About a week ago, the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant carried a story with a tantatalizing title, “Secret Plan: The U.S. to Stay in Iraq for Years.” The (translated) story, which can be read in its entirety at watchingamerica.com, starts out as follows:
“The Bush administration wants to use 50 military bases in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Washington also wants to continue to control Iraqi airspace in the future. American military must be able to continue to conduct military operations in Iraq undisturbed and without approval from Iraq.”
And continues,
“The U.S. and Iraqi governments are presently secretly negotiating a treaty that will make all this possible. The agreement should be signed by the end of July. This is reported by the British newspaper The Independent on Thursday on the basis of anonymous sources who are knowledgeable of the negotiations.”
Well, what a difference a week makes. This Tuesday, Spain’s El Comercio carried a story interestingly titled “Cómo irse de Iraq y quedarse.” (How to Leave Iraq, and Stay There.”) The piece reports on what everybody knows by now, that:
“Such a plan consists of signing as far ahead as possible– if it can be done, in July–a security and cooperation agreement with the Iraqi government. One that will give the U.S. Army the possibility to stay in the country indefinitely and which will replace their role of occupier with that of partner, when the UN mandate regarding the American presence…expires at the end of the year.”
But, what is interesting about this piece, and as the “tongue-in-cheek” title promises, is the political spin and fallout that is now raging about this “secret treaty.” El Comercio:
“If all goes according to Washington’s plan, President Bush will be able to say, without lying, that the invasion of Iraq has ended well, in military and geo-strategic terms, which is what is most important to a superpower with global interests.”
On the political doubletalk, El Comercio continues:
“Nor is it reassuring to hear the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, say that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. This is resolved by placing such bases in a temporary “lease” status, as is the current model elsewhere.”
The angst that Iran has about this “secret treaty” is also widely reported. Iran’s leaders are afraid that the U.S. will use its military bases in Iraq, and the U.S.’ unrestricted use and control of Iraqi airspace, to launch an attack against Iran.
According to El Comercio:
“Yesterday [June 9], the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, had to listen to Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Jamenei, say that of all the problems facing Iraq, the major one is the U.S. interference in its affairs through its military and security power. Al-Maliki was ending a difficult three-day stay in Teheran, where he lived in exile for many years, and where he tried very hard—it seems in vain—to convince his Shiite neighbor that it has nothing to fear from such an agreement, and that he will never permit that Iraq be used as a base from which to launch an eventual U.S. attack—something that no one is ruling out today.”
The proposed agreement is politically very controversial, both in Iraq and in the U.S. A majority of the Iraqi parliament recently wrote to Congress rejecting a long-term security pact with the U.S. unless the proposed agreement includes a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.
In the U.S., it has been soundly criticized by Democrats who are accusing the Bush administration of trying to tie the hands of the next president by committing to continue to protect Iraq with U.S. forces.
Yesterday, USA Today, discussed the not-so-secret treaty and confirmed that “The United States has requested long-term access to military bases, freedom of movement for U.S. troops, authority to detain suspects and immunity for U.S. personnel–including private contractors–from prosecution in Iraqi courts.”
Well, it appears that McCain’s “one hundred years in Iraq” may yet become a reality.
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.