Secret US plan for military future in Iraq
The Guardian have been passed a document marked "secret" and "sensitive" which sets out US plans for an open-ended military presence in Iraq.
The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7, is intended to replace the current UN mandate in Iraq and authourises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.
The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.Once again it appears that the Bush administration are attempting to tie the next US government's hands when it comes to Iraq, by coming to an arrangement that looks, to all intents and purposes, like a treaty.
Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.
Nor is this arrangement likely to be well received by Iraqis.
One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."Nor has this arrangement gone down well with Democrats in Washington:
It will be interesting the hear what General Petraeus has to say about this when he faces the three presidential candidates later on today. I feel sure the subject will be raised.It is also likely to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection by US forces.
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic Congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.
Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."
After all, as the UN mandate doesn't run out until the end of the year, which also brings to end Bush's time in office, why isn't Bush leaving it to the next president to work out his or her arrangements for what they would like to do with Iraq?
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment