George W. Bush wants to ensure that Iraq is transformed indefinitely into an American protectorate, irrespective of the outcome of the 2008 presidential elections. We suspected as much, especially when talk of a US-Iraqi treaty was first aired by the administration. Patrick Cockburn, the best foreign journalist working in Iraq bar none has revealed in the UK-based Independent newspaper the true extent of the Bush Administration’s machinations for Iraq. Though as I said many suspected as much, including myself, it’s nevertheless shocking to hear in such plain speak plans that make many old-style British colonial agreements seem relatively pleasant.
For instance, under the terms of the new treaty, the US would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq and American negotiators are 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 consultation of the Iraqi government. Even control of Iraqi air space is a very real possibility. If such a treaty is unilaterally forced through it seems that Gaza and Mesopotamia will have a lot more in common than they had previously. Such measures are worse than what was in place during the Shah’s regime for sure, but such patently colonial measures will surely resonate with many Iranians and all other peoples who have suffered under the yoke of colonialism.
Bush’s machinations have been revealed and in all seriousness Iraqis will not suffer any such deal idly. Unfortunately, whether they have a choice in the matter has become a redundant question – they do not. If the government chooses to accede to any such agreement we can surmise the remaining vestiges of its ‘legitimacy’ to which it had previously laid claim will go up in flames. Iraq’s present leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place. Arguably 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 arrogant and lamentable plans to turn Iraq from a de facto to de jure protectorate will surely sound the death-knell for the Maliki government, isolated as it already is in the heavily fortified Green Zone.
Similarly, while the so-called Awakening Councils, comprised of elements of the former Ba’athist regime, Salafist jihadists, and al-Qaeda sympathizers has been relatively acquiescent and even abetted US forces in combating al-Qaeda in Iraq, that acquiescence will almost certainly dry up if any such agreement is legitimated. It will also embolden the jihadists already inside Iraq as the US’s intentions for the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world are once more unmasked for what they always were: Iraq’s colonization.
Furthermore, Muqtada al-Sadr who has been relatively quiet of late as a result of the recently declared ceasefire in all likelihood will again begin antagonizing the occupation forces with alacrity and much support from the populace as soon as knowledge that such an agreement is in the offing becomes widespread. Finally, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the most significant marja’ taqlid, or source of emulation inside Iraq, whose tolerance of the occupation has been on the wane since the occupation’s inception; from a position of relative quietism to a critical position vis-a-vis American hubris and haughtiness, may well be reduced to nil.
Here’s a snippet of Cockburn’s article, the link to continue reading is pasted below:
“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.”
