Below The Beltway

One of the reasons that negotiations between the United States and Iraq over the basing of American troops have seemingly fallen apart seems to be that the Iraqis themselves are saying no to American demands they find too intrusive:

BAGHDAD, June 10 — 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 Nouri al-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.’ “

Apparently, it’s not just the number of American troops and bases that is an issue with some Iraqi leaders, but the fact that the conditions the Bush Administration is demanding would effectively dilute Iraqi sovereignty:

Iraqi officials said the U.S. government also demanded the continuation of several current policies: authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to Askari, positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

“We rejected the whole thing from the beginning,” said Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior lawmaker from the Supreme Council. “In my point of view, it would just be a new occupation with an Iraqi signature.”

Although unstated, I don’t doubt that there’s another thought in the mind of some Iraqi leaders; namely, they really don’t want to see their nation turned into the battlefield in a confrontation between the United States and Iran.

And, when you look at the details of the agreement that Bush Administration is proposing, you have to ask yourself why the Iraqis would be dumb enough to agree to it:

Under the agreement, formally known as a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America,” Iraq would:

* Grant the U.S. long-term rights to maintain as many military bases as it wants and where it wants them.

* Allow the U.S. to conduct military strikes against Iran and any other country without the permission of the Iraqi government.

* Allow U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi for any reason without consulting local authorities.

* Grant immunity from Iraqi law to U.S. troops and contractors.

* Place the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under U.S. supervision for 10 years.

* Give the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for 10 years.

To me, this seems like the aggreement would, by effect if not in name, turn Iraq into a protectorate of the United States, make the United States the guarantor of Nouri al-Malki’s continuation in office, and basically strip the Iraqis of most of the important elements of national sovereignty.

They’d have to be fools to agree to it.

More importantly, though, this is one issue that seems to have united Iraqis and, isn’t that what we were supposed to have wanted when this whole process started ?