The Bush administration has for days denied that it was trying–secretly–to hammer out a (secret) treaty with Iraq that would guarantee the U.S. military the right to maintain more than 50 bases indefinitely in Iraq, along with many other rights that a sovereign nation usually does not grant to a foreign power–including immunity from prosecution for U.S. military, contractors, etc., and the right to conduct land and air military operations at will. (Read “Not So Secret Anymore.”)
However, the secret negotiations appear to be at an impasse because–surprise–the government that we have been fighting and dying for to give some semblance of democracy, and sovereignty, wants to exercise its sovereignty and act as a free and democratic nation. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: “The Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty.”
Wow! What should be a welcome turn of events for America–remember Bush’s “shining beacon of democracy”?–now becomes an “impasse,” a “stalemate,” a “stumbling block.” In today’s New York Times Editorial, “A Moment of Clarity in Baghdad,” we read, “As the administration pushes for a legal agreement to extend the American military presence in Iraq, the Iraqis are pushing back. That is a positive sign.”
But Bush and McCain don’t like such “a moment of clarity.” According to the New York Times:
President Bush has made clear that he plans to keep American troops in Iraq for as long as he is in office. But this deal appears to be an especially cynical attempt to tie his successor to his failed Iraq policy.
Oddly, by pushing so hard, Mr. Bush may achieve that which seemed impossible: unity among Iraq’s disparate ethnic and political groups. But the last thing the United States needs is another country held together by its fury with the United States.
Like Mr. Bush, Senator McCain is clearly not listening to the Iraqis any more than he is listening to the American people.
When asked on NBC’s “Today” show this week if he knew when American troops could start retuning home, he replied: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.”
While the White House is still refusing to divulge details on this issue to Congress and to the American people, the Iraqis are freely and openly expressing their opposition to this potential infringement on their sovereignty and democracy. Isn’t his the height of irony–and hypocrisy?
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.