those inhumane and undemocratic practices of the IRI, both here, but especially on my own personal blog...and you also know that I could get in serious trouble for doing so...your zero-sum game just doesn't wash...it's intellectually immature and morally bankrupt so why do you persist on lambasting me at every possible opportunity? chera nemetooneem baham ashti koneem?

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Shamelss Fred!

The slandering piece of human waste known on this site as Fred. JJ, or his proxies: if you are going to allow an irrelevant piece of nonsense like Fred's then have the decency to leave this post too.

Special citizens in overdrive

Iran is blessed with many historical things to be proud of. In cultural, scientific and other aspects of life a trace of positive contribution originating from historical Persia can be observed. Along side its hall of fame Iran has special types of citizens too. These citizens are aware of their special and gifted status and like to share their bounty of knowledge and particularly their prioritized crusade with the rest of the world. It is all good and yet another reason for boasting were it not for a minor problem. Iran being in the grippes of one of the verifiably most brutal modern day maniacal regimes which regularly and at times publicly executes its citizens en mass, hacks limbs, gouges eyes and rapes is completely off their priority list. True when pressed they have a pejorative or two for the Islamist regime or begrudgingly and belatedly accept the existence of proofs of Islamist republic’s crimes but over all it is completely off their Anti-Imperialistic radar screen. But when it comes to defending the handful of Islamist republic’s paid for allies including the extreme authoritarian leftist Chaves, nutty octogenarian lifetime president Mugabe, hereditary lifetime presidency of the House of Assad and Castro, the Turkish Islamists to even the pint size Khomeini mini me Al-Sadr, these special citizens are in overdrive .

Iraq's

situation is very complex. It has been predicted that If Americans stay for the period that they requested in their first proposal they might meet with nationalist resistance. However if they decided to leave early then Iraq might turn into civil war. Many Iraqis specifically Kurds and some Shia Arabs want the American to stay till the country become stable however many Sunni and Turkmen’s wants them to leave. Kirkuk is also a big issue. The question is how far are the different Iraqi groups prepared to sacrifice in order to keep the country together

Does Farhad Kashani see that Iran & U.S. are backing same Iraqis

Both the U.S. and Iranian governments are backing the SCIRI and Dawa Shia parties in Iraq. The only difference is that the U.S. is also backing the anti-Iranian Sunni hardliners as well, as part of its "divide-and-rule" strategy in Iraq. Some of the Sunnis are Ba'athists whom the U.S. backed during their invasion of Iran in the 1980s and others are Sunni Islamist fundamentalists who are hostile to the Shia in general and Iranians in particular (they use the term "Safavids" as a term of insult to refer to the Shia).

It's not complicated

It's not complicated Kashani, perhaps you should read more carefully next time...the UN mandate was validated post-invasion...it is due to expire in December...the US is trying its best to extort a new deal that will legalize measures that were intended to be temporary under the purview of the UNSC mandate...the US to put it bluntly controls the Iraqi military, Iraqi airspace, waters etc...the US does not control Japanese, German airspace, military, nor can it arrest anyone at will in Germany or Japan...this is why the Iraqi government is feeble and doesn't possess sovereignty...at least if you're going to be an imperialist have the heart to own up...Iraqis don't want US forces inside their country nor does even the Maliki government, a US-backed ally...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

This article sounds

This article sounds extremely confused. the coalition forces are in Iraq under a U.N mandatae and a democratically-elected Iragi government's request, and everyone knows the U.S cannot stay in Iraq forever.

Furthermore, the U.S has bases in France, Germany, England and Japan. Is the author suggesting that those countries are not "sovereign"?

Sadegh jan, well done, yet

Sadegh jan, well done, yet another poignant essay. Keep them coming. You have really given me some food for thought with this one.