[Dialogue] Bush Pledges on Iraq Bases Pact Were a Ruse

[Harry Wainwright]

Published on Friday, June 13, 2008 by Inter Press Service
<http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42773>  

Bush Pledges on Iraq Bases Pact Were a Ruse

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Two key pledges made by the George W. Bush administration on
military bases in its negotiations with the government of Iraq have now been
revealed as carefully-worded ruses aimed at concealing U.S. negotiating aims
from both U.S. citizens and Iraqis who would object to them if they were
made clear.

Recent statements by Iraqis familiar with U.S. demands in negotiations on
the U.S.-Iraq "strategic framework" agreement have highlighted the fact that
administration promises that it would not seek "permanent bases" or the use
of bases to attack Iran or any other neighbouring countries were
deliberately misleading. The wording used by the Bush administration appears
to have been chosen to obscure its intention to have both long-term access
to Iraqi bases and complete freedom to use them to launch operations against
Iran and Syria.

When Defence Secretary Robert Gates first informed the public about U.S.
aims in negotiating Jan. 24, he renounced the aim of "permanent bases" in
Iraq. Gates said the U.S.-Iraq agreement "would not involve - we have no
interest in permanent bases". The same day, State Department spokesman Tom
Casey, asked if the agreement would include any reference to "permanent
bases", replied, "We're not seeking permanent bases in Iraq. That's been a
clear matter of policy for some time."

Casey went on to say, "No, the agreement is not a basing agreement."

In Congressional testimony Apr. 8, Ambassador Ryan Crocker said the
agreements "will not establish permanent bases in Iraq and we anticipate
that it will expressly foreswear them."

These public reassurances, moreover, mirrored the actual language used in
the U.S. draft of the agreement given to the Iraqi negotiators. A draft
dated Mar. 8, which was leaked to The Guardian's Seumas Milne and reported
Apr. 8, includes the statement that the United States "does not desire
permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq".

That commitment, which seems definitive at first glance, actually
incorporates deliberate ambiguity on at least two different levels. The term
"permanent military base" appears to represent a substantive legal term, but
in fact is a completely misleading term.

When Democratic Sen. James Webb asked the State Department's David
Satterfield, "What is a permanent base?" Satterfield tried to avoid
answering the question. But Assistant Defence Secretary Mary Beth Long was
more responsive. She said, "I have looked into this. As far as the
department is concerned, we don't have a worldwide or even a department-wide
definition of permanent bases."

Webb then observed, "It doesn't really mean anything," to which Long
replied, "Yes, senator, you're right. It doesn't." She added that "most
lawyers. would say that the word 'permanent' probably refers more to the
state of mind contemplated by the use of the term".

Iraqi officials quickly figured out that the real significance of the
draft's wording on access to military bases was that it contained neither a
time limit on access to Iraqi bases nor any restrictions on the U.S. to
"conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when
necessary for imperative reasons of security".

Authorisation for such operations was called "temporary", but the absence of
any time limit makes that seemingly reassuring term meaningless as well.

The Bush administration's renunciation of "permanent bases" was a ploy to
lull the key committees of the U.S. Congress on an issue which had aroused
many Democratic critics of the war, who had repeatedly used that term in
demanding a legal commitment on the issue.

The administration also used such ambiguous language to help the Iraqi
government sell the agreement to Iraqi nationalists who object to long-term
U.S. bases in their country. Thus as early as last December, Iraqi National
Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubayi declared in a television interview, "The
Iraqi people reject the presence of permanent bases in Iraq" and reassured
Iraqis that the government would not accept such bases "in any form whatever
and will not approve, and I believe the Council of Representatives will not
approve it."

As Iraqi sources have now revealed to Western reporters, however, the U.S.
has proposed access to dozens of military bases without a time limit that
would be technically Iraqi bases but which would actually be fully under
U.S. control.

The ploy of turning over legal control of U.S. bases to a client regime is
one that U.S. administrations had used on at least two previous occasions to
get around legal/political problems associated with continuation of U.S.
base rights.

In the 1973 Paris peace agreement that ended the Vietnam War, the U.S.
pledged to dismantle all of its military bases in South Vietnam within 60
days. But it had already secretly transferred the deeds to the bases and
equipment to the South Vietnamese government and then had them "loaned back"
to the United States. U.S. officials then claimed that there were no U.S.
bases to dismantle.

Because of nationalist opposition to U.S. military bases in the Philippines,
the United States gave nominal "sovereignty" over the bases to the
Philippines in 1978 and put a Philippine officer in nominal command of each
base, while insisting on U.S. "effective command and control" as well as
"unhampered military operations".

Another issue on which the Bush administration inserted language in its
draft to suggest a major concession to Iraqi political sensitivities while
keeping its own freedom of action is the U.S. use of Iraqi bases to carry
out military operations against another country. That was an obvious red
line for the al-Maliki regime and its ally, Iran. Prime Minister al-Maliki's
spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh insisted last January that U.S. troops must "not be
used against [Iraq's] neighbours," because, he said, it could put the
country's security in jeopardy.

Dabbagh said this one the principles that Iraqi negotiators would seek to
spell out in the agreement.

The Mar. 7 draft includes a statement that the United States "does not seek
to use Iraqi territory as a platform for offensive operations against other
states". That commitment leaves plenty of room for the Bush administration
to argue that it is responding defensively to an Iranian threat to its
troops or other interests.

Iraqi negotiators were well aware of the ambiguous nature of the U.S.
language. And a U.S. demand for control over Iraqi airspace below 29,000
feet, reported by more than one Iraqi official in recent weeks, fueled
intense suspicions of the administration's intentions.

"Senior Iraqi military sources" were quoted by GulfNews as saying the
agreement gave the United States "the right.to strike, from within Iraqi
territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security". That
interpretation was based on the absence of specific language ruling out U.S.
military operations without the prior consent of the Iraqi government.

It now appears that the Bush administration's ambitions to establish a legal
framework to legitimise the occupation before the end of Bush's term will be
frustrated by strong opposition to the pact from pro-Iranian Shiite
political parties on whose support the al-Maliki regime depends. The
government is under strong pressure from legislators belonging to
al-Maliki's own Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to
scuttle the pact, and wait for the next U.S. administration before
negotiating on the status and role of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His
latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0520250044?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0520250044&adid=10957AD0SMT0WXQ4FY5Q&>  Vietnam",
was published in June 2005. 

C 2008 Inter Press Service

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org 

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/13/9594/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080613/ee53620c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6731 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080613/ee53620c/attachment-0001.gif