[R-G] Bush comfortable on the SOFA

Sun Nov 30 11:56:49 MST 2008

  Nov 26, 2008
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JK26Ak02.html

THE ROVING EYE
Bush comfortable on the SOFA
By Pepe Escobar

WASHINGTON - The Iraqi parliament has its date with destiny this  
Wednesday, after dozens of its 375 members nearly came to blows  
debating the proposed US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). And  
that's not counting an even higher percentage that's not familiar with  
the final text because they simply had no time to digest it. It's  
literally a take it or leave it, do or die affair; parliament goes  
into recess immediately after the vote.

At the finish line, it's still unclear how all 56 Sunni MPs will vote.  
Critics inside and outside Iraq are already spinning the pact as a  
joint Shi'ite-Kurdish conspiracy (the 83-member United Iraqi Alliance  
plus the 53-member Kurdistan Alliance, both pro-pact on

the grounds it's the lesser of all evils because at least it sets a  
timetable for US withdrawal).

Although they have been joined by the Fadhila party and the Sunni  
fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front, the Sadrists still don't have  
enough votes to block the pact; according to London-based al-Hayat  
newspaper, for the moment there are 106 votes against the pact. They  
need 138.

The Kurdish Alliance - in favor of the pact - at least had the decency  
to denounce the startling lack of transparency of the whole process.  
But as far as the Kurds are concerned, this is a minor detail; what  
really matters is Kurdish independence. On a parallel level, Kurds are  
wary of a new ploy by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - the creation of  
"tribal Support Councils". The Kurds view these as Maliki's militias.  
As if Kurdish Peshmerga militias were not conducting their own slo-mo  
ethnic cleansing around the city of Mosul.

When in doubt, become a pilgrim
Then there's the unpredictable "pilgrim to Mecca" angle. MPs from all  
political persuasions - as much moved by religious duty as by  
concocting a convenient escape route, not to mention dodging the odd  
death threat - have been leaving on a pilgrimage to Mecca since Sunday.

So that leaves the possibility of the pact being approved by a slim  
majority and/or overwhelmingly rejected by Sunnis - a certified public  
relations disaster and far from the "national consensus" Grand  
Ayatollah Ali Sistani has stressed would be essential to guarantee his  
support. (Sistani by the way blasted all Mecca-bound MPS as  
unpatriotic.)

For the sinister Hadi al-Amiri, leader of the Iranian-trained Badr  
Corps, the paramilitary arm of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, huge  
demonstrations like last Friday's in Baghdad, organized by the  
Sadrists, simply don't matter. The mass demonstration in Firdous  
Square - where US Marines staged for the cameras the "decapitation" of  
Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003 - was particularly pregnant with  
meaning: a George W Bush effigy was burned at the same spot. Sadrists  
and an overwhelming majority of Sunnis see the pact as essentially an  
early 20th century-style neo-colonial treaty.

Maliki's government is heavily betting on the pact being approved by a  
simple majority. There's fierce dispute also on this point - according  
to the Iraqi constitution, it should be a two-thirds majority (not  
unexpectedly, the Bush administration has already declared it will  
violate Article II, Section 2 of the US constitution, claiming that no  
Senate approval of the pact is necessary. An emasculated US Congress  
has responded with thunderous silence).

Just in case a frantic Maliki keeps threatening that in case of  
defeat, "extending the presence of the international forces on Iraqi  
soil will not be our alternative". Maliki goes for the jugular; if the  
pact is not approved, US forces will be constrained to an "immediate  
withdrawal from Iraq". Not surprisingly, the US State Department is on  
the same wavelength. Plus, of course, the Pentagon - which in a  
surreal twist has been threatening to evacuate 150,000 troops from  
Iraq in a flash in case the pact is knocked out; this when the  
Pentagon had been insisting non-stop that withdrawing within president- 
elect Barack Obama-proposed 16 months is unrealistic.

If the latest version of the pact is to be believed, Blackwater  
mercenaries - not to mention the full, 163,000-strong, Pentagon- 
employed private contractor army in Iraq - will finally be subjected  
to Iraqi law. As an overwhelming majority of Iraqi MPs has not even  
read the final version of the pact, many are not exactly aware of the  
definitive terms. As for jurisdiction for crimes committed by US  
forces in Iraq, many for instance don't know that if a US soldier  
kills an Iraqi civilian while not on duty, prosecutors would have to  
prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Were the soldier to claim self- 
defense, he would be tried under US jurisdiction.

MPs also may not be aware that Washington will continue to control at  
least US$10 billion of assets seized from Iraq under Saddam as well as  
proceeds from the export of Iraqi oil held into a "Special Purpose  
Account" on behalf of the Treasury at the Federal Reserve of New York;  
that's one third of Iraq's total reserves of foreign currency and gold  
(a weapon deftly deployed by the Bush administration to force the  
approval of the pact).

Others may be extremely alarmed that Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, Iraq's pro- 
American defense minister, has more or less implied there's the  
possibility "some Americans might be needed after" the end of the 2011  
deadline for the end of the occupation. Undisguised loopholes in fact  
allow the Pentagon to stay in Iraq - and keep its cherished military
bases - way beyond the 2011 deadline.

Professor Michael Schwartz, author of War without End: The Iraq War in  
Context, argues that "the language from the previous draft permitting  
the Iraqi government to ask the US to stay has been removed. The  
specific language was: 'based on the Iraqi assessment of conditions,  
the Iraqi government is remitted to ask the US government to keep  
specific forces for the purposes of training and support of Iraqi  
security forces'. I cannot find language that would allow any  
extension of US presence, either as trainers or on bases. Clearly, the  
US does not intend to honor this promise, but I am astonished that  
they took this language out."

As for Article 4, it states that the US military machine should be in  
the country "for the purposes of supporting Iraq in its efforts to  
maintain security and stability in Iraq". Obviously, the Bush  
administration's ghost writers never considered the fact that the  
overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the occupiers out, and consider  
the occupation as the prime vector of violence and carnage across the  
country.

The pact also states that both Iraq and the US "retain the right to  
legitimate self defense within Iraq, as defined in applicable  
international law". With the Pentagon interpreting "legitimate" self- 
defense according to the Bush Doctrine, not to mention its stellar  
record stretching the meaning of "international law", one can imagine  
the incendiary consequences. Perhaps all Iraqis need to know about  
this SOFA is that the Pentagon and Bush are very comfortable with it.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is  
Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a  
snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. He may be reached at pepeasia at yahoo.com 
.