Iraqis Condemn American Demands

Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Foreign Service:

High-level negotiations over the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate, with Iraqi politicians denouncing what they say are U.S. demands to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely.

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nourial-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

Congress has grown increasingly restive over the negotiations, which would produce a status of forces agreement setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq and a broader "security framework" defining the political and military relationship between the two countries. Senior lawmakers of both parties have demanded more information and questioned the Bush administration's insistence that no legislative approval is required.

In Iraq, the willingness to consider calling for the departure of American troops represents a major shift for members of the U.S.-backed government. Maliki this week visited Iran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, urged him to reject any long-term security arrangements with the United States.

Failing to reach agreements this year authorizing the future presence of American forces in Iraq would be a strategic setback for the Bush administration, which says that such a presence is essential to promoting stability. Absent the agreements or the extension of the U.N. mandate, U.S. troops would have no legal basis to remain in Iraq. (more)

LSB: Why are we negotiating anything? The U.N. mandate ends in December – that’s our ticket out of Iraq with honor. We've fulfilled the mandate. Period. We should be planning our exit, not negotiating to stay. Or is the ridiculousness of the U.S. demands the way the Bush administration plans to justify withdrawal – when the Iraqis don’t acquiesce we ‘take our ball and go home?’ (Or am I giving the Bush administration too much credit for coming up with that type of strategy?) This article identifies some of the key sticking points that, frankly, we would never agree to if the situation were reversed: the U.S. request to maintain 58 long-term bases in Iraq, though we apparently originally pushed for more than 200 facilities (Given the multiple tours of our current forces, the recruiting shortages and the ongoing needs in Afghanistan and other locations around the world, why are we trying to maintain that many bases?); authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system (You've got to be fucking kidding me! Given the disgraceful conduct at Abu Ghraib and the continuing disgrace of Gitmo, why would Iraqi leadership ever consider allowing its citizens to be detained and held by the U.S.?); immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors (this is what the Blackwater contributions are buying); continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air (no doubt to stage an attack on Iran); and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government (Doesn't this sound like an occupation to you?). Bush has an opportunity to recoup a part of his legacy by cleaning up the mess he made, otherwise the Obama administration will clean it up in January.

UPDATE 06/13/08 - Maliki raises possibility that Iraq might ask U.S. to leave: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.

Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.

"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."

Earlier, Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement "reached an impasse" after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors.